2 ms·
Believe it or not, there are people who think that a world without nuclear warheads and the MAD equilibrium [1] would be safer. This is despite the documented h
by nine_k 1y ago
Believe it or not, there are people who think that a world without nuclear warheads and the MAD equilibrium [1] would be safer. This is despite the documented history of several millennia of such world existing, and being plagued with constant wars fought with conventional weapons.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
- TimorousBestie 1y agoI’m a bit confused by your phrasing. Isn’t our world also plagued by constant wars fought with conventional weapons?
- nine_k 1y agoIt is, but these are much smaller-scale. The border between France and Germany has seen full eighty years of peace, which that land probably did not see since the time German and French nations formed. It's hard to imagine a full-on war between two countries possessing nuclear weapons, because it would be suicidal for the attacking party, so e.g. India and Pakistan remain at peace.
- PaulHoule 1y agoThere are nuclear weapons and then there is nuclear power. I think fear over nuclear weapons is weaponized to keep us dependent on fossil fuels. People weren't so worried about "world wars" prior to 1900 or so because they didn't have fossil fuels to drive/sail/fly around.
- gsf_emergency_2 1y ago>People Politicians/intellectuals have a (unifying) front on nuclear, voters care more about fossil vs solar Mirrors the diverging reception of Abundance?
- archagon 1y agoEven a war at the scale of WWII every half-century is far better than a nuclear exchange. MAD works until it doesn’t. It’s almost inevitable that some cretin will hit the shiny red button at some point.