4 ms·

It's interesting to see videos of the borders of the world over time. Contrary to intuition, the rate of shifts (often due to warfare) were accelerating over th

by rjf72 7y ago

It's interesting to see videos of the borders of the world over time. Contrary to intuition, the rate of shifts (often due to warfare) were accelerating over the centuries. Then, suddenly, since 1945 everything comes to a standstill among developed nations excepting the relatively peaceful internal collapse of some communist nations. 1945 of course being when we first detonated a nuclear weapon over another country, twice. The thing that's stopped countries from war has not been trade, amicability, social evolution or anything besides nukes. The reason no developed nations ever go to war is because there is no win condition. If one side or the other is facing significant losses, they will retaliate with nuclear weapons. If that doesn't end the war immediately - it'll shortly result in a flurry with both countries effectively ending each other instead. Mutually assured destruction, as a term, always felt like it somehow missed some of this nuance! The thing that ought actually concern people is the development of anti-missile technology which is rapidly advancing. Highly effective anti-missile technology would signal the return to war. This is why countries such as Russia have been developing things like 'Tsunami Weapons' [1] - a nuclear weapon designed to be detonated under the ocean that could generate radioactive tsunamis thousands of feet high. If that sounds difficult to believe consider that we have nukes in excess of 100 megatons now a days. Hiroshima was 16 kilotons - in other words about 6,250 times more powerful. The point of this being is that I think this will help create a multipolar world and industry - imagine e.g. a new Chinese OS competing against Android/Apple. But I do not think that the current status quo of the world has been playing a meaningful role in deterring war anymore so than a change to a more multipolar world will advance it. I think it's simple. When we can't overcome nukes, we won't have "outright" war - creating an allowance for proxy wars like Vietnam where no nuclear participant's sovereignty is at stake. When we manage to overcome nukes, we will have outright war. [1] - https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-launches-new-submarine-believed-capable-of-carrying-nuclear-armed-drones/29899234.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-launches-new-submarine-believ...

ben_w 7y ago
> If that sounds difficult to believe consider that we have nukes in excess of 100 megatons No we don’t. The biggest ever was Tsar Bomba, which was 50 Megatons with the option to make it 100. The aircraft that dropped it barely got out of the way in time, and it was only on a plane at all because it was too big and heavy for a missile.
- GauntletWizard 7y ago
  Your argument is what? The largest nuke ever tested was 50MT. It is entirely possible (abd probable) that development continued. Was there a physical limit about the tsar Bomba? I think the dial-a-yield testing at only half strength is a pretty solid indicator no. Do you think they stopped because dropping the Tsar Bomba at full yield was a suicide mission? Yes, yes it is possible that it would have been. That would not have stopped development. Suicide missions happen. We have autonomous planes now. There's only mild speculation in the >100MT number. They almost certainly exist, and your counterexample is right on the line.
  - iguy 7y ago
    I think you have a point about nuclear bombs keeping the peace. Exactly what one-offs the russians once made, I don't know how well this is known. But we have a pretty accurate picture of the stockpile of bombs existing now. And the the age of maximally-huge bombs was a long time ago, to compensate for terrible missile accuracy.
    - rjf72 7y ago
      I'm unsure of how accurate our classified knowledge is, but our publicly stated knowledge is not especially accurate. Many countries continue to openly develop nuclear weapons such as India and Pakistan. Other countries' ongoing development is an open-secret, such as Israel. And everything that we publicly know even about those developments tends to be based on a pretty wide range of estimates. This is further compounded since countries tend to stop testing once a certain level of competence is reached. On top of this there is undoubtedly genuinely secretive developments. I think it's improbable that all nations who signed the nonproliferation treaty have not chosen to develop nukes. This comes in two forms. The first is larger nuclear powers such as USA/Russia/China not expanding or modernizing their arsenals. The second comes in smaller nations not creating their own. For instance South Africa, during its apartheid years, managed to secretly develop nuclear weapons which it subsequently dismantled before handing power over to the new non-apartheid government. Another possible, if not likely scenario, is entrenched nuclear powers aiding in the development of nuclear capability of smaller allied nations as a means of ensuring those nations sovereignty and as a solidification of their relationships. As an example of this, the US has for decades been alleging that China has been helping to enhance and expand Pakistan's nuclear program. In times past it was alleged that Israel had played a role in the development of South Africa's nuclear program. Tsunami weapons are also a game changer. They don't suffer from the same issues of delivery that land/air based weapons do and may be more able to effectively sidestep missile defense systems, and of course also dependent on absolutely enormous payloads.
m0llusk 7y ago
Sort of. The social context has changed completely, though. In WWI war was still considered a glorious adventure for which the elites were particularly suited. New technologies like the machine gun, tanks, and poison gas would make sure any conflict would be quickly resolved. Given the glorification of conflict and woefully inadequate knowledge of how much risks had increased going to war seemed to many Europeans at the time like the most obvious and glorious choice. Then came the horror of it all and Europe's upper classes had their youngest and brightest massacred and values changed. Warriors were now ordinary suckers and the elites kept themselves above the churn. War became a business of calculated leverage. It on that massive change in context that we changed together to deciding that war is not always such a good idea. Then on top of that conflicts like those Vietnam and Afghanistan merely emphasize the baseness and poor value return of armed conflict. What was a sure thing before WWI was a daring bet in the nuclear age an nukes were only one factor involved in that calculation.
- rjf72 7y ago
  War didn't end following nukes or WW2 - only overt war between nations with nukes ended. The Cold War is the best example of this. The one and only reason the Cold War was not World War 3 was because of nukes. If places like Pakistan and North Korea were not nuclear powers - they would have long since been Libya'd.

