4 ms·

> Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.

> Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story. How do you explain India vs Pakistan?

seydor 1y ago
both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). the countries not having nukes are still in much worse situation I mean israel gets attacked even though they have nukes, but some rockets are not the same as a regime-changing war
- motorest 1y ago
  > both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis. You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make. It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
  - seydor 1y ago
    > is also an absurd argument to make. It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
      - kmijyiyxfbklao 1y ago
        Well then you should explain how it doesn't make sense. Focusing on how he didn't mention the case where both countries have nuclear weapons is not convincing.
  - hajile 1y ago
    If neither India nor Pakistan had nukes, they would be at war today. Their nukes saved a lot of lives.
    - cjbgkagh 1y ago
      So far… trading a more devastating consequence for a decreased likelihood on average will always appear to work until it doesn’t. There may become a time when the use of nukes is tolerated and expected and the only way to win a conflict is to carpet nuke your enemy.
      - hajile 1y ago
        The whole point of MAD is that you can't prevent a second strike from also eliminating your own country. This was all worked out 70-80 years ago.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        As a peer mentioned, nukes not being used has nothing to do with them not being tolerated. It's all about there being no win condition. A single modern nuke can wipe a city out of existence. Even more so when you consider that most are on rockets that split into multiple warheads both to increase destruction and to sidestep any sort of missile defenses. Scale that up and you can wipe entire countries out of existence. If you enter into a scenario against a nuclear opponent where they go nuclear (which you going nuclear would certainly do) then you may well defeat them, but they're simultaneously also defeat you. This is a big part of the reason that Russia is so paranoid about the US surrounding it with military bases. The only possible way to treat to sidestep this problem is with a massive decapitation strike where you try to nuke your enemy into oblivion before they have any chance to respond with their own nukes. Realistically, it's probably impossible, but but it remains the Achille's Heel of MAD / mutually assured destruction. And drones/internal strike issues are certainly going to be causing some consternation. Well, there's also missile defense, but I think that's a dead end. We're talking about the offensive goal being to shoot a bullet at the side of a massive barn, and the defensive goal being to shoot down that bullet. It seems impossible to imagine a state of technology between near peers where the latter becomes easier than the former.
hnaccount_rng 1y ago
They always immediately stop their conflicts once the building opposite of the one with the nuclear command center blows up. So... it seems to work for them
samrus 1y ago
with the lack of a war happening between them? neither side invaded or killed 800 of the other's citizens and US/china didnt step in to back their horse with bombs
- motorest 1y ago
  > with the lack of a war happening between them? What was this, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co...
  - samrus 1y ago
    thats what a "war" looked like when both parties have nukes ukraine is what a war looks like when both parties dont have nukes
    - azan_ 1y ago
      In case of Ukraine one party has nukes, the biggest nuke arsenal in the world actually
      - the_af 1y ago
        That's what they meant: that's what war looks like when both parties don't have nukes. It's usually the defending party which benefits from nukes the most; and both parties having nukes makes every war a very dangerous affair (if it goes unchecked, as opposed to limited like India-Pakistan).
      - donkeybeer 1y ago
        I think it was meant like not (A has nukes and B has nukes) rather than (not A has nukes) and (not B has nukes). Strange wording, I felt the same way too.
      - samrus 1y ago
        Thats what i meant. Unles both parties have nukes, it will become a proper war where countries are destroyed Looking at india pakistan, and ukraine russia, its clear whether you should give your nuclear arsenal up or not

> Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story. How do you explain India vs Pakistan?

seydor 1y ago

both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). the countries not having nukes are still in much worse situation I mean israel gets attacked even though they have nukes, but some rockets are not the same as a regime-changing war

motorest 1y ago
> both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis. You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make. It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
- seydor 1y ago
  > is also an absurd argument to make. It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
    - kmijyiyxfbklao 1y ago
      Well then you should explain how it doesn't make sense. Focusing on how he didn't mention the case where both countries have nuclear weapons is not convincing.
- hajile 1y ago
  If neither India nor Pakistan had nukes, they would be at war today. Their nukes saved a lot of lives.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    So far… trading a more devastating consequence for a decreased likelihood on average will always appear to work until it doesn’t. There may become a time when the use of nukes is tolerated and expected and the only way to win a conflict is to carpet nuke your enemy.
    - hajile 1y ago
      The whole point of MAD is that you can't prevent a second strike from also eliminating your own country. This was all worked out 70-80 years ago.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      As a peer mentioned, nukes not being used has nothing to do with them not being tolerated. It's all about there being no win condition. A single modern nuke can wipe a city out of existence. Even more so when you consider that most are on rockets that split into multiple warheads both to increase destruction and to sidestep any sort of missile defenses. Scale that up and you can wipe entire countries out of existence. If you enter into a scenario against a nuclear opponent where they go nuclear (which you going nuclear would certainly do) then you may well defeat them, but they're simultaneously also defeat you. This is a big part of the reason that Russia is so paranoid about the US surrounding it with military bases. The only possible way to treat to sidestep this problem is with a massive decapitation strike where you try to nuke your enemy into oblivion before they have any chance to respond with their own nukes. Realistically, it's probably impossible, but but it remains the Achille's Heel of MAD / mutually assured destruction. And drones/internal strike issues are certainly going to be causing some consternation. Well, there's also missile defense, but I think that's a dead end. We're talking about the offensive goal being to shoot a bullet at the side of a massive barn, and the defensive goal being to shoot down that bullet. It seems impossible to imagine a state of technology between near peers where the latter becomes easier than the former.

hnaccount_rng 1y ago

They always immediately stop their conflicts once the building opposite of the one with the nuclear command center blows up. So... it seems to work for them

samrus 1y ago

with the lack of a war happening between them? neither side invaded or killed 800 of the other's citizens and US/china didnt step in to back their horse with bombs

motorest 1y ago
> with the lack of a war happening between them? What was this, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co...
- samrus 1y ago
  thats what a "war" looked like when both parties have nukes ukraine is what a war looks like when both parties dont have nukes
  - azan_ 1y ago
    In case of Ukraine one party has nukes, the biggest nuke arsenal in the world actually
    - the_af 1y ago
      That's what they meant: that's what war looks like when both parties don't have nukes. It's usually the defending party which benefits from nukes the most; and both parties having nukes makes every war a very dangerous affair (if it goes unchecked, as opposed to limited like India-Pakistan).
    - donkeybeer 1y ago
      I think it was meant like not (A has nukes and B has nukes) rather than (not A has nukes) and (not B has nukes). Strange wording, I felt the same way too.
    - samrus 1y ago
      Thats what i meant. Unles both parties have nukes, it will become a proper war where countries are destroyed Looking at india pakistan, and ukraine russia, its clear whether you should give your nuclear arsenal up or not