4 ms·

>>>Armies of nation states are responsible for the greatest of all human tragedies. Yes. So why advocate for a return to the pre-nuclear status quo: major powe

>>>Armies of nation states are responsible for the greatest of all human tragedies. Yes. So why advocate for a return to the pre-nuclear status quo: major powers use their large armies to influence each other, with millions dead. The threat of MAD between the world's powers is why global casualties from warfare have been in steady decline since the end of WW2. >>>The safest option of avoiding a terrible attack or a major accidents involving these weapons is a total elimination What is the contingency plan for when every country except ONE agrees, and then the last country, as the only nuclear-armed state, then has free reign to impose its will on the world with now-overwhelming force?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CaptArmchair 5y ago
Really? First, history of the past 80 years casts doubts on your claims: The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. I could go on really. MAD doesn't stop wars from happening. It only stops nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons. And it stops major powers from targeting each other directly. That's the extent of MAD. Even that's a contentious claim to make: Pakistan vs. India over Kashmir comes to mind. Even more so, MAD isn't the only incentive for not going to War. After World War II, the World got profoundly reshaped with new economic and geo-strategic treaties and alliances. Bretton Woods, United Nations, NATO, European Union,... come to mind. In fact, after 1945, European integration was considered as an antidote against extreme nationalism in Europe and was heavily advocated for by Churchill. Second, "global casualties from warfare being in decline" doesn't imply that no casualties of war, or atrocities, have been committed since 1945. Neither does it imply that things can take a turn for the worst without resorting to nuclear weaponry. For instance, the Syrian Civil War sits at about .5 million dead currently, and it has essentially been a proxy war between regional as well as global powers. And let's not forget the Ukraine situation that's currently playing out. Third, the "lack of a contingency plan" is essentially part of the Prisoner's dilemma which the arms race during the Cold War was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#International_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati... But that doesn't render the argument moot: objectively, casting nuclear weapons out of this world is the best outcome for everyone involved. But rationally, that's not possible as you end up in a situation where owning nuclear weapons while everyone doesn't is the better option from the perspective of a single nation. Albert Einstein was well aware of this dilemma and said he wouldn't have participated in the Manhattan Project if he had known that the German bomb was a figment of imagination. The main reason why MAD has become a thing is because a chunk of humanity just wants to see the rest of the world burn. No matter how rational and bent on peace between nations you are yourself, you can't possibly predict whether the other side has equally rational leaders or, as it turns, absolute mad men behind the buttons who are very much willing to use them when push comes to shove. And that's absolutely not a great outlook for humanity in the long term. We're extremely lucky to not have had a war between major powers over the past 80 years; it's been a close shave a few times as well (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis).
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  > The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. I could go on really. That's peanuts, really. WW2 killed 70-85 million people, WW3 is projected from killing some 7 billion folks. No war between highly industrialised countries is a big win.
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    > That's peanuts Factually? No discussion there. A dozen million is less then 70-85 million. That's how numbers work. Morally? We are talking about the lives of human individuals. Concluding that a dozen million dead is "peanuts" and therefor a justifiable argument to defend the purported useful nature of nuclear weapons is reprehensible. It's the exact same consideration made by military leadership when it comes to going to war or deploying nuclear weapons. It's a manner of thinking which should send shivers through anyone's spine. Why? Because it's a way of thinking that reduces the value of anyone's life to either "friend" or "foe" / "strategically valuable" or "without value". Whether it's the sterile press of a button, or hand-to-hand combat, the end result is the always same: suffering. > No war is a big win. Fixed that for you.
