7 ms·

Fascinating article...written not that long after it looked like men or anybody else could never live with war again. But, those fretting about the necessity o

• hkpack 2y ago
  > War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more It didn't happen yet, but there are no is reasons for nuclear war to be avoided indefinitely.
  • ryandrake 2y ago
    All it takes is one madman to get near the button and gain enough power that his button-press is honored. It almost seems inevitable given a long enough time frame.
    • apantel 2y ago
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
      • notfish 2y ago
        I’d just prefer the survival rate not drop to zero for everyone at the same time.
        • lazide 2y ago
          Don’t worry. If there is anything history (and the geological record) has shown us, the planet and other humans have tried very very very hard to kill all humans in the past. And failed. Not that they didn’t make one hell of a dent sometimes, mind you. We’d more likely end up with an extra mutation or two, similar to the Moties [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God's_Eye] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God's_Eye] and some solid species level PTSD from the whole mess. Why do you think the doomsday prepper genes haven’t been bred out yet? I’m guessing because sometimes, they were the only ones left standing!
          • immibis 2y ago
            Actually, the geological record shows that mass extinctions are possible, happen somewhat regularly, and are sometimes caused by a single species altering the environment on a massive scale. For example when photosynthesizers converted 20% of the atmosphere into extremely toxic oxygen gas.
            • lazide 2y ago
              Eh, a bit overstated. None of them killed EVERYTHING, near as we can tell. Not even the oxygen catastrophe you're mentioning. To do that would likely require liquifying the mantle entirely, or some similar scale event. The last big one was approximately 66 million years ago due to perhaps the Chicxulub impact, and it wiped out most of the dinosaurs - but modern birds are descended from them, and the crocodiles and alligators survived (well, VERY similar looking ancestors) /just fine. None of them could build space stations, nuclear reactors, bunkers, etc. That we know of at least. None of them could grow hydroponic food, or communicate at near light speed to the other side of the planet, or even know what any of that means. The entire span of time something vaguely resembling human has been around is also 1/10th of that time, but there have been MANY smaller events with large scale extinctions. I'm not saying it would be a good time, but there is no way every single human is getting wiped out by anything except a nearby Gamma Ray burst/Supernova, surprise planetary collision, or something of similar destructive scale. Things way beyond even our wildest dreams of destructive power. Even if we launched every nuke every country has ever produced, while civilization as we know it would be done for, humanity would definitely persist. Even if the next war would be fought with clubs instead of nukes. And even if all the oxygen in the atmosphere turned to cyanide - guess what, we do (technically) know how to deal with that, there are populations of people who are currently protected from that, and while most of humanity would die while we scrambled to adapt, humanity itself would not perish. At least not just from that.
              • immibis 2y ago
                Species become extinct all the time. Humans don't have to exterminate all life, to exterminate humans.
      • mikhailfranco 2y ago
        John Maynard Keynes, Fight Club and Zero Hedge, in that order. Your comment made me notice that the motto was recently removed from the ZH Wikipedia page, so I just restored it - thanks.
    • xanderlewis 2y ago
      Yeah… but if it hasn’t happened by now (after 70+ years), that tells you something.
      • more_corn 2y ago
        70 years is not a useful timeframe for analysis of human warfare. Historically speaking a 70 year peace could be considered brief. Recall that empires have lasted thousands of years, city states have warred on and off for centuries, warlords have emerged with a cadence measured in centuries and great conquests on a cadence of thousands of years. 70 years is a blip. Compare that to the 6 known close calls where all-out nuclear war was narrowly averted and we’re not looking great. (What is that about once a decade?) I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance I’ll see a nuclear war in my lifetime. And if it gets out of hand billions of people will die. I’m not sure the invention of nuclear weapons was a net positive for the world.
        • hkpack 2y ago
          > I’m not sure the invention of nuclear weapons was a net positive for the world. It was never an option that nuclear weapons wouldn't be invented. The only question was who will invent and use it first.
