7 ms·
To be fair, that obscurity is partially what keeps the balance of power intact.
by Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
To be fair, that obscurity is partially what keeps the balance of power intact.
- jldl805 5y agoMore states with nuclear weapons = safer planet with less war. Prove me wrong.
- paganel 5y agoIf Assad had had a nuclear weapon most probably it would have fallen in the hands os Islamists (ISIS, more likely) during the recent civil war in Syria, not a very bright perspective.
- Clubber 5y agoThe US has had quite a few proxy wars with nuclear armed countries. I think it prevents an all our war like WWI and WWII, but not war in general. Less war? Perhaps. We seem to be doing our damndest to have at least one going on at all times though.
- ethbr0 5y agoPresumably the nuclear arms would be the reason they were proxy wars.
- Shared404 5y agoEventually some idiot in some small country with nukes gets pissed and fires, and we have this generations Franz Ferdinand - except none of us live long enough to pick up a rifle. How about no.
- vkou 5y ago> Eventually some idiot in some small country with nukes gets pissed and fires, Some idiot in a big country can do the same.
- Shared404 5y agoBut if everyone has nukes it's a lot more likely - and wouldn't a smaller country be less likely to have processes in place to stop it from happening?
- chrononaut 5y agoThank you Stanislav Petrov. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- whatgoodisaroad 5y agoYou can be proven wrong distressingly easily. Hopefully nobody does.
- speed_spread 5y agoExcept when the crazies arrive. Then you get all the wars at once.
- skinkestek 5y agoWell, as that number goes up at a certain point it cannot invrease anymore without including: - Iran - Lebanon (ubstable) - North Korea (they already have the tech even if they don't have proper ICBMs yet) q.e.d?
- unfolding 5y agoIn principle I am against nuclear weapons. In practice I believe a deterrent state (at least two adversarial countries maintaining an active nuclear stockpile) is probably better than just one country maintaining an active stockpile. I always wonder what would have happened if it had taken the Soviets longer to develop atomic weapons (or never did). Would a hawkish US president be more likely to use nuclear weapons to assert foreign policy than they are now?
- ethbr0 5y agoIf the Incheon landings [0] had been a failure during the Korean War in 1950, it's hard to see how nuclear weapons wouldn't have been employed, especially as China was neither involved nor had their own. And if they'd been normalized in a second war, even at tactical scale, it makes you wonder how the rest of nuclear history would have unfolded. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon
- vkou 5y agoIt's easy to prove you wrong, but doing so requires accepting that MAD is a fool's errand.
- willis936 5y agoRoll a six-sided die. If it lands on a one everyone dies. Now give everyone in the room a six sided die. If anyone rolls a one everyone dies.