3 ms·

Pakistan, which some may not realize is a nuclear power, is also one of the best examples. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan for decades under the pretext of

Pakistan, which some may not realize is a nuclear power, is also one of the best examples. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan for decades under the pretext of it being Bin Laden safe haven. It turns out Bin Laden was in Pakistan directly adjacent to the premises of Pakistan's top military academy. So we do the most minimal in and out operation imaginable, and then shortly thereafter got back to shipping Pakistan billions of dollars in "aid." The world going nuclear is only a danger when one nation begins to think they could win a nuclear conflict, or are enticed to play chicken with another nuclear power. Outside of that nukes are almost certainly the reason that the window from ~1945 to today has been, by far, one of the safest in the developed world. Without nukes the Cold War would, with complete certainty, have ended up as WW3.

addicted 2y ago
Those are some huge claims. Any references or explanations for why those might be the case?
- somenameforme 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable. This [1] describes the effect of a tiny 0.15Mt nuke going off in NYC. The largest nuke ever detonated was 50+Mt, so more than 300x the yield of what's described there. And that's one nuke. Pakistan is believed to have hundreds of nukes, and nuclear weapons are also designed such that a single missile will have multiple warheads that will splinter off not only increasing the destruction but also making any sort of missile defense even less viable. [1] - https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/index.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/inde...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable There is no world in which Pakistan could nuke America. I agree on the effect—nukes gave Islamabad cover it wouldn’t have had without them. But the mechanism isn’t military strategic, but something deeper.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      There are many ways to deliver nukes other than ICBMs. Nukes are also the ultimate defensive weapon. Any forces, ships, etc deployed on or near their territory would be toast. One of the many reasons that naval forces are largely obsolete. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks worth tens of billions of dollars. Pakistan's known nuclear capable missiles have a range of 2750km which means even long distance aerial bombardment is not an answer.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
That works until it doesn’t. Nukes still allow for proxy wars and that’s what we’ve been having, it’s not like the conflicts will go away when you can’t use proxies because they now have nukes of their own. Trading a lower frequency of war for a more devastating consequence has worked thus far, but when people start to act like such consequences are an impossibility they’ll push risk right up to the edge - and someday someone will eventually go over it. Ironically triggering the thing that was supposed to be impossible.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I completely agree. It's one of many reasons I think becoming a multiplanetary species is important. There's also the unspoken issue. There is approximately a 100% chance that most of every major superpower has classified biological weapons programs, and those could easily end up even worse than nukes. And in the scenario of a 'conventional' WW3, they would likely be unleashed. Basically, we're screwed if the world doesn't trend towards peace. And even times of peace will always be liminal, because people are people. So I think we should (1) aiming for positive relations, (2) aiming to minimize the scope and scale of the wars that do inevitably happen, and (3) aim to get setup on other planets. Perhaps the first planet to nuke/virus itself to death can work as a more visible reminder of the dangers for the others. We always learn best by putting our fingers in the fire (and it's no surprise that games of nuclear chicken are arising only once Hiroshima/Nagasaki fall out of living memory), but this is pretty darn close to it at least.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Perhaps the first planet to nuke/virus itself to death can work as a more visible reminder of the dangers for the others There is no multi-planetary scenario in which a nuclear war on Earth doesn’t also target the country’s off-world settlements.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      I don't really agree with that at all. You need not only nukes on Mars but multiple advanced and adversarial colonies with nukes for MAD to be a thing. And C&C with a 40 minute round trip latency is not happening. Kind of problematic when the most probable way we get into nuclear war is a country convincing itself it can successfully execute a decapitation strike. Then you'd also need to know a lot like how nukes would even work on Mars. Dramatically lower atmospheric pressure, amongst other things, will mean nukes will function dramatically differently and be substantially less dangerous. You're looking at dramatically reduced shock/blast waves, less of a threat of fallout (since environmental exposure is already lethal), and so on. It's another great argument for expansion - each colony will have to deal with different situations, which makes various threats - less threatening. For another example, a directed gamma ray burst could be catastrophic on Earth, and is one hypothesis for the Great Ordovician Extinction, but on Mars it would almost entirely harmless.
highwaylights 2y ago
This misses the bigger risk of some nutjob somewhere pressing the button, or nukes going missing in less developed states with lax controls. I’m less worried about WW3 starting in anger than I am about it starting by oopsie/craziness/terrorism.

