4 ms·

There's a better solution that's free, and in fact saves money: complete nuclear disarmament, which the United States is the primary obstacle to.

by door99 6y ago

JoshuaDavid 6y ago
Unilateral nuclear disarmament seems like possibly not the best idea from the standpoint of minimizing the risk of nuclear strikes.
- door99 6y ago
  I didn't say unilateral, although I support that as well. The United States is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons, and is also one that I reside in. If I lived in Russia or China, I would advocate for unilateral disarmament in those countries as well. Nuclear weapons are an absolute horror and should be completely eliminated from this planet. The United States (unlike China) does not even have a "No first use" policy -- it reserves the ability to use nuclear weapons aggressively or pre-emptively.
meddlepal 6y ago
So we can return to a world of conventional warfare amongst powerful counties? Worked out great for WWI and WWII. Ill take nuclear deterrence any day over that hell.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  “Hawking's rationale was that humankind would eventually fall victim to an extinction-level catastrophe - perhaps sooner rather than later. What worried him were so-called low-probability, high impact events - a large asteroid striking our planet is the classic example. But Hawking perceived a host of other potential threats: artificial intelligence, climate change, GM viruses and nuclear war to name a few. In 2016, he told the BBC: "Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or 10,000 years.” http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43408961 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43408961 The problem with deterrence is that it works until it doesn’t.
  - GreenWatermelon 6y ago
    Yeah, and without deterrence it will be a 100% chance of a variable hell of endless wars and tens of millions of casualties. I'll bet on no one wanting their country obliterated by agitating another nuclear power.
    - door99 6y ago
      > Yeah, and without deterrence it will be a 100% chance of a variable hell of endless wars and tens of millions of casualties. There are political choices other than "constantly threaten extinction" and "constantly fight large-scale conventional wars".
- door99 6y ago
  There are many, many factors other than nuclear weapons preventing large-scale conventional war between powerful countries, and if those factors changed, I can assure you conventional war would return, even in a world with nuclear weapons.
WalterBright 6y ago
Nuclear armaments were looked at initially as a way to save money.

There's a better solution that's free, and in fact saves money: complete nuclear disarmament, which the United States is the primary obstacle to.

by door99 6y ago

There's a better solution that's free, and in fact saves money: complete nuclear disarmament, which the United States is the primary obstacle to.

JoshuaDavid 6y ago

Unilateral nuclear disarmament seems like possibly not the best idea from the standpoint of minimizing the risk of nuclear strikes.

door99 6y ago
I didn't say unilateral, although I support that as well. The United States is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons, and is also one that I reside in. If I lived in Russia or China, I would advocate for unilateral disarmament in those countries as well. Nuclear weapons are an absolute horror and should be completely eliminated from this planet. The United States (unlike China) does not even have a "No first use" policy -- it reserves the ability to use nuclear weapons aggressively or pre-emptively.

meddlepal 6y ago

So we can return to a world of conventional warfare amongst powerful counties? Worked out great for WWI and WWII. Ill take nuclear deterrence any day over that hell.

randmeerkat 6y ago
“Hawking's rationale was that humankind would eventually fall victim to an extinction-level catastrophe - perhaps sooner rather than later. What worried him were so-called low-probability, high impact events - a large asteroid striking our planet is the classic example. But Hawking perceived a host of other potential threats: artificial intelligence, climate change, GM viruses and nuclear war to name a few. In 2016, he told the BBC: "Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or 10,000 years.” http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43408961 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43408961 The problem with deterrence is that it works until it doesn’t.
- GreenWatermelon 6y ago
  Yeah, and without deterrence it will be a 100% chance of a variable hell of endless wars and tens of millions of casualties. I'll bet on no one wanting their country obliterated by agitating another nuclear power.
  - door99 6y ago
    > Yeah, and without deterrence it will be a 100% chance of a variable hell of endless wars and tens of millions of casualties. There are political choices other than "constantly threaten extinction" and "constantly fight large-scale conventional wars".
door99 6y ago
There are many, many factors other than nuclear weapons preventing large-scale conventional war between powerful countries, and if those factors changed, I can assure you conventional war would return, even in a world with nuclear weapons.

WalterBright 6y ago

Nuclear armaments were looked at initially as a way to save money.