4 ms·
Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you juxtaposed your statement about repurposing nuclear weapons and the quote, but isn't the quote suggesting that nuclear weapon
by wahern 1y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you juxtaposed your statement about repurposing nuclear weapons and the quote, but isn't the quote suggesting that nuclear weapons are those ultimate warriors that will bring an end to bloodshed? It seems like an artful allusion to the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction and the claim that MAD prevents wars.
- junon 1y agoIt depends on the way you read it. Nuclear bombs cause bloodshed. The blood might be vaporized, cooked, or irradiated - but still shed. I don't think that's what OP meant; rather I read it literally, to mean one day there might actually be a world without war, or at least, a world without violent wars.
- leesec 1y ago>Nuclear bombs cause bloodshed. No they prevent and drastically reduce bloodshed.
- snake42 1y agoUntil they don't.
- junon 1y agoTell that to the families of everyone who's died in the Russian war on Ukraine.
- dsr_ 1y agoYou know that Ukraine had nuclear weapons, and gave them up for the promise of never being attacked? Would Russia have spent the last 11 years attacking Ukraine if it were still a nuclear power? (Maybe. Dictators are not reknowned for their sanity and good decision-making skills.)
- LorenPechtel 1y agoIt wouldn't change anything, Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure to maintain those bombs.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoWe aren't in a position to answer this one one way or the other. If things go very wrong they have the potential to take us out. But a non-nuclear WWIII could, also--not by direct kills but by taking down the interconnected stuff that makes society work. Also, while they serve to prevent direct wars between major powers they cause proxy wars between the major powers.