4 ms·

Now I understand how the anti-nuclear people in the 20th century felt.

• ethbr0 5y ago
  Nuclear MAD seems to have worked out well, so far.
  • anigbrowl 5y ago
    The problem is that MAD is only reliable in the absence of proliferation, but we go to such lengths to prevent proliferation that it causes other problems. When you get down to it a nuke is not that that hard to build with the resources available to almost any state, so the fragility of deterrence has a distorting effect on international relations.
  • yboris 5y ago
    "so far" included very many near misses - where individuals with explicit authority to launch counter attacks were in position to decide whether to launch NUCLEAR MISSILES AT A COUNTRY -- because some sensors malfunctioned. See Stanislav Petrov - the man who prevented an apocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
    • ethbr0 5y ago
      Yes. I'll take near misses with nuclear Armageddon over total war. The anti-nuclear weapons crowd conveniently forgets that the alternative to MAD isn't reliably peace.
      • yboris 5y ago
        What % chance of nuclear holocaust per year are you wiling to take over the "non reliable peace"? We're talking about potential existential risk - a wiping out of all of humanity (through severe ecological poisoning after a barrage of cross-globe nuclear strikes).
        • ethbr0 5y ago
          0.01%? If my math works out, that's a 10% chance of an occurrence every 1,000 years.
          • yboris 5y ago
            Thank you for providing a number. I have seen estimates of what the risk was - as high as 1% per year for much of the duration of the Cold War.
            • ethbr0 5y ago
              So if we said '55 - '90 (35 years), that'd be a 30% chance of nukes being launched @ 1% yearly risk. That's more on the fence for me. On one hand, it's high (and the impact would have been catastrophic!). On the other hand, it prevented NATO / Warsaw Pact mechanized conflict across Europe (which also would have been catastrophic). Tough call. Especially with the uncertainty that, were you to give up your nuclear weapons, there's no guarantee your counterparties would actually do the same. In the 60s foundational position papers, there's definitely a strong thread of "We will commit to MAD not because it's the best approach, but because it's the best zero trust approach."
              • yboris 5y ago
                > That's more on the fence for me. What? You claimed you are comfortable with 0.01% chance, but now you're "on the fence" with a 1% chance? An analogy: some chance of your child being occasionally bullied in school, or a 0% chance of bullying but a 30% chance they'll get murdered. You say "tough call" -- and I'm baffled.
                • ethbr0 5y ago
                  Comfortable and on the fence are two different points, no?
                  • 5y ago
      • eternalban 5y ago
        Total war will not leave the planet radioactive and uninhabitable. Absolute worst case is something analogous to damage of WWII. (Note: we survived WWII.) Armageddon is lights out for humanity.
        • ethbr0 5y ago
          WWII was fought with the science and economic might of the 1930/40s. We've come a bit farther since then. People seem to seriously lack imagination concerning what a scientific and economic major power might do if its existence were threatened by a hated enemy. (Gene drives, anyone?)
  • titzer 5y ago
    ...until it doesn't. I would highly recommend a visit to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum if you'd like a different perspective on nuclear weapons, rather than a American/western one. And...man, I wish we had that $5.5 trillion back [https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden-costs-of-our-nuclear-arsenal-overview-of-project-findings/ https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden-costs-of-our-nuclear-ar...].
    • ethbr0 5y ago
      See also: Guernica, Warsaw, Dresden, London, Wesel, Tokyo, Hargeisa. Nuclear weapons are bigger explosives. Not different explosives.
      • titzer 5y ago
        Every one of those cities was bombed for weeks, sometimes months. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were single bombs. They cause massive radiation exposure and fallout. Tens of thousands of people were poisoned to death in the aftermath of the Japanese bombings. You haven't seen the suffering of those people and cannot even imagine the hell they were subjected to. And today, we have weapons hundreds of times as powerful. City-ending megaweapons by the thousands. And yes, nuclear winter is a real thing too; we could very seriously impact the global climate and cause mass extinctions in a couple of hours. A nuclear war is a planet-scale atrocity that will ends billions of human lives. I've been to the Hiroshima museum. Like I said, it will change your perspective. I'm not really all that inclined to continue this interchange given your flippance.
        • ethbr0 5y ago
          If you want to dismiss 100,000 Tokyo citizens burning to death in two nights because it doesn't fit the narrative of "nuclear is the worst," then that's your decision. But personally, I consider them equally horrific. And as stated previously, if MAD prevents either from happening, the risk seems worth it.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]