3 ms·

The logic is simple, post WW2, the US was the only one with the bomb and could have secured a monopoly on power, but it didn't and here we are. In Einstein's bi

The logic is simple, post WW2, the US was the only one with the bomb and could have secured a monopoly on power, but it didn't and here we are. In Einstein's biography, I found out he was a proponent of all nations ceding their military power to a single entity like the UN, but obviously this didn't and wouldn't happen since it would end the idea of sovereignty. Clearly though we will never have world security unless something like this happens. Even if we get through this crisis, it will only be a matter of time before another arises (maybe China, India, Pakistan etc.). As recently as last year I have read people proclaiming that war was "obsolete" because it was too expensive because we are too economically intertwined, but apparently this is not a big enough of a deterrent for some leaders, so again we can never count on this idea again, it was naive.

johnny22 5y ago
> As recently as last year I have read people proclaiming that war was "obsolete" because it was too expensive because we are too economically intertwined, but apparently this is not a big enough of a deterrent for some leaders, so again we can never count on this idea again, it was naive. You might be right about this, but I'm not yet writing it off. So far, it seems the most affected countries are not as integrated as the others, like Sri Lanka, and Pakistan (of course them more so than Sri Lanka). When it hits an economically integrated country with power, then we'll see what happens.
pasabagi 5y ago
> The logic is simple, post WW2, the US was the only one with the bomb and could have secured a monopoly on power, but it didn't and here we are. How? The nuclear umbrella makes sense as a defensive strategy: you can't advance when entire divisions can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense as an offensive strategy on the operational level. It might work on the strategic level, but that would be such a horrible war crime you would essentially throw away any chance of maintaining popular legitimacy.

johnny22 5y ago

> As recently as last year I have read people proclaiming that war was "obsolete" because it was too expensive because we are too economically intertwined, but apparently this is not a big enough of a deterrent for some leaders, so again we can never count on this idea again, it was naive. You might be right about this, but I'm not yet writing it off. So far, it seems the most affected countries are not as integrated as the others, like Sri Lanka, and Pakistan (of course them more so than Sri Lanka). When it hits an economically integrated country with power, then we'll see what happens.

pasabagi 5y ago

> The logic is simple, post WW2, the US was the only one with the bomb and could have secured a monopoly on power, but it didn't and here we are. How? The nuclear umbrella makes sense as a defensive strategy: you can't advance when entire divisions can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense as an offensive strategy on the operational level. It might work on the strategic level, but that would be such a horrible war crime you would essentially throw away any chance of maintaining popular legitimacy.