3 ms·

Countries wage war with whatever tools they have. We waged war before nuclear weapons, we wage war after. Nuclear weapons affect the collateral damage of war, b

Countries wage war with whatever tools they have. We waged war before nuclear weapons, we wage war after. Nuclear weapons affect the collateral damage of war, but does not by itself disturb the peace. Removing them does not make us more peaceful. (I am not pro nuclear weapons, but that's because I don't want Trump to have the power to accidentally the whole world because he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for. I do not, however, believe their removal would positively affect world peace at the current time.)

bumholio 8y ago
> I don't want Trump to have the power to accidentally the whole world because he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for. I do not, however, believe their removal would positively affect world peace Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. And since democracy and most other political systems frequently promote irrational figures in positions of authority, nuclear weapons (or rather, large nuclear stockpiles) pose a fundamental new problem for humanity, with no precedent in the history of war: catastrophic negative externalities for political insanity. The consequences of wars are no longer limited to the belligerent parties, but exported thought the world to peaceful and neutral nations. It's therefore rational for anybody to seek world denuclearization. As a side comment, a good example or irrational behavior is the US treatment of Iran - a country that agreed not to proliferate only to be currently jerked around - versus the overtures made to North Korea after it obtained nuclear weapons. The political value of nuclear weapons becomes clear - although the reasons why US is pursuing this strategy of pushing states to proliferation is much less clear, and have to do with irrational internal US politics.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  > Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. Yes, but the reason that this does affect the existing threat to peace is that an "irrational Osama-like leader" will wage war and slaughter regardless. Nuclear weapons massively increased the collateral damage, but it was not what disrupted the peace in the first place. Unless you consider "living in a cozy first world country while ignoring all war and famine" to be "peace". If that's the case, then yes, the collateral of nuclear war would suddenly be forcing you to be part of the world. But again, I do not like these toys either. I just find the statement that they by themselves affect peace to be wrong.
squarefoot 8y ago
"he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for." I am pretty sure neither Trump nor any previous presidents were never given that power. That briefcase is just a necessary prop used to build his image of most powerful human being around, but either it doesn't work or, if it does, before the red button pressed signal turns into an attack order it goes through some deep technical error checking and human approval list. That is the same reason there are two pilots on airliners (especially after Germanwings flight 9525): humans can go nuts, even best trained ones although rarely, but if they do with a nuclear button at hand the outcome can be catastrophic. That's more likely the risk in much smaller countries when they develop the technology necessary to build atomic weaponry, which - though I'm against them on principle - is probably the reason why a very small number of nukes can be still useful as a deterrent. But on a world size scale, today IMO atomic war should be the least of our concerns.
- jpindar 8y ago
  As I understand it, the "football" contains not a button, but a radio system over which the President can give a verbal order to someone at the Pentagon, as well as a lot of paper - maps, descriptions of various attack plans etc.
- gambiting 8y ago
  Well, there is a rather famous case of a rocketeer who basically went to court for asking "we are instructed to disregard any launch instruction if we believe that the person issuing the instruction isn't of sound mind - but how can you believe that a person who has just ordered an extermination of an entire country and millions of people, and potentially a full destruction of Earth, to be of sound mind"?
- arghwhat 8y ago
  You misunderstood: While I do not trust the U.S. Commander in Chief, nor anyone else that would have a say in the matter even the slightest, I do not think nuclear war will break out tomorrow. However, the existence of nuclear weapons does greatly increase the risk of nuclear war compared to if they didn't. The people that have them also just so happens to be the ones whose judgement and rationality I trust the least.

bumholio 8y ago

> I don't want Trump to have the power to accidentally the whole world because he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for. I do not, however, believe their removal would positively affect world peace Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. And since democracy and most other political systems frequently promote irrational figures in positions of authority, nuclear weapons (or rather, large nuclear stockpiles) pose a fundamental new problem for humanity, with no precedent in the history of war: catastrophic negative externalities for political insanity. The consequences of wars are no longer limited to the belligerent parties, but exported thought the world to peaceful and neutral nations. It's therefore rational for anybody to seek world denuclearization. As a side comment, a good example or irrational behavior is the US treatment of Iran - a country that agreed not to proliferate only to be currently jerked around - versus the overtures made to North Korea after it obtained nuclear weapons. The political value of nuclear weapons becomes clear - although the reasons why US is pursuing this strategy of pushing states to proliferation is much less clear, and have to do with irrational internal US politics.

arghwhat 8y ago
> Therein lies the problem with nuclear weapons: they will never be used to win a world war by a calculating Hitler-like figure, but they can be used to kill most people on earth by an irrational Osama-like leader. Yes, but the reason that this does affect the existing threat to peace is that an "irrational Osama-like leader" will wage war and slaughter regardless. Nuclear weapons massively increased the collateral damage, but it was not what disrupted the peace in the first place. Unless you consider "living in a cozy first world country while ignoring all war and famine" to be "peace". If that's the case, then yes, the collateral of nuclear war would suddenly be forcing you to be part of the world. But again, I do not like these toys either. I just find the statement that they by themselves affect peace to be wrong.

squarefoot 8y ago

"he couldn't keep his short, fat fingers from a big red button he couldn't read the label for." I am pretty sure neither Trump nor any previous presidents were never given that power. That briefcase is just a necessary prop used to build his image of most powerful human being around, but either it doesn't work or, if it does, before the red button pressed signal turns into an attack order it goes through some deep technical error checking and human approval list. That is the same reason there are two pilots on airliners (especially after Germanwings flight 9525): humans can go nuts, even best trained ones although rarely, but if they do with a nuclear button at hand the outcome can be catastrophic. That's more likely the risk in much smaller countries when they develop the technology necessary to build atomic weaponry, which - though I'm against them on principle - is probably the reason why a very small number of nukes can be still useful as a deterrent. But on a world size scale, today IMO atomic war should be the least of our concerns.

jpindar 8y ago
As I understand it, the "football" contains not a button, but a radio system over which the President can give a verbal order to someone at the Pentagon, as well as a lot of paper - maps, descriptions of various attack plans etc.
gambiting 8y ago
Well, there is a rather famous case of a rocketeer who basically went to court for asking "we are instructed to disregard any launch instruction if we believe that the person issuing the instruction isn't of sound mind - but how can you believe that a person who has just ordered an extermination of an entire country and millions of people, and potentially a full destruction of Earth, to be of sound mind"?
arghwhat 8y ago
You misunderstood: While I do not trust the U.S. Commander in Chief, nor anyone else that would have a say in the matter even the slightest, I do not think nuclear war will break out tomorrow. However, the existence of nuclear weapons does greatly increase the risk of nuclear war compared to if they didn't. The people that have them also just so happens to be the ones whose judgement and rationality I trust the least.