7 ms·

Is he wrong? This has historically been very true. The nuclear deterrent has significantly decreased the probability of civilian or armed forces dying as a res

Is he wrong? This has historically been very true. The nuclear deterrent has significantly decreased the probability of civilian or armed forces dying as a result of conflict globally.

agent_turtle 1y ago
The nuclear deterrent works because of MAD. If only one nation had the capacity for nuclear weapons, there's a strong case to be made that we'd be living in a totalitarian world state or at the very least vassals to the dominant state.
- altcognito 1y ago
  The US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons for nearly four years.
  - agent_turtle 1y ago
    Cool, now imagine if Nazi Germany had that monopoly.
    - snickerdoodle12 1y ago
      Or what would happen if something like it would happen today.
      - dzhiurgis 1y ago
        Russia is pretty much nazi now (superior Russian genes and soul + genocide of Ukrainians) and they are not exactly swinging them but definitely sabre rattlin. Israel is not using theirs on Gaza either.
        agent_turtle 1y ago
        Russia does not use nukes because the US and EU exists as deterrents.
        ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        Also there's a reasonable chance that some of them won't work correctly which will then weaken Russia's show of strength
        snickerdoodle12 1y ago
        To be clear I'm referring to a new superweapon or defence scheme being invented that somehow makes nukes obsolete. Imagine what Trump would do. He is already trying (and mostly failing) to strong-arm all his allies today.
  - Voultapher 1y ago
    And the DoD pushed - several times - for their use in China to limit it's economic growth. Look it up.
    - altcognito 1y ago
      I'm sure they planned to use them everywhere. Hell, we planned to blow up nuclear weapons US in order to make canals. Yet, it never happened. Actions matter.
arp242 1y ago
It's not my impression that an extremely aggressive attitude helps safety, no. There is a reason for "they will attack us everywhere" and quite some part of that is the "wrath of America" coming down on them some time in the recent past (either directly or via proxy, like Israel). Obviously having a military is a necessity and there is some truth to what he is saying, but it's also superficial and short-sighted. It's a strategy that works great right up the moment your back is turned or you're not paying attention for a minute. There's always going to be nutjobs out there doing nutjob things, but at times the US has almost gone out of their way to create enemies.
tonetegeatinst 1y ago
I think this is a reference that if you want peach, one must prepare for war. That includes offensive and defensive options, and being able to show you can stand up to others when it comes to other nations that have other views and moral beliefs.
- agent_turtle 1y ago
  You can do that without creating a single unaccountable entity housing everyone's data. In fact, it is a weakness to have a single point of failure.
Ozzie_osman 1y ago
Strength is a deterrent, no doubt. But there's a difference between having strength, and wanting your so-called enemies to go to bed scared and wake up scared.
- dzhiurgis 1y ago
  Never been punched in the face I see?
  - bathtub365 1y ago
    I haven’t given anyone a reason to want to punch me in the face :)
    - dzhiurgis 1y ago
      The attacks happen unprovoked and usually at the weak
      - agent_turtle 1y ago
        Your argument is that stronger nations bully weaker nations, and somehow this supports the idea that there should be only one strong nation.
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    Seems exactly like someone who knows the equivalent of being punched in the face. Thats not a deterrent, it's an action that provokes retaliatory action from a place of fear of needing to defend ones self. If a group is dangerous enough for one to think they could do harm, leaving them without options/scaring them is an awful strategy You want to deter wild animals, not scare or corner them. Rattlesnakes want to deter you from stepping on them, not scare you into doing so.
  - totallynothoney 1y ago
    If I'm stuck living with someone and they regularly punch me in the face for "preventative" reasons, I'll put rat poison in their coffee. Domestic abuser logic seems ill-advised as foreign policy. Everyone already knows the US MIC can kill them personally with impunity if wished.
2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
Is it worth it? Like 70 million people died in WWII but an estimated 5 billion will die in a full nuclear exchange. That's like 70 world wars worth of people.
thefz 1y ago
Was the nuclear deterrent a tool that could be used outside of war to spy on basically anyone on earth?

