3 ms·

There are historical evidence to the contrary. The 19th century saw no large scale world wars, and yet they didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. There a

There are historical evidence to the contrary. The 19th century saw no large scale world wars, and yet they didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. There are many theories as for the cause of the relative peace of the 19th century, but prominent theories include a mass disarmament of the world’s superpowers. Relative to the 18th century (which did see a world war; the 7 years war) countries were spending only a fraction of what they used to on their military. You can argue whether the peace caused the decreased spending or vice-versa but there is some evidence of correlation here and the spending part we can control. Currently there are 9 states which control nuclear weapons. By far the majority of all active weapons belong to just two states. If USA and Russia would agree to at least lower their nuclear arsenal to that of the third state—China, you make the world at least that much safer. But I want total elimination of these weapons of terror, and so does the governments of 86 countries (and growing). And the UN comity which is comprised of numbers of experts these issues has reached the same conclusion that total elimination is both necessary and feasible. I guess you can disagree with their findings, and who am I to argue with that.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 5y ago
The 19th century saw no large scale world wars, and yet they didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. WWI was different. Nothing like it had ever happened before because nothing like it was possible. Conversely, almost as soon as it became possible, it happened. Technology made WWI the "War to end all wars," at least until the next "War to end all wars" came along. We can't afford a third, and that's true with or without nukes. Whatever it takes to avoid WWIII is (very likely) worth it. And as krasin suggests, the notion that the 19th century was characterized by international peace and goodwill is naïve at best. I do tend to agree that the nuclear powers have a ridiculous quantity of weapons, and that this constitutes a hazard in itself. If the goal is to deter aggression rather than to initiate it, I don't see why something on the order of a dozen modern MIRV-capable strategic weapons wouldn't be plenty. Getting rid of all of them, though, on a worldwide basis? Not going to happen. (One valid objection to my point is that various proxy wars between the superpowers have killed almost as many people over time as a good old fashioned world war used to, but that's a different debate.) Anyway, none of this has much to do with volcanos or tsunamis.
cpgxiii 5y ago
> The 19th century saw no large scale world wars You forgot the Napoleonic wars involving most of continental Europe (~6 million dead). Instead of world wars, the 19th century was full of significant regional ones, e.g.: - Taiping Rebellion (20-50 million dead) - Crimean War - Russo-Turkish War(s) - US Civil War - Franco-Prussian War - First & Second Boer Wars - Multiple bloody revolts/rebellions in British India It was not a "peaceful" century by any stretch of the imagination, and the powers involved in these conflicts were by no means "disarmed".
- runarberg 5y ago
  I never said that, in fact I was purposefully careful in my wording by adding the necessary qualifiers. The 19th century was relatively peaceful compared to all the centuries before and the century that came after. It is the only century since the 16th to not have a conflict that spans continents. We have two periods of this relative peace. The 19th century and the current post world war II era. Both these periods have relatively low military spending in common. Could we do better? Yes! Should we do better? Also yes. Does nuclear weapons take us there. Probably not. Will the elimination of nuclear weapons take us there? Probably not. Should we get rid of nuclear weapons anyway? Yes!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CamperBob2 5y ago

The 19th century saw no large scale world wars, and yet they didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. WWI was different. Nothing like it had ever happened before because nothing like it was possible. Conversely, almost as soon as it became possible, it happened. Technology made WWI the "War to end all wars," at least until the next "War to end all wars" came along. We can't afford a third, and that's true with or without nukes. Whatever it takes to avoid WWIII is (very likely) worth it. And as krasin suggests, the notion that the 19th century was characterized by international peace and goodwill is naïve at best. I do tend to agree that the nuclear powers have a ridiculous quantity of weapons, and that this constitutes a hazard in itself. If the goal is to deter aggression rather than to initiate it, I don't see why something on the order of a dozen modern MIRV-capable strategic weapons wouldn't be plenty. Getting rid of all of them, though, on a worldwide basis? Not going to happen. (One valid objection to my point is that various proxy wars between the superpowers have killed almost as many people over time as a good old fashioned world war used to, but that's a different debate.) Anyway, none of this has much to do with volcanos or tsunamis.

cpgxiii 5y ago

> The 19th century saw no large scale world wars You forgot the Napoleonic wars involving most of continental Europe (~6 million dead). Instead of world wars, the 19th century was full of significant regional ones, e.g.: - Taiping Rebellion (20-50 million dead) - Crimean War - Russo-Turkish War(s) - US Civil War - Franco-Prussian War - First & Second Boer Wars - Multiple bloody revolts/rebellions in British India It was not a "peaceful" century by any stretch of the imagination, and the powers involved in these conflicts were by no means "disarmed".

runarberg 5y ago
I never said that, in fact I was purposefully careful in my wording by adding the necessary qualifiers. The 19th century was relatively peaceful compared to all the centuries before and the century that came after. It is the only century since the 16th to not have a conflict that spans continents. We have two periods of this relative peace. The 19th century and the current post world war II era. Both these periods have relatively low military spending in common. Could we do better? Yes! Should we do better? Also yes. Does nuclear weapons take us there. Probably not. Will the elimination of nuclear weapons take us there? Probably not. Should we get rid of nuclear weapons anyway? Yes!