4 ms·
When? There’s no evidence that is the case. It has been eighty years since a nuclear weapon was used in an act of aggression. It would appear a state sort of
by TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
When?
There’s no evidence that is the case.
It has been eighty years since a nuclear weapon was used in an act of aggression.
It would appear a state sort of only really comes to have nuclear weapons when it has got its act together sufficiently to be well enough behaved to not use them.
A sort of maturation process, if you will.
The meek[1] shall inherit the Earth, and all of that.
If we’ve got data, let’s go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let’s go with mine.
1. this is best as interpreted as those who have the ability to use force, but do not use it, except maybe to defend themselves.
- ipaddr 2y agoIt has been threatened recently by a few nations. It almost got set off by mistake. Increasing the odds by introducing hundreds of players some willing to gas their own people is rolling the dice. The few countries that have the ability has been responsible but that does not mean that will always be the case or new players will be as responsible.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y agoWhat does any of it matter? In about five billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen and expand, engulfing Mercury, Venus, and likely Earth. In the mean time, you could respond to the argument I actually made. The level of organisation at the state level required to build a working nuclear weapon, along with the forces working against that, eg. how difficult it’s been for Iran to get across the line, and the fact of the near miss you mentioned, allows most of us, it would seem, to sleep well at night.