3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - the_af 1y ago
    Others have explained why MAD has nothing to do with "tolerating" the use of nukes, and is instead more about game theory. But let me put it in familiar worlds from pop culture: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." (Because Iran doesn't have nukes, it's currently being forced into playing and making losing moves.)

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.
- the_af 1y ago
  Others have explained why MAD has nothing to do with "tolerating" the use of nukes, and is instead more about game theory. But let me put it in familiar worlds from pop culture: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." (Because Iran doesn't have nukes, it's currently being forced into playing and making losing moves.)