- post_from_work 5y ago
  >>>Third, the "lack of a contingency plan" is essentially part of the Prisoner's dilemma which the arms race during the Cold War was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati... But that doesn't render the argument moot: If no one can produce a tangible, actionable, PLAN that gets us from "nukes in the hands of sociopaths with itchy trigger fingers" to "no nukes", then yes, the argument is rendered moot. A bunch of plebs signing petitions amounts to nothing but hot air if there is no realistic way to convince a head of state to throw hundreds (or thousands, in US/Russia's case) of the world's most powerful weapons into the dumpster. >>> But rationally, that's not possible as you end up in a situation where owning nuclear weapons while everyone doesn't is the better option from the perspective of a single nation. So you identify right here the crux of the matter: a rational nationstate will retain its nuclear arsenal. The rest of your post is a bad case of shifting the goalposts. >>>First, history of the past 80 years casts doubts on your claims: >>>The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. Let's take the maximal estimates for all of those: 15 million dead. That's a selection of some of the deadliest conflicts post-WW2.......which doesn't even match the casualties of the Eastern Front alone: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) ), which lasted for a mere ~4 years during WW2. Whether viewed in absolute terms of lives lost or per-capita losses over time (as a % of global human population), the data supports my assertion, not yours. >>>In fact, after 1945, European integration was considered as an antidote against extreme nationalism in Europe and was heavily advocated for by Churchill. The Brits have always played one (or more) continental powers against whoever was strongest. When Napoleon ran France, the UK allied with Russia and the Prussians. When Germany was ascendant, they allied with the French and the Russians. After WW2, with the Soviet Union dominating the Eurasian landmass, the only way to counter the Warsaw Pact was to coagulate the devastated West European democracies into a super-state. This was business as usual for the Brits. >>>Second, "global casualties from warfare being in decline" doesn't imply that no casualties of war, or atrocities, have been committed since 1945. Nor has anyone in this thread ever made such an assertion (that casualties = 0). Conflict casualties will never fall to 0, for the same reasons homicides will never fall to 0: 1. Human beings exist on a spectrum of morality. 2. Human beings exist on a spectrum of willingness to commit violence. When opposing value sets overlap with violent inclinations, people die. We can significantly tamper the violence via material abundance, but First World-levels of wealth are climatologically unsustainable for a population of ~8 billion... >>>The main reason why MAD has become a thing is because a chunk of humanity just wants to see the rest of the world burn. I'd argue just the opposite. If anyone in a leadership position wanted to see the world burn....it would happen, because they only need to pass orders to one of the three legs of the nuclear triad (silos/strategic bombers/SSBNs) to trigger a response. There are almost never "absolute mad men" running entire countries (Idi Amin was perhaps the closest IMO). It's just vapid propaganda. It is why it is so important to understand the adversary's problem set, and to place their actions within the correct context of what they are trying to achieve. Lunatics are exceedingly rare, and we still plan for those edge cases with Counter-WMD Quick-Reaction Forces from SOCOM, to mitigate risks of nuke employment: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37923/the-army-is-training-specialized-companies-of-green-berets-to-crack-hard-targets https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37923/the-army-is-trai... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14535/this-obscure-dc-area-office-helps-us-special-operators-hunt-down-and-secure-loose-wmds https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14535/this-obscure-dc-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CaptArmchair 5y ago

Really? First, history of the past 80 years casts doubts on your claims: The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. I could go on really. MAD doesn't stop wars from happening. It only stops nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons. And it stops major powers from targeting each other directly. That's the extent of MAD. Even that's a contentious claim to make: Pakistan vs. India over Kashmir comes to mind. Even more so, MAD isn't the only incentive for not going to War. After World War II, the World got profoundly reshaped with new economic and geo-strategic treaties and alliances. Bretton Woods, United Nations, NATO, European Union,... come to mind. In fact, after 1945, European integration was considered as an antidote against extreme nationalism in Europe and was heavily advocated for by Churchill. Second, "global casualties from warfare being in decline" doesn't imply that no casualties of war, or atrocities, have been committed since 1945. Neither does it imply that things can take a turn for the worst without resorting to nuclear weaponry. For instance, the Syrian Civil War sits at about .5 million dead currently, and it has essentially been a proxy war between regional as well as global powers. And let's not forget the Ukraine situation that's currently playing out. Third, the "lack of a contingency plan" is essentially part of the Prisoner's dilemma which the arms race during the Cold War was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#International_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati... But that doesn't render the argument moot: objectively, casting nuclear weapons out of this world is the best outcome for everyone involved. But rationally, that's not possible as you end up in a situation where owning nuclear weapons while everyone doesn't is the better option from the perspective of a single nation. Albert Einstein was well aware of this dilemma and said he wouldn't have participated in the Manhattan Project if he had known that the German bomb was a figment of imagination. The main reason why MAD has become a thing is because a chunk of humanity just wants to see the rest of the world burn. No matter how rational and bent on peace between nations you are yourself, you can't possibly predict whether the other side has equally rational leaders or, as it turns, absolute mad men behind the buttons who are very much willing to use them when push comes to shove. And that's absolutely not a great outlook for humanity in the long term. We're extremely lucky to not have had a war between major powers over the past 80 years; it's been a close shave a few times as well (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis).