Is he wrong? This has historically been very true. The nuclear deterrent has significantly decreased the probability of civilian or armed forces dying as a result of conflict globally.

agent_turtle 1y ago

The nuclear deterrent works because of MAD. If only one nation had the capacity for nuclear weapons, there's a strong case to be made that we'd be living in a totalitarian world state or at the very least vassals to the dominant state.

altcognito 1y ago
The US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons for nearly four years.
- agent_turtle 1y ago
  Cool, now imagine if Nazi Germany had that monopoly.
  - snickerdoodle12 1y ago
    Or what would happen if something like it would happen today.
    - dzhiurgis 1y ago
      Russia is pretty much nazi now (superior Russian genes and soul + genocide of Ukrainians) and they are not exactly swinging them but definitely sabre rattlin. Israel is not using theirs on Gaza either.
      - agent_turtle 1y ago
        Russia does not use nukes because the US and EU exists as deterrents.
        ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        Also there's a reasonable chance that some of them won't work correctly which will then weaken Russia's show of strength
      - snickerdoodle12 1y ago
        To be clear I'm referring to a new superweapon or defence scheme being invented that somehow makes nukes obsolete. Imagine what Trump would do. He is already trying (and mostly failing) to strong-arm all his allies today.
- Voultapher 1y ago
  And the DoD pushed - several times - for their use in China to limit it's economic growth. Look it up.
  - altcognito 1y ago
    I'm sure they planned to use them everywhere. Hell, we planned to blow up nuclear weapons US in order to make canals. Yet, it never happened. Actions matter.

arp242 1y ago

It's not my impression that an extremely aggressive attitude helps safety, no. There is a reason for "they will attack us everywhere" and quite some part of that is the "wrath of America" coming down on them some time in the recent past (either directly or via proxy, like Israel). Obviously having a military is a necessity and there is some truth to what he is saying, but it's also superficial and short-sighted. It's a strategy that works great right up the moment your back is turned or you're not paying attention for a minute. There's always going to be nutjobs out there doing nutjob things, but at times the US has almost gone out of their way to create enemies.

tonetegeatinst 1y ago

I think this is a reference that if you want peach, one must prepare for war. That includes offensive and defensive options, and being able to show you can stand up to others when it comes to other nations that have other views and moral beliefs.

agent_turtle 1y ago
You can do that without creating a single unaccountable entity housing everyone's data. In fact, it is a weakness to have a single point of failure.

Ozzie_osman 1y ago

Strength is a deterrent, no doubt. But there's a difference between having strength, and wanting your so-called enemies to go to bed scared and wake up scared.

dzhiurgis 1y ago
Never been punched in the face I see?
- bathtub365 1y ago
  I haven’t given anyone a reason to want to punch me in the face :)
  - dzhiurgis 1y ago
    The attacks happen unprovoked and usually at the weak
    - agent_turtle 1y ago
      Your argument is that stronger nations bully weaker nations, and somehow this supports the idea that there should be only one strong nation.
- 1659447091 1y ago
  Seems exactly like someone who knows the equivalent of being punched in the face. Thats not a deterrent, it's an action that provokes retaliatory action from a place of fear of needing to defend ones self. If a group is dangerous enough for one to think they could do harm, leaving them without options/scaring them is an awful strategy You want to deter wild animals, not scare or corner them. Rattlesnakes want to deter you from stepping on them, not scare you into doing so.
- totallynothoney 1y ago
  If I'm stuck living with someone and they regularly punch me in the face for "preventative" reasons, I'll put rat poison in their coffee. Domestic abuser logic seems ill-advised as foreign policy. Everyone already knows the US MIC can kill them personally with impunity if wished.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago

Is it worth it? Like 70 million people died in WWII but an estimated 5 billion will die in a full nuclear exchange. That's like 70 world wars worth of people.

thefz 1y ago

Was the nuclear deterrent a tool that could be used outside of war to spy on basically anyone on earth?