4 ms·

After WW2 Europe learned its lesson: another war would destroy the entire region, even with conventional arms. But nuclear weapons did not prevent this war. Th

After WW2 Europe learned its lesson: another war would destroy the entire region, even with conventional arms. But nuclear weapons did not prevent this war. The manner which the weapons were used certainly precludes them from a peace prize IMO

simonh 5y ago
I don't understand how you can think that logic would work in Europe, but didn't work in the many parts of the world that went on to have full on wars WW2 style. Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, Many Arab/Israeli conflicts, etc, etc. What's special about Europe that would have made it immune? The answer is profuse nuclear weapons that made any direct conflict in Europe unthinkable for either side. Ukraine demonstrates clearly that when conventional war is thinkable, it only takes one side to feel they have the upper hand to make it happen. Nukes are the only reason Russian tanks aren't already dipping their treads in the sea along the coast of the Baltic States, or at least trying to.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Nuclear weapons aren't protecting baltic states, they are protecting Russia's imperial ambitions. It's army performanc is so abysmall european powers alone could steamroll all of it's offensibe force without US getting involved If the recent conflict has shown us anything, is that Russian military is overhyped, complacent and corrupt, and performs terribly in confrontation with much smaller, poorly eqipped, and also somehwat corrupt military.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - progre 5y ago
    Russians have always had trouble with their offensives. But I doubt anyone thinks a pan european army can just roll into russia. The country is big. Supply lines breaks down. The winter is terrible. The russians are tough as hell and fierce when defending.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      > But I doubt anyone thinks a pan european army can just roll into russia Actually, that's quite easy as history demonstrates though you can indeed also easily become overstretched. One reason the Russians have stockpiled nuclear weapons is that they do not want this to happen again! They do like to act tough but they know that without nukes they are at a huge disadvantage against the West.
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        I mean their country is fading away fast. Instead of trying to fix it, they're trying to bring in new population, talent, and resources by trying to attack and absorb Ukraine.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Oh yeah U am not advocating invasion of Russia, the logistics and moral situation will totally flip.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Why do you think the conflicts in Asia, the middle-east etc. happened? Because the nuclear superpowers are fighting their wars there. One could very well argue that nuclear powers have created such an imbalance that the nuclear powers could act towards other powers like they did, because they knew the others would never directly intervene because of the danger of a nuclear war.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Did the fact they were nuclear powers have any effect on their sponsorship of foreign conflicts? I don't see how it's relevant, they'd have done it anyway. Also the nuclear powers often did intervene directly, as China and the USA did in Korea, and the USA did in Vietnam and Iraq, and Russia and later the USA did in Afghanistan.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      The Korean war would not have happened if China had been a nuclear power with significant perceived military power.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  In Europe, the threat of the USSR did bring the West together but quite apart from that the big powers, especially France and Germany decided very consciously that they could not go on having more and more destructive wars every generation or so (remember that for France and Germany WWII is actually no. 3 since the first was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870). So this is a specific context in Europe and specific "paradigm shift" born from that specific context. Indeed, Europe 'learned' that they could not continue to slaughter each others and that led to the EU today (so not just fear of nuclear weapons but decision to bury the hatchet and cooperate on friendly terms instead). I don't think that there is a similar history anywhere else in the world.
  - simonh 5y ago
    I suspect the existence of nuclear weapons and e.g. France having them actually had a significant impact on them forming that realisation.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      Not really. France got its first nukes in 1960 and what had happened in both world wars was enough to change everyone's perception nukes or no nukes: The same would had happened if nukes had not even existed. Nukes are a guarantee against invasion and in the context for France and the Cold War especially aimed against the USSR. But they don't mean you need to be friendly and cooperate. France and Germany (and others in Europe) really made a decision quite irrespective of the existence of nukes to stop European self-destruction and to work peacefully together from then on.
_vufv 5y ago
> After WW2 Europe learned its lesson... From what I gather, there were no lessons learned in Europe. Huge majority of current European leaders seem to be itching to enhance the current conflict even with nuclear weapons being a thing. We didn't evolve since WW2. I have no doubts that we're still as partisan, as greedy, as vengeful, as self-righteous as our predecessors of the 20th century.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  The problem I see is that war is a very natural element of civilization that regularly relives population stress. It's been a part of human society likely before we even left the trees. It's simply not natural to go for many generations without a significant culling of your male population. I think it's not so much that humans haven't evolved since WWII, but that society hasn't evolved any kind of new pressure release valve.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    This is often said, but the data shows it is false. Even WWII's millions had hardly any effect on the population curve.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  >From what I gather, there were no lessons learned in Europe. The 14 years - since Georgia 2008 - of trying to appease a tyrant is the best proof that no one learned anything from Chamberlain debacle.

