3 ms·
I'm not optimistic about mutual disarmament in my lifetime, but that's because there's perpetual unstable geopolitics. I'm just saying the safest path away fro
by benlivengood 2y ago
I'm not optimistic about mutual disarmament in my lifetime, but that's because there's perpetual unstable geopolitics.
I'm just saying the safest path away from MAD is mutual disarmament, not weakening the current precommitments to it.
- notepad0x90 2y agolet's say everyone in the world disarmed. it takes one unstable country or blood thirsty leader in one country to secretly build a nuke and use that dominate other countries. Is it unreasonable to anticipate that, given our species' history? When that happens, not only would it restart an arms race, other countries would be forced to use their newly developed nuke either in retaliation or preemptively. You also have to keep in mind the human prejudice, "a thief always suspects others are trying to steal from him." official stockpiles may be discarded with but secret and unofficial nukes will always be there because militaries and will always suspect other militaries to be as devious as they themselves are. Lastly, look at the START treaty, after Putin got all war hungry, he suspended Russia's participation, because he realized even a smaller country like Ukraine can challenge Russia's ability to dominate geopolitics or even remain sovereign without nukes. North Korea rightfully anticipated that nukes were the only way they could preserve their government (for better or worse). The problem of war itself would need to be solved before nuclear disarmament can be a practical solution.