6 ms·

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 o

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.