3 ms·

Context is crucial when reading this quote now rather than the 1950s. JVN said this before a nuclear war would have been 'world ending'. Consider that several

Context is crucial when reading this quote now rather than the 1950s. JVN said this before a nuclear war would have been 'world ending'. Consider that several nations had avoided war as hard as possible prior to WW2. Standing by as entire countries we absorbed by a hostile power. In the end it only resulted in much greater destruction. Many people like JVN saw the same theme playing out with the iron curtain, and the destructiveness of the weapons only increasing over time. The thought process was: "We need to have a destructive war now to avoid having an earth shattering war later." There had just been two world spanning wars in their lifetime. They considered a third inevitable. If it was going to happen at some point, better that it occurs before world ending arsenals were constructed.

arethuza 7y ago
I am aware of the context - doesn't make it any less terrifying. Edit: I'm going to ask you the same question I asked another commenter - do you think it would have been better for the US to have attacked the Soviets as Von Neumann and others wanted?
- johngalt 7y ago
  Of course not, but only because we already know how the story ends. If they had been correct, we wouldn't be here to say that we should have listened. Their predictions on nuclear arsenals were correct. A nuclear war in 1965 would have been vastly worse than one in 1950. What they got wrong is that great powers would successfully avoid war over the long term. Which at the time was a bet with very poor odds.
  - CWuestefeld 7y ago
    I seem to remember that von Neumann was also responsible for what later came to be known as "Mutually Assured Destruction", the idea through game theory that ensuring that both nations would be prevented from acting preemptively because the results would carry too great a cost.
- skavi 7y ago
  While you were aware of the context, many others reading your quote (like me) were not. I definitely appreciated having more of the full story.

arethuza 7y ago

I am aware of the context - doesn't make it any less terrifying. Edit: I'm going to ask you the same question I asked another commenter - do you think it would have been better for the US to have attacked the Soviets as Von Neumann and others wanted?

johngalt 7y ago
Of course not, but only because we already know how the story ends. If they had been correct, we wouldn't be here to say that we should have listened. Their predictions on nuclear arsenals were correct. A nuclear war in 1965 would have been vastly worse than one in 1950. What they got wrong is that great powers would successfully avoid war over the long term. Which at the time was a bet with very poor odds.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  I seem to remember that von Neumann was also responsible for what later came to be known as "Mutually Assured Destruction", the idea through game theory that ensuring that both nations would be prevented from acting preemptively because the results would carry too great a cost.
skavi 7y ago
While you were aware of the context, many others reading your quote (like me) were not. I definitely appreciated having more of the full story.