4 ms·

Weapon designed for use in a war or otherwise some sort of conflict requiring the use of lethal force, which would be the exact opposite of peace, is named peac

Weapon designed for use in a war or otherwise some sort of conflict requiring the use of lethal force, which would be the exact opposite of peace, is named peacekeeper These comments are being obtuse on purpose. Look at the name and look at what the name is on. The name peacekeeper is on a weapon that will only be used in times of no peace. Not a hard thing to see the irony in.

runjake 3y ago
I'm not being obtuse, I think we just have different views on how the world works. In my view, violence, or hopefully, just the threat of violence, maintains order. There are certain classes of people where diplomacy and pacifism just isn't going to work. Again, the post-1945 US nuclear program is about deterrence ("peace through superior firepower"). So, in that perspective, the Peacekeeper's threat of violence... kept the peace. The US and the Soviet Union/Russia both do not want to use nuclear weapons. Citation: Self. Was in the nuclear program during the latter days of the Cold War and shortly thereafter.
- pasabagi 3y ago
  If you look at the rich history of nuclear near-misses through the cold war, I don't think there's any reason to feel secure in the idea that nuclear deterrence ensures peace. What it does do, is ensures that the consequences of war will be catastrophic, likely civilization-ending. Which, you know, is the dice we're going to be rolling from now on. Maybe we'll survive the next century, then maybe the next, but in the long term? Humans just don't have that good judgement.
computerfriend 3y ago
Is it any different to "peacekeepers" being soldiers?
krisoft 3y ago
> will only be used in times of no peace It is indeed a deadly weapon system. But it is used every second during peacetime too. Every second it is fielded it maintains a situation where the preferable choice of action is to not attack the one fielding it. In other words it is keeping the peace.
helpfulContrib 3y ago
[dead]
jandrewrogers 3y ago
You are being obtuse to the fact that this missile's primary and explicit purpose was to be a compelling and credible strategic deterrent. The entire point of building it is was so that it would never need to be used. This is not a contradiction. Strategic deterrence is an effective way of keeping the peace as has been demonstrated throughout history. The name "peacekeeper" is a formal acknowledgement of its purpose in the military arsenal. It has no other role.
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum If you want peace, prepare for war. Or as Roosevelt put it, speak softly and carry a big stick. Building an incredibly powerful weapon and calling it "Peacekeeper" is meant to strongly imply that we don't plan on using it, but rather, it's symbolic as a preemptive threat against any would-be attackers. Peace is kept by showing that any attack would be retaliated with overwhelming force.
PKop 3y ago
If you can't conceive of some adversary being aggressive if they perceive you as weak, then you don't understand geopolitics or history. So yes, credible deterrence by means of a powerful destructive weapon can prevent war and maintain some level of peace particularly in preventing large scale war between large industrial powers. What else does maintain peace besides power? The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. If you want peace prepare for war. Do you think these are just famous slogans or they really do reflect some hard earned wisdom?
lupusreal 3y ago
The weapon is used by not being used. It's purpose is to be a threat. It has been in continuous use ever since it entered service.

runjake 3y ago

I'm not being obtuse, I think we just have different views on how the world works. In my view, violence, or hopefully, just the threat of violence, maintains order. There are certain classes of people where diplomacy and pacifism just isn't going to work. Again, the post-1945 US nuclear program is about deterrence ("peace through superior firepower"). So, in that perspective, the Peacekeeper's threat of violence... kept the peace. The US and the Soviet Union/Russia both do not want to use nuclear weapons. Citation: Self. Was in the nuclear program during the latter days of the Cold War and shortly thereafter.

pasabagi 3y ago
If you look at the rich history of nuclear near-misses through the cold war, I don't think there's any reason to feel secure in the idea that nuclear deterrence ensures peace. What it does do, is ensures that the consequences of war will be catastrophic, likely civilization-ending. Which, you know, is the dice we're going to be rolling from now on. Maybe we'll survive the next century, then maybe the next, but in the long term? Humans just don't have that good judgement.

computerfriend 3y ago

Is it any different to "peacekeepers" being soldiers?

krisoft 3y ago

> will only be used in times of no peace It is indeed a deadly weapon system. But it is used every second during peacetime too. Every second it is fielded it maintains a situation where the preferable choice of action is to not attack the one fielding it. In other words it is keeping the peace.

helpfulContrib 3y ago

[dead]

jandrewrogers 3y ago

You are being obtuse to the fact that this missile's primary and explicit purpose was to be a compelling and credible strategic deterrent. The entire point of building it is was so that it would never need to be used. This is not a contradiction. Strategic deterrence is an effective way of keeping the peace as has been demonstrated throughout history. The name "peacekeeper" is a formal acknowledgement of its purpose in the military arsenal. It has no other role.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum If you want peace, prepare for war. Or as Roosevelt put it, speak softly and carry a big stick. Building an incredibly powerful weapon and calling it "Peacekeeper" is meant to strongly imply that we don't plan on using it, but rather, it's symbolic as a preemptive threat against any would-be attackers. Peace is kept by showing that any attack would be retaliated with overwhelming force.

PKop 3y ago

If you can't conceive of some adversary being aggressive if they perceive you as weak, then you don't understand geopolitics or history. So yes, credible deterrence by means of a powerful destructive weapon can prevent war and maintain some level of peace particularly in preventing large scale war between large industrial powers. What else does maintain peace besides power? The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. If you want peace prepare for war. Do you think these are just famous slogans or they really do reflect some hard earned wisdom?

lupusreal 3y ago

The weapon is used by not being used. It's purpose is to be a threat. It has been in continuous use ever since it entered service.