4 ms·

> The "cold war" nuclear arms race, which brought the world to the brink of (at least partial) annihilation, is a good recent example. The same era saw big ach

> The "cold war" nuclear arms race, which brought the world to the brink of (at least partial) annihilation, is a good recent example. The same era saw big achievements like first human in space, eradication of smallpox, peaceful nuclear exploration etc. It's good to be a skeptic but history does favor the optimists for the most part.

goatlover 2y ago
We'll see what the next 100 years or history brings. The nuclear war threat hasn't gone away either. There's always a chance those nukes get used at some point.
bbor 2y ago
Holy hell please knock on wood, this is the kinda comment that gets put in a museum in 10,000 years on The Beginning of the End of The Age of Hubris. We've avoided side effects from our new weapons for 80 years -- that does not exactly make me super confident it won't happen again! In general, I think drawing conclusions about "history" from the past couple hundred years is tough. And unless you take a VERY long view, I don't see how one could describe the vast majority of the past as a win for the optimists. I guess suffering is relative, but good god was there a lot of suffering before modern medicine. If anyone's feeling like we've made it through to the other side of the nuclear threat, "Mission Accomplished"-style, I highly recommend A Canticle for Lebowitz. It won a hugo award, and it's a short read best done with little research beforehand.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? If not, then they're not relevant to the issue. I'm not saying nothing else good happened in the past 70 years, but rather that the invention of atomic weapons has permanently placed humanity in a position in which it had never been before: the possibility of wiping out much of the planet, averted only thanks to treaties, Stanislav Petrov[0], and likely other cool heads. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
- czl 2y ago
  > Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? The cold aspect of the Cold War was an achievement. Any doubt this was due to creation of nuclear weapons and the threat of their use? How do you think countries will behave if every country faces being wiped out if it makes war on another country? To prevent catastrophe I think teaching your citizens to hate other groups (as is done today due to national politics) will become dangerous and mental illness and extremist views will need to be kept in check.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    The Cold War doesn’t mean there was no conflict. Both sides supported various proxy wars around the world. They just did not enter into _direct_ military conflict with each other. That may be because they had nukes but it could also be that direct conflict would mean massive casualties for either side and it’s not like either side wanted to destroy the other, just gain the upper hand globally. So I for one don’t accept the argument that nukes acted as “peacekeepers”.
    - czl 2y ago
      That proxy wars occurred during the Cold War, one can argue that these conflicts were actually a result of nuclear deterrence. Unable to engage directly due to the threat of mutually assured destruction, superpowers instead fought indirectly through smaller nations. This could be seen as evidence that nuclear weapons did prevent direct conflict between major powers. Also history shows that nations have engaged in extremely costly wars before. World War I and II saw unprecedented casualties, yet nations still fought. Nuclear weapons introduced a new level of destructive potential that went beyond conventional warfare. And there were periods of extreme tension, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where nuclear war seemed imminent. The very existence of massive nuclear arsenals suggests that both sides were prepared for the possibility of mutual destruction. You can question the role of nukes as peacekeepers but I think the case for nuclear deterrence keeping the peace is strong. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is widely credited as a key factor in preventing direct conflict between superpowers during the Cold War. The presence of nuclear weapons forced them to pursue competition through economic, cultural, and technological means rather than direct military confrontation. “Race to the moon” being one such result.

goatlover 2y ago

We'll see what the next 100 years or history brings. The nuclear war threat hasn't gone away either. There's always a chance those nukes get used at some point.

bbor 2y ago

Holy hell please knock on wood, this is the kinda comment that gets put in a museum in 10,000 years on The Beginning of the End of The Age of Hubris. We've avoided side effects from our new weapons for 80 years -- that does not exactly make me super confident it won't happen again! In general, I think drawing conclusions about "history" from the past couple hundred years is tough. And unless you take a VERY long view, I don't see how one could describe the vast majority of the past as a win for the optimists. I guess suffering is relative, but good god was there a lot of suffering before modern medicine. If anyone's feeling like we've made it through to the other side of the nuclear threat, "Mission Accomplished"-style, I highly recommend A Canticle for Lebowitz. It won a hugo award, and it's a short read best done with little research beforehand.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? If not, then they're not relevant to the issue. I'm not saying nothing else good happened in the past 70 years, but rather that the invention of atomic weapons has permanently placed humanity in a position in which it had never been before: the possibility of wiping out much of the planet, averted only thanks to treaties, Stanislav Petrov[0], and likely other cool heads. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

czl 2y ago
> Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? The cold aspect of the Cold War was an achievement. Any doubt this was due to creation of nuclear weapons and the threat of their use? How do you think countries will behave if every country faces being wiped out if it makes war on another country? To prevent catastrophe I think teaching your citizens to hate other groups (as is done today due to national politics) will become dangerous and mental illness and extremist views will need to be kept in check.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  The Cold War doesn’t mean there was no conflict. Both sides supported various proxy wars around the world. They just did not enter into _direct_ military conflict with each other. That may be because they had nukes but it could also be that direct conflict would mean massive casualties for either side and it’s not like either side wanted to destroy the other, just gain the upper hand globally. So I for one don’t accept the argument that nukes acted as “peacekeepers”.
  - czl 2y ago
    That proxy wars occurred during the Cold War, one can argue that these conflicts were actually a result of nuclear deterrence. Unable to engage directly due to the threat of mutually assured destruction, superpowers instead fought indirectly through smaller nations. This could be seen as evidence that nuclear weapons did prevent direct conflict between major powers. Also history shows that nations have engaged in extremely costly wars before. World War I and II saw unprecedented casualties, yet nations still fought. Nuclear weapons introduced a new level of destructive potential that went beyond conventional warfare. And there were periods of extreme tension, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where nuclear war seemed imminent. The very existence of massive nuclear arsenals suggests that both sides were prepared for the possibility of mutual destruction. You can question the role of nukes as peacekeepers but I think the case for nuclear deterrence keeping the peace is strong. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is widely credited as a key factor in preventing direct conflict between superpowers during the Cold War. The presence of nuclear weapons forced them to pursue competition through economic, cultural, and technological means rather than direct military confrontation. “Race to the moon” being one such result.