by rjf72 7y ago

ben_w 7y ago

> If that sounds difficult to believe consider that we have nukes in excess of 100 megatons No we don’t. The biggest ever was Tsar Bomba, which was 50 Megatons with the option to make it 100. The aircraft that dropped it barely got out of the way in time, and it was only on a plane at all because it was too big and heavy for a missile.

GauntletWizard 7y ago
Your argument is what? The largest nuke ever tested was 50MT. It is entirely possible (abd probable) that development continued. Was there a physical limit about the tsar Bomba? I think the dial-a-yield testing at only half strength is a pretty solid indicator no. Do you think they stopped because dropping the Tsar Bomba at full yield was a suicide mission? Yes, yes it is possible that it would have been. That would not have stopped development. Suicide missions happen. We have autonomous planes now. There's only mild speculation in the >100MT number. They almost certainly exist, and your counterexample is right on the line.
- iguy 7y ago
  I think you have a point about nuclear bombs keeping the peace. Exactly what one-offs the russians once made, I don't know how well this is known. But we have a pretty accurate picture of the stockpile of bombs existing now. And the the age of maximally-huge bombs was a long time ago, to compensate for terrible missile accuracy.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    I'm unsure of how accurate our classified knowledge is, but our publicly stated knowledge is not especially accurate. Many countries continue to openly develop nuclear weapons such as India and Pakistan. Other countries' ongoing development is an open-secret, such as Israel. And everything that we publicly know even about those developments tends to be based on a pretty wide range of estimates. This is further compounded since countries tend to stop testing once a certain level of competence is reached. On top of this there is undoubtedly genuinely secretive developments. I think it's improbable that all nations who signed the nonproliferation treaty have not chosen to develop nukes. This comes in two forms. The first is larger nuclear powers such as USA/Russia/China not expanding or modernizing their arsenals. The second comes in smaller nations not creating their own. For instance South Africa, during its apartheid years, managed to secretly develop nuclear weapons which it subsequently dismantled before handing power over to the new non-apartheid government. Another possible, if not likely scenario, is entrenched nuclear powers aiding in the development of nuclear capability of smaller allied nations as a means of ensuring those nations sovereignty and as a solidification of their relationships. As an example of this, the US has for decades been alleging that China has been helping to enhance and expand Pakistan's nuclear program. In times past it was alleged that Israel had played a role in the development of South Africa's nuclear program. Tsunami weapons are also a game changer. They don't suffer from the same issues of delivery that land/air based weapons do and may be more able to effectively sidestep missile defense systems, and of course also dependent on absolutely enormous payloads.

m0llusk 7y ago

Sort of. The social context has changed completely, though. In WWI war was still considered a glorious adventure for which the elites were particularly suited. New technologies like the machine gun, tanks, and poison gas would make sure any conflict would be quickly resolved. Given the glorification of conflict and woefully inadequate knowledge of how much risks had increased going to war seemed to many Europeans at the time like the most obvious and glorious choice. Then came the horror of it all and Europe's upper classes had their youngest and brightest massacred and values changed. Warriors were now ordinary suckers and the elites kept themselves above the churn. War became a business of calculated leverage. It on that massive change in context that we changed together to deciding that war is not always such a good idea. Then on top of that conflicts like those Vietnam and Afghanistan merely emphasize the baseness and poor value return of armed conflict. What was a sure thing before WWI was a daring bet in the nuclear age an nukes were only one factor involved in that calculation.

rjf72 7y ago
War didn't end following nukes or WW2 - only overt war between nations with nukes ended. The Cold War is the best example of this. The one and only reason the Cold War was not World War 3 was because of nukes. If places like Pakistan and North Korea were not nuclear powers - they would have long since been Libya'd.