      • mathgeek 2y ago
        All it tells me (just personally) is that the threat of being nuked (and especially being nuked in retaliation) is an effective deterrent since 1945. Not perfect of course, but it’s prevented larger conflicts than we have seen.
      • adastra22 2y ago
        It has happened. Twice. Russia-China in 1969, and Pakistan-India in 1999. Arguably one should count the Cuban missile crisis too.
        • xanderlewis 2y ago
          No, it hasn’t. We’re talking about nuclear weapons being used. The fact that we’ve had conflicts that didn’t go nuclear is even more to my point.
    • blub 2y ago
      Many if not all the close calls in the past were misunderstandings or tensions spiraling out of control. The madman with nukes is a trope. This is also why online commenters thinking that the Ukraine war will not go nuclear are misguided.
      • The_Colonel 2y ago
        The weaker version of madman scenario is a head of state believing they can use nukes in a limited scope to achieve its political goals. Imagine this scenario: the war in Ukraine goes for some more time, Russia starts to have economic problems and is desperate to settle it (without having to compromise), force Ukraine to surrender and demand sanctions to be lifted. So he uses a couple of small tactical nukes along the frontline to cripple Ukrainian forces. Civilian deaths are in tens of thousands. Ukraine can't respond, but apparently some threat has been declared from US to prevent this scenario - NATO / US launches conventional strikes on Russian military installations within Ukraine. Russia is not able to respond symmetrically, so it drops a tactical nuke on a military base within NATO territory (in Eastern Europe, far from major population center) as a kind of last warning to step back. There are multiple ways how this can go from then on, but there are scenarios ending in a major or all-out nuclear exchange. Without the need for misunderstanding and madmans.
        • dragontamer 2y ago
          Note that the smallest tactical nuke, the Davy Crockett, is One-Million times smaller than the largest nuke ever tested (The Tzar Bomba). USA Policy is that all nukes are nukes. The idea being that we've never wargamed a scenario where small nukes were used that didn't turn into the treadmill of larger and larger nukes anyway. (Well, they used a 50 ton nuke. We should respond with a 500ton nuke, then they respond with a 10,000 ton nuke. Then we respond with a 100kTon nuke. Then they respond with a 1Mton nuke....) So the minute a 'Small Nuke' is used, we should just respond with the biggest nuke. No point dilly dallying, if we are all going to die we might as well get it over with faster and in a way that is to our advantage. -------- The issue is that Russia or China may not see it that way. They might see the small nukes as a different thing that doesn't deserve the response of the larger nuke. It's not that the world is composed of madmen. It's that the world is composed of people with different points of view. As such, Russia stockpiles tactical (aka: small) nukes. USA stockpiles strategic (aka: large) nukes. ------ Also note: we stopped making larger nukes for political reasons. There seemed to be no end to the size of 'Large' nukes. The H-Bomb seemed to scale as large as we ever wanted. A collection of 10x 10 MTon nukes would deal more damage than a single 100MTon nuke anyway. But there's nothing stopping us from making 10x 100Mton nukes.
    • Log_out_ 2y ago
      Is there a type of geo engineering that can soften the effects of a nuclear exchange?
• openasocket 2y ago
  We’ve had at least one war between nuclear powers off the top of my head. The Kargil war of 1999 between India and Pakistan, I believe both sides had nuclear weapons deployed at the time. EDIT: also the Sino-soviet war of 1969
  • rhelz 2y ago
    I stand corrected.
  • Der_Einzige 2y ago
    Both were basically small border skirmishes. Yes there’s trivia claims that “nukes almost flew between each state” but in reality no one was anywhere near nuking each others cities.
    • hollerith 2y ago
      Sarah Paine says that the Kremlin asked Washington if Washington was OK with the Kremlin's nuking China -- during or right after what you dismiss as "small border skirmishes". According to Paine, Washington responded with a firm no. Paine didn't specify the targets the Kremlin wanted to nuke: I'm guessing Beijing's new (and consequently small) nuclear stockpile and nuclear production facilities rather than cities.