DocTomoe 5y ago
> The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. I could go on really. That's peanuts, really. WW2 killed 70-85 million people, WW3 is projected from killing some 7 billion folks. No war between highly industrialised countries is a big win.
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  > That's peanuts Factually? No discussion there. A dozen million is less then 70-85 million. That's how numbers work. Morally? We are talking about the lives of human individuals. Concluding that a dozen million dead is "peanuts" and therefor a justifiable argument to defend the purported useful nature of nuclear weapons is reprehensible. It's the exact same consideration made by military leadership when it comes to going to war or deploying nuclear weapons. It's a manner of thinking which should send shivers through anyone's spine. Why? Because it's a way of thinking that reduces the value of anyone's life to either "friend" or "foe" / "strategically valuable" or "without value". Whether it's the sterile press of a button, or hand-to-hand combat, the end result is the always same: suffering. > No war is a big win. Fixed that for you.
post_from_work 5y ago
>>>Third, the "lack of a contingency plan" is essentially part of the Prisoner's dilemma which the arms race during the Cold War was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Internati... But that doesn't render the argument moot: If no one can produce a tangible, actionable, PLAN that gets us from "nukes in the hands of sociopaths with itchy trigger fingers" to "no nukes", then yes, the argument is rendered moot. A bunch of plebs signing petitions amounts to nothing but hot air if there is no realistic way to convince a head of state to throw hundreds (or thousands, in US/Russia's case) of the world's most powerful weapons into the dumpster. >>> But rationally, that's not possible as you end up in a situation where owning nuclear weapons while everyone doesn't is the better option from the perspective of a single nation. So you identify right here the crux of the matter: a rational nationstate will retain its nuclear arsenal. The rest of your post is a bad case of shifting the goalposts. >>>First, history of the past 80 years casts doubts on your claims: >>>The USSR-Afghanistan left an estimated 2 million dead. Nigerian Civil War between 1 and 3 million. France-Algeria War about 1 million. Korean War between 1.5 and 4.5 million dead. Vietnam between 1.3 and 4.5 million. Let's take the maximal estimates for all of those: 15 million dead. That's a selection of some of the deadliest conflicts post-WW2.......which doesn't even match the casualties of the Eastern Front alone: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) ), which lasted for a mere ~4 years during WW2. Whether viewed in absolute terms of lives lost or per-capita losses over time (as a % of global human population), the data supports my assertion, not yours. >>>In fact, after 1945, European integration was considered as an antidote against extreme nationalism in Europe and was heavily advocated for by Churchill. The Brits have always played one (or more) continental powers against whoever was strongest. When Napoleon ran France, the UK allied with Russia and the Prussians. When Germany was ascendant, they allied with the French and the Russians. After WW2, with the Soviet Union dominating the Eurasian landmass, the only way to counter the Warsaw Pact was to coagulate the devastated West European democracies into a super-state. This was business as usual for the Brits. >>>Second, "global casualties from warfare being in decline" doesn't imply that no casualties of war, or atrocities, have been committed since 1945. Nor has anyone in this thread ever made such an assertion (that casualties = 0). Conflict casualties will never fall to 0, for the same reasons homicides will never fall to 0: 1. Human beings exist on a spectrum of morality. 2. Human beings exist on a spectrum of willingness to commit violence. When opposing value sets overlap with violent inclinations, people die. We can significantly tamper the violence via material abundance, but First World-levels of wealth are climatologically unsustainable for a population of ~8 billion... >>>The main reason why MAD has become a thing is because a chunk of humanity just wants to see the rest of the world burn. I'd argue just the opposite. If anyone in a leadership position wanted to see the world burn....it would happen, because they only need to pass orders to one of the three legs of the nuclear triad (silos/strategic bombers/SSBNs) to trigger a response. There are almost never "absolute mad men" running entire countries (Idi Amin was perhaps the closest IMO). It's just vapid propaganda. It is why it is so important to understand the adversary's problem set, and to place their actions within the correct context of what they are trying to achieve. Lunatics are exceedingly rare, and we still plan for those edge cases with Counter-WMD Quick-Reaction Forces from SOCOM, to mitigate risks of nuke employment: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37923/the-army-is-training-specialized-companies-of-green-berets-to-crack-hard-targets https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37923/the-army-is-trai... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14535/this-obscure-dc-area-office-helps-us-special-operators-hunt-down-and-secure-loose-wmds https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14535/this-obscure-dc-...