3 ms·
The theory that nuclear weapons is the reason for the relative peace of our era is an oft cited one but without much evidence. There are multiple alternatives w
by runarberg 3y ago
The theory that nuclear weapons is the reason for the relative peace of our era is an oft cited one but without much evidence. There are multiple alternatives which are equally—if not more—likely to explain it better. Things like human rights, democracy, decolonization, universal education, etc.
If this was a bet, I wager the proliferation of democracies and decolonization is a much better explanation for why there are fewer wars, than the binary of whether nuclear weapons exist or not.
- sylware 3y agoAs for many things, there are several parameters, worse, not independent parameters. Remove the "Nukes" parameter, and all the other parameters get nullified, or could not even get realization the way it is happening in our nuke-ified world. We are talking a massive butterfly/domino effect. WWIII would have happen without nukes, or we better start to believe the earth is flat.
- runarberg 3y agoWe are arguing in alternative history, it is always going to be silly. Alternative history is fiction, so basically we are writing our own fiction and presenting it as our argument. In a way we both may as well believe the earth is flat. Given the destructive nature of nukes, and the mathematical fact that unhindered proliferation will always lead to nuclear warfare, I think a safer world where we thank the things which has provably made our lives better in addition to preventing wars. Aside from that, I’m curious. I understand that it can be hard for you to accept my theory that human rights and democracy have prevented wars (or rather you may believe that nukes brought us both), but how do you suppose decolonization is not a significant factor. Like in the decades after WW-2 when the world had nukes (including a couple of colonial powers), Europe saw some horrific wars in its colonies. Angola, Algeria, Vietnam, those were all colonial wars with so many unnecessary deaths and destruction. More often than not (mostly because of France) those involved a nuclear state as the aggressor. How does this actual history fit into your narrative?
- sylware 3y agoThen, we are in strong disagreement. My beliefs are earth is round, and the cold war would not have been that cold without nukes...
- runarberg 3y agoSo the peace of the 19th century saw a period of relative peace (i.e. without great power conflict) that lasted from the congress of Vienna until world war one. There were no nukes, but rather a period which saw the spread of democracy across Europe (but also European colonialism). This was a 99 year long period. The Cold War lasted for less then 50. What makes you so certain that full scale warfare is so unavoidable if not for nukes? Secondly, the cold war is over. What I alluded to was that the world would get rid of nukes in the period after the election of Gorbachev, but before the election of Bush. At this point the cold war is pretty much over (if not completely over; and it is certainly over now). And in this post-cold war era, Russia—a nuclear power—invades Ukraine. Why not get rid of nukes now? And finally, I believe the Earth can be whichever shape an author wants it to be in fiction. Alternative history is fiction, so in your alternative timeline of no nukes causing WW3, the earth may as well be a donut.
- sylware 3y agoYep, strong disagrement. It is a dead end. And we are witnessing probably the end of the internet public message board due to chatgpt AIs.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]