5 ms·

I should also say that nuclear weapons in dictatorships (more so than oligarchies like Soviet Union) is dangerous. Hopefully there will be those that can preve

I should also say that nuclear weapons in dictatorships (more so than oligarchies like Soviet Union) is dangerous. Hopefully there will be those that can prevent its usage but dictatorships are fragile things. A dictator may consider their removal an existential threat.

XorNot 5y ago
This hasn't born out in practice. Dictators want to live - that's why they're dictators. They ubiquitously loot their countries widely enough to be able to retire to safer waters but don't. Nuclear weapons in the modern world are useful deterrants, and that's it: a dictator with nuclear weapons has no external enemies they could consider targeting without guaranteeing total annihilation in response. The one exception here is that using a nuclear weapon on your own country and people might be a useful exercise of power...but even then, it's abundantly clear that the most likely outcome is still total annihilation - the world won't tolerate a nation lighting off nukes against targets in it's own borders much either.
- DaedPsyker 5y ago
  That's very true, I'm usually careful not to fall into the assumption of the 'mad man' since it's usually just an illusion to appear dangerous.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  > the world won't tolerate a nation lighting off nukes against targets in it's own borders much either. Why do you think so? Famines seem to work just fine within borders.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    Famines don't blow fallout into the air, or have indistinguishable targets when a ballistic launch is detected.
zingplex 5y ago
> I should also say that nuclear weapons in dictatorships (more so than oligarchies like Soviet Union) is dangerous. I'd argue that nuclear weapons are no less safe in representative democracies. The only country to use nuclear weapons against another nation was a representative democracy. The only country to use nuclear weapons against another nation multiple times was a representative democracy. The only country to use nuclear weapons against civilian targets was a representative democracy.

XorNot 5y ago

This hasn't born out in practice. Dictators want to live - that's why they're dictators. They ubiquitously loot their countries widely enough to be able to retire to safer waters but don't. Nuclear weapons in the modern world are useful deterrants, and that's it: a dictator with nuclear weapons has no external enemies they could consider targeting without guaranteeing total annihilation in response. The one exception here is that using a nuclear weapon on your own country and people might be a useful exercise of power...but even then, it's abundantly clear that the most likely outcome is still total annihilation - the world won't tolerate a nation lighting off nukes against targets in it's own borders much either.

DaedPsyker 5y ago
That's very true, I'm usually careful not to fall into the assumption of the 'mad man' since it's usually just an illusion to appear dangerous.
selfhoster11 5y ago
> the world won't tolerate a nation lighting off nukes against targets in it's own borders much either. Why do you think so? Famines seem to work just fine within borders.
- XorNot 5y ago
  Famines don't blow fallout into the air, or have indistinguishable targets when a ballistic launch is detected.

zingplex 5y ago

> I should also say that nuclear weapons in dictatorships (more so than oligarchies like Soviet Union) is dangerous. I'd argue that nuclear weapons are no less safe in representative democracies. The only country to use nuclear weapons against another nation was a representative democracy. The only country to use nuclear weapons against another nation multiple times was a representative democracy. The only country to use nuclear weapons against civilian targets was a representative democracy.