addicted 2y ago

Those are some huge claims. Any references or explanations for why those might be the case?

somenameforme 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable. This [1] describes the effect of a tiny 0.15Mt nuke going off in NYC. The largest nuke ever detonated was 50+Mt, so more than 300x the yield of what's described there. And that's one nuke. Pakistan is believed to have hundreds of nukes, and nuclear weapons are also designed such that a single missile will have multiple warheads that will splinter off not only increasing the destruction but also making any sort of missile defense even less viable. [1] - https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/index.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/scenarios/newyork/inde...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > It's because Pakistan has nukes. Nukes essentially make wars unwinnable There is no world in which Pakistan could nuke America. I agree on the effect—nukes gave Islamabad cover it wouldn’t have had without them. But the mechanism isn’t military strategic, but something deeper.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    There are many ways to deliver nukes other than ICBMs. Nukes are also the ultimate defensive weapon. Any forces, ships, etc deployed on or near their territory would be toast. One of the many reasons that naval forces are largely obsolete. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks worth tens of billions of dollars. Pakistan's known nuclear capable missiles have a range of 2750km which means even long distance aerial bombardment is not an answer.

cjbgkagh 2y ago

That works until it doesn’t. Nukes still allow for proxy wars and that’s what we’ve been having, it’s not like the conflicts will go away when you can’t use proxies because they now have nukes of their own. Trading a lower frequency of war for a more devastating consequence has worked thus far, but when people start to act like such consequences are an impossibility they’ll push risk right up to the edge - and someday someone will eventually go over it. Ironically triggering the thing that was supposed to be impossible.

somenameforme 2y ago
I completely agree. It's one of many reasons I think becoming a multiplanetary species is important. There's also the unspoken issue. There is approximately a 100% chance that most of every major superpower has classified biological weapons programs, and those could easily end up even worse than nukes. And in the scenario of a 'conventional' WW3, they would likely be unleashed. Basically, we're screwed if the world doesn't trend towards peace. And even times of peace will always be liminal, because people are people. So I think we should (1) aiming for positive relations, (2) aiming to minimize the scope and scale of the wars that do inevitably happen, and (3) aim to get setup on other planets. Perhaps the first planet to nuke/virus itself to death can work as a more visible reminder of the dangers for the others. We always learn best by putting our fingers in the fire (and it's no surprise that games of nuclear chicken are arising only once Hiroshima/Nagasaki fall out of living memory), but this is pretty darn close to it at least.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Perhaps the first planet to nuke/virus itself to death can work as a more visible reminder of the dangers for the others There is no multi-planetary scenario in which a nuclear war on Earth doesn’t also target the country’s off-world settlements.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I don't really agree with that at all. You need not only nukes on Mars but multiple advanced and adversarial colonies with nukes for MAD to be a thing. And C&C with a 40 minute round trip latency is not happening. Kind of problematic when the most probable way we get into nuclear war is a country convincing itself it can successfully execute a decapitation strike. Then you'd also need to know a lot like how nukes would even work on Mars. Dramatically lower atmospheric pressure, amongst other things, will mean nukes will function dramatically differently and be substantially less dangerous. You're looking at dramatically reduced shock/blast waves, less of a threat of fallout (since environmental exposure is already lethal), and so on. It's another great argument for expansion - each colony will have to deal with different situations, which makes various threats - less threatening. For another example, a directed gamma ray burst could be catastrophic on Earth, and is one hypothesis for the Great Ordovician Extinction, but on Mars it would almost entirely harmless.

highwaylights 2y ago

This misses the bigger risk of some nutjob somewhere pressing the button, or nukes going missing in less developed states with lax controls. I’m less worried about WW3 starting in anger than I am about it starting by oopsie/craziness/terrorism.