2 ms·

I completely agree that nuclear weapons are the major reason there hasn't been a world war since 1945. The world has been remarkably peaceful since then, and th

I completely agree that nuclear weapons are the major reason there hasn't been a world war since 1945. The world has been remarkably peaceful since then, and that's very much a good thing. But what is the cost? We've traded frequent massive wars for an ongoing chance of complete catastrophe. What is that chance? If it's one in a million then maybe it's worth it. If it's one in a hundred per year, then we'll have purchased a few decades of peace at the cost of civilization. Based on the various near misses over the decades, I suspect the actual probability is closer to the latter. It does seem likely that there's no going back, but we should try really hard to make sure that the chance of catastrophe is as low as possible.

mnm1 8y ago
Yup. Hard to say what that chance is. You're probably right with your estimate. I simply don't worry about it much in the same way that I stopped worrying about crashing when riding with my friend on the autobahn going 240km/hr or more. One mistake in either situation and I won't even know there was a mistake. The end. Likewise I couldn't control either my friend or the world's desire and manufacturing of nukes. So I simply stopped thinking about it and accepted it. Life is dangerous. But I am glad that some people in power are working on the situation just like there are people who do put speed limits on the portion of the autobahn that needs them and police officers who, I assume, try to enforce them. There's simply a million other more important issues in my life which I can affect and change.