4 ms·
"Most countries definitely do not have nukes." I did not claim that. I claim it will be hard to limit the use of nuclear weapons. Just like in the weapons it
by lukan 2y ago
"Most countries definitely do not have nukes."
I did not claim that.
I claim it will be hard to limit the use of nuclear weapons.
Just like in the weapons itself, one ignition can trigger a chain reaction in the end forcing russia or US to take part in it as well. If all the people involved are level headed and able to think rational - it likely will prevented also in the future. But if the person in charge is already stressed (and old) and gets lots of pressure - this person, might then feel forced to press a button.
- margalabargala 2y agoYou said "I assume much more countries secretly have nukes". I claim that beyond the open secret that is Israel, the number of countries controlling a right-now detonatable nuclear weapon who are not on the Wikipedia list of "countries with nukes" is less than 5.
- lukan 2y agoClaiming much more countries secretly have one, is not at all the same as claiming most countries secretly have them. And I agree that it won't be many many, but in this context one previously unknown bomb already might change lots of geopolitical equations and their outcome.
- margalabargala 2y agoNo one ever said most. You said much more. I think it's fewer than 5.
- lukan 2y ago"No one ever said most." "Most countries definitely do not have nukes. " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209283 Also by my understanding, even 4 more countries having secretly nukes counts as "much more countries having nukes than officially known". But my point is not semantics, but that even one nuke can trigger a chain reaction. Unknown nukes just makes this more likely.
- margalabargala 2y agoAre you illiterate? You think that's what "most" meant in context?