simonh 5y ago

I don't understand how you can think that logic would work in Europe, but didn't work in the many parts of the world that went on to have full on wars WW2 style. Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, Many Arab/Israeli conflicts, etc, etc. What's special about Europe that would have made it immune? The answer is profuse nuclear weapons that made any direct conflict in Europe unthinkable for either side. Ukraine demonstrates clearly that when conventional war is thinkable, it only takes one side to feel they have the upper hand to make it happen. Nukes are the only reason Russian tanks aren't already dipping their treads in the sea along the coast of the Baltic States, or at least trying to.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Nuclear weapons aren't protecting baltic states, they are protecting Russia's imperial ambitions. It's army performanc is so abysmall european powers alone could steamroll all of it's offensibe force without US getting involved If the recent conflict has shown us anything, is that Russian military is overhyped, complacent and corrupt, and performs terribly in confrontation with much smaller, poorly eqipped, and also somehwat corrupt military.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- progre 5y ago
  Russians have always had trouble with their offensives. But I doubt anyone thinks a pan european army can just roll into russia. The country is big. Supply lines breaks down. The winter is terrible. The russians are tough as hell and fierce when defending.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    > But I doubt anyone thinks a pan european army can just roll into russia Actually, that's quite easy as history demonstrates though you can indeed also easily become overstretched. One reason the Russians have stockpiled nuclear weapons is that they do not want this to happen again! They do like to act tough but they know that without nukes they are at a huge disadvantage against the West.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      I mean their country is fading away fast. Instead of trying to fix it, they're trying to bring in new population, talent, and resources by trying to attack and absorb Ukraine.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Oh yeah U am not advocating invasion of Russia, the logistics and moral situation will totally flip.
cycomanic 5y ago
Why do you think the conflicts in Asia, the middle-east etc. happened? Because the nuclear superpowers are fighting their wars there. One could very well argue that nuclear powers have created such an imbalance that the nuclear powers could act towards other powers like they did, because they knew the others would never directly intervene because of the danger of a nuclear war.
- simonh 5y ago
  Did the fact they were nuclear powers have any effect on their sponsorship of foreign conflicts? I don't see how it's relevant, they'd have done it anyway. Also the nuclear powers often did intervene directly, as China and the USA did in Korea, and the USA did in Vietnam and Iraq, and Russia and later the USA did in Afghanistan.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    The Korean war would not have happened if China had been a nuclear power with significant perceived military power.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
In Europe, the threat of the USSR did bring the West together but quite apart from that the big powers, especially France and Germany decided very consciously that they could not go on having more and more destructive wars every generation or so (remember that for France and Germany WWII is actually no. 3 since the first was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870). So this is a specific context in Europe and specific "paradigm shift" born from that specific context. Indeed, Europe 'learned' that they could not continue to slaughter each others and that led to the EU today (so not just fear of nuclear weapons but decision to bury the hatchet and cooperate on friendly terms instead). I don't think that there is a similar history anywhere else in the world.
- simonh 5y ago
  I suspect the existence of nuclear weapons and e.g. France having them actually had a significant impact on them forming that realisation.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Not really. France got its first nukes in 1960 and what had happened in both world wars was enough to change everyone's perception nukes or no nukes: The same would had happened if nukes had not even existed. Nukes are a guarantee against invasion and in the context for France and the Cold War especially aimed against the USSR. But they don't mean you need to be friendly and cooperate. France and Germany (and others in Europe) really made a decision quite irrespective of the existence of nukes to stop European self-destruction and to work peacefully together from then on.

_vufv 5y ago

> After WW2 Europe learned its lesson... From what I gather, there were no lessons learned in Europe. Huge majority of current European leaders seem to be itching to enhance the current conflict even with nuclear weapons being a thing. We didn't evolve since WW2. I have no doubts that we're still as partisan, as greedy, as vengeful, as self-righteous as our predecessors of the 20th century.

anonporridge 5y ago
The problem I see is that war is a very natural element of civilization that regularly relives population stress. It's been a part of human society likely before we even left the trees. It's simply not natural to go for many generations without a significant culling of your male population. I think it's not so much that humans haven't evolved since WWII, but that society hasn't evolved any kind of new pressure release valve.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  This is often said, but the data shows it is false. Even WWII's millions had hardly any effect on the population curve.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
>From what I gather, there were no lessons learned in Europe. The 14 years - since Georgia 2008 - of trying to appease a tyrant is the best proof that no one learned anything from Chamberlain debacle.