3 ms·

> If every country had nukes wold would be much more peaceful place. It does not work. Countries would still fight conventional wars, because not everything is

> If every country had nukes wold would be much more peaceful place. It does not work. Countries would still fight conventional wars, because not everything is worth escalating. Even in your example. They are being invaded and are at risk of losing their country (well, they were at some point anyway). Do you reckon they’d throw a nuke at the US and so be absolutely certain to lose everything they have rather than fight a conventional war and having a chance at taking their country back? On the other hand, proliferation has real risks in terms of radionuclides ending up in things like terrorist groups. Overall, it makes as much sense as the “if teachers had guns schools would be safer” talking points.

Ekaros 4y ago
Question is would USA risk direct conflict with a country if they could actually suffer some actual losses of combatants on their own soil? They might, but I think it would substantially lower the risk. Same applies to most current conflicts. And about non traditional fights, maybe there would be less of those as big countries would be more careful about their actions. Also I believe that if every school kid had a gun there would be lot less bullying. As they would be able to instantly produce credible self-defence when the society entirely fails to protect them. And they would be fully in moral right to answer with reasonable force to such actions.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > Also I believe that if every school kid had a gun there would be lot less bullying Yes, and a lot more shootings. IMO the same applies to nukes. If every country had nukes then they'd be less conventional warfare, but a lot more nuclear bombings. It only takes one person to decide it's a good idea.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > would USA risk direct conflict with a country if they could actually suffer some actual losses of combatants on their own soil? That’s a very interesting question! So much of the US foreign policy is predicated on the fact that there will never, ever be a war on American soil. It would definitely change the risk dessinent and the political acceptability of aggressive foreign policy.

Ekaros 4y ago

Question is would USA risk direct conflict with a country if they could actually suffer some actual losses of combatants on their own soil? They might, but I think it would substantially lower the risk. Same applies to most current conflicts. And about non traditional fights, maybe there would be less of those as big countries would be more careful about their actions. Also I believe that if every school kid had a gun there would be lot less bullying. As they would be able to instantly produce credible self-defence when the society entirely fails to protect them. And they would be fully in moral right to answer with reasonable force to such actions.

nicoburns 4y ago
> Also I believe that if every school kid had a gun there would be lot less bullying Yes, and a lot more shootings. IMO the same applies to nukes. If every country had nukes then they'd be less conventional warfare, but a lot more nuclear bombings. It only takes one person to decide it's a good idea.
kergonath 4y ago
> would USA risk direct conflict with a country if they could actually suffer some actual losses of combatants on their own soil? That’s a very interesting question! So much of the US foreign policy is predicated on the fact that there will never, ever be a war on American soil. It would definitely change the risk dessinent and the political acceptability of aggressive foreign policy.