    • openasocket 2y ago
      In the Kargil War both sides deployed multiple divisions, and the Sino-Soviet War armored units were employed. Sure, neither side came close to using nukes, but they were still at war. It just goes to show that war between two nuclear states is possible without nuclear weapons being employed.
• doubloon 2y ago
  half of those are not proxy wars in any way shape or form.
  • apantel 2y ago
    In the era of the atomic bomb, conventional war no longer takes place directly between tier 1 (nuclear) powers because the rulers can’t have that. The rulers on both sides ultimately want to enjoy their wealth and power. They want to go to the brothel at the end of the day. So they won’t risk getting into a nuclear war. This is even truer in the era of Globalism where enjoying wealth and power generally means enjoying the benefits of the global supply chain: yachts, supercars, travel, exotic imports, etc. A nuclear war would disrupt all that. It would make being an oligarch a lot less fun, so they will generally avoid messing with the world at that level. Finally, in the era of the atomic bomb, conventional warfare (sending your tanks and battleships against your enemy) is obsolete for tier 1 powers. If you are a tier 1 power and another tier 1 power starts sending tanks your way, you send off one nuke to nuke all the tanks. Conventional warfare is not obsolete for tier 2 powers since it’s all they have. A tier 2 power battling it out in conventional warfare against another tier 2 power means something. Conventional warfare means very little to tier 1 powers. Tier 1 and tier 2 powers play by completely different rules. As a result, conventional war only takes place now on tier 2 (non-nuclear) lands. If there are sabers to be rattled between two tier 1 powers, the rattling will happen on tier 2 land, usually with tier 2 powers being the primary warring parties (proxy war). You also see tier 1 powers making the occasional move but always against tier 2 powers only, e.g. Russia -> Ukraine. If Ukraine had nukes there would be no war in Ukraine. Notice how it’s war IN Ukraine: on tier 2 land. If Ukraine managed to make it a war IN Russia, they’d be nuked to oblivion.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • actionfromafar 2y ago
      Agree except that Ukraine is slowly taking the war to Russia itself, their drones are getting further and further. I think Russia would rather invent a way to safe face than face whatever consequences may come after nuking Ukraine to oblivion.
• mu53 2y ago
  Ukraine is uncomfortably close. Nuclear armed combatant on one side, and proxy on the other.
  • snowpid 2y ago
    It must be repeated: Ukraine is it's own nation and Ukrainian people fight because their own decision.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • rubytubido 2y ago
      No, they are fighting because the government wants it. Ukrainian men have no choice: they can't fly away from the country, they can't safely walk on the streets because the special patrol with take them to the military registration and enlistment office without consent. But some of them are really do. Stop repeating your propaganda.
      • snowpid 2y ago
        All Ukrainian men fight because they are force to? Do you talk to any Ukrainean person? Stop repeating Russian propaganda. Also if we are here: Do you Russian think, Russian soldiers like to die in meat waves?
        • rubytubido 2y ago
          > Do you talk to any Ukrainean person? Yes, I have a few Ukrainean friends, initially they liked Zelensky, but now they hate him. I also visited Kiev in 2020 Stop repeating western propaganda. > Do you Russian think, Russian soldiers like to die in meat waves? I don't think they like or want to die, but SOME of them really want to participate in the war. This applies to both sides. Not sure if you just tried to assume my nationality by using "Do you Russian think", but you are wrong.
  • kiba 2y ago
• wolpoli 2y ago
  > War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more That might change as more nations acquire nuclear weapons. Or maybe the pathway to world peace is to give every country nukes.
  • bsnsxd 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • more_corn 2y ago
      Just because sarcasm doesn’t really work in text let me clarify. This strategy works not at all in the USA.
    • 082349872349872 2y ago
      [flagged]