4 ms·

We really need to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. So far we've had leaders that are responsible enough to understand that using them would mean worldwide

by jdlyga 5y ago

We really need to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. So far we've had leaders that are responsible enough to understand that using them would mean worldwide catastrophe. But 100, 200, 1000 years from now? It's a ticking time bomb.

hertzrat 5y ago
How exactly? By politely asking North Korea and Russia to disassemble all of theirs? How do you know if they aren’t lying when they say they complied? Should we disassemble ours as a token of goodwill and just wait for everyone to do the same? It’s more complicated than that, I don’t think we can get rid of them
- qzw 5y ago
  Honestly? The most likely scenario is that a very large asteroid is spotted heading for earth some decades or centuries in the future, and we have to use every warhead we have to blow it up or turn it away. Extremely unlikely, but still more likely than humanity voluntarily giving up all nuclear weapons. And some people will build more. Always. The knowledge is out there now, and people will build them for a power trip or even just shits and giggles.
- somedude895 5y ago
  We've been quite successful at reducing the numbers at least: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament#/media/File%3AUS_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament#/media/F... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
woah 5y ago
The reality is that no country with nukes has ever been invaded. This fact will always make them very attractive as a way of ensuring safety. A great example is Ukraine- they gave up their nukes voluntarily after being promised by the US and Russia that they would not be invaded. Now Russia is invading Ukraine, and the US is allowing it.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  The US is allowing it? Did the deal involve protecting Ukraine from aggressors?
- cmurf 5y ago
  Nukes are more effective at preventing wars of aggression than the U.N. To get rid of nukes, that needs to change. The problem is nukes are a consolidation of power, whereas making the U.N. more effective involves a delegation of power. The five nuclear powers, simply aren't ready. Wars of aggression, i.e. war of conquest intended to change borders and subjugate a population, was considered by Nuremberg trials to be the supreme international crime. That's what happened in 2014 when Putin rolled tanks into Ukraine. A cynical, but not incorrect, person might suggest: Given that the things we've invented to prevent wars of aggression have all failed, we have to consider the defect. Is it the institutions? Or is it mankind? Are we doomed to actually go through with a third world war no matter what?
somenameforme 5y ago
Here [1] is a list wars from 1500 to 1800. A year without a war was quite rare, and these were often conflicts between large developed powers, some lasting for centuries. This was true generally before that time period, and certainly true after it as well. And the wars kept getting deadlier as technology increased. During WW2, about 3% of the human species was killed using conventional weapons. But then in 1945 everything changed. Since we demonstrated the unwinnable situation that war against a nuclear power is, there have been exactly 0 unrestrained conflicts between nations with nuclear weapons. So this formula is not so simple. Nukes are a catastrophe waiting to happen, but they are also the reason we've lived in this bubble of relative safety that is the only reality most of us have ever known. The promises and formalities of nations (as an optimist might like to declare the UN the reason such wars ended) are nothing new. The UN is a direct descendent of the League of Nations that formed following WW1 with the goal of ending such war, and there were similar organizations prior to the League. Nothing worked, until nukes. Without nukes it seems likely that we would have almost certainly have long since seen WW3 and perhaps even more of its kin. One can only imagine what this would have translated to in terms of impact and our lives. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars%3A_1500%E2%80%931799 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars%3A_1500%E2%80%931...

by jdlyga 5y ago

hertzrat 5y ago

How exactly? By politely asking North Korea and Russia to disassemble all of theirs? How do you know if they aren’t lying when they say they complied? Should we disassemble ours as a token of goodwill and just wait for everyone to do the same? It’s more complicated than that, I don’t think we can get rid of them

qzw 5y ago
Honestly? The most likely scenario is that a very large asteroid is spotted heading for earth some decades or centuries in the future, and we have to use every warhead we have to blow it up or turn it away. Extremely unlikely, but still more likely than humanity voluntarily giving up all nuclear weapons. And some people will build more. Always. The knowledge is out there now, and people will build them for a power trip or even just shits and giggles.
somedude895 5y ago
We've been quite successful at reducing the numbers at least: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament#/media/File%3AUS_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament#/media/F... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I

woah 5y ago

The reality is that no country with nukes has ever been invaded. This fact will always make them very attractive as a way of ensuring safety. A great example is Ukraine- they gave up their nukes voluntarily after being promised by the US and Russia that they would not be invaded. Now Russia is invading Ukraine, and the US is allowing it.

avgcorrection 5y ago
The US is allowing it? Did the deal involve protecting Ukraine from aggressors?
cmurf 5y ago
Nukes are more effective at preventing wars of aggression than the U.N. To get rid of nukes, that needs to change. The problem is nukes are a consolidation of power, whereas making the U.N. more effective involves a delegation of power. The five nuclear powers, simply aren't ready. Wars of aggression, i.e. war of conquest intended to change borders and subjugate a population, was considered by Nuremberg trials to be the supreme international crime. That's what happened in 2014 when Putin rolled tanks into Ukraine. A cynical, but not incorrect, person might suggest: Given that the things we've invented to prevent wars of aggression have all failed, we have to consider the defect. Is it the institutions? Or is it mankind? Are we doomed to actually go through with a third world war no matter what?

somenameforme 5y ago

Here [1] is a list wars from 1500 to 1800. A year without a war was quite rare, and these were often conflicts between large developed powers, some lasting for centuries. This was true generally before that time period, and certainly true after it as well. And the wars kept getting deadlier as technology increased. During WW2, about 3% of the human species was killed using conventional weapons. But then in 1945 everything changed. Since we demonstrated the unwinnable situation that war against a nuclear power is, there have been exactly 0 unrestrained conflicts between nations with nuclear weapons. So this formula is not so simple. Nukes are a catastrophe waiting to happen, but they are also the reason we've lived in this bubble of relative safety that is the only reality most of us have ever known. The promises and formalities of nations (as an optimist might like to declare the UN the reason such wars ended) are nothing new. The UN is a direct descendent of the League of Nations that formed following WW1 with the goal of ending such war, and there were similar organizations prior to the League. Nothing worked, until nukes. Without nukes it seems likely that we would have almost certainly have long since seen WW3 and perhaps even more of its kin. One can only imagine what this would have translated to in terms of impact and our lives. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars%3A_1500%E2%80%931799 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars%3A_1500%E2%80%931...