3 ms·

I'm not so sure. So far the threat of nuclear annihilation has seemed to reduce the incidence of major wars, but perhaps that's merely correlation. It is inter

I'm not so sure. So far the threat of nuclear annihilation has seemed to reduce the incidence of major wars, but perhaps that's merely correlation. It is interesting how nuclear war focuses the mind. In previous generations a cavalier attitude was often taken about war, often because nobody believes they will be on the losing side of a war. But with nuclear war there are no winners, only differing degrees of losing. In truth most war is the same, but it's difficult for most folks to see it that way.

Shivetya 12y ago
this only works with rational actors. there are some powers aspiring to nuclear weapons that are not rational, some are openly irrational and use that as leverage
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  I would agree with that as well. Perhaps the reduction in conventional warfare due to nuclear weapons might be a short-lived phase. Given that Iran has as much capability to produce nuclear weapons now as the US did in 1945, and North Korea already has a nuclear stockpile, and many other countries have the technology to begin building nuclear weapons with a lead time of at most a year or two, one can't help but be concerned.
a3n 12y ago
I think a lot of people have died in the "low-grade" proxy wars that have taken the place of major wars, as well as the chronic unsupervised regional conflicts. If we had major wars, then the major wars would take the place of the proxy and chronic wars, through direct replacement. American general: "Yay, now we can kill Russians openly, instead of paying our unreliable clients to kill their unreliable clients!" The problem isn't how we kill each other; we always find a a way. The problem is that we are killing each other.
- lmm 12y ago
  > I think a lot of people have died in the "low-grade" proxy wars that have taken the place of major wars, as well as the chronic unsupervised regional conflicts. A lot of people, yes. But far far fewer than died in the major wars that preceded them.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Statistically, major wars have become increasingly less common and dying in a war has been an increasingly less likely cause of death. That can be difficult to see because war still exists and is still gruesome and in the 21st century it gets in your face in a way that is hard to ignore, but war is still growing less common.
VLM 12y ago
"But with nuclear war there are no winners, only differing degrees of losing." One huge problem is the historical fact of the number of American deaths from the invasion of mainland Japan. That being zero. And given past behavior, frankly losing only two cities means Japan came out ahead in the game too. Looking at the mess we've made of Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam and everywhere else, you can imagine a guy calculating and "either this makes them back down completely, or we lose maybe just two cities... either way it'll be better than letting them invade for a generation..."
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  I doubt any remotely rational actor would look at things that way. Nuclear weapons are more potent than they were in WWII and more numerous. And also more deadly, due to increased population density in most urban areas. If the same nuclear bombs were dropped in the same locations today as in WWII nearly ten times as many people would die. Moreover, the economic loss would be extreme, which serves as a further deterrent.

Shivetya 12y ago

this only works with rational actors. there are some powers aspiring to nuclear weapons that are not rational, some are openly irrational and use that as leverage

InclinedPlane 12y ago
I would agree with that as well. Perhaps the reduction in conventional warfare due to nuclear weapons might be a short-lived phase. Given that Iran has as much capability to produce nuclear weapons now as the US did in 1945, and North Korea already has a nuclear stockpile, and many other countries have the technology to begin building nuclear weapons with a lead time of at most a year or two, one can't help but be concerned.

a3n 12y ago

I think a lot of people have died in the "low-grade" proxy wars that have taken the place of major wars, as well as the chronic unsupervised regional conflicts. If we had major wars, then the major wars would take the place of the proxy and chronic wars, through direct replacement. American general: "Yay, now we can kill Russians openly, instead of paying our unreliable clients to kill their unreliable clients!" The problem isn't how we kill each other; we always find a a way. The problem is that we are killing each other.

lmm 12y ago
> I think a lot of people have died in the "low-grade" proxy wars that have taken the place of major wars, as well as the chronic unsupervised regional conflicts. A lot of people, yes. But far far fewer than died in the major wars that preceded them.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Statistically, major wars have become increasingly less common and dying in a war has been an increasingly less likely cause of death. That can be difficult to see because war still exists and is still gruesome and in the 21st century it gets in your face in a way that is hard to ignore, but war is still growing less common.

VLM 12y ago

"But with nuclear war there are no winners, only differing degrees of losing." One huge problem is the historical fact of the number of American deaths from the invasion of mainland Japan. That being zero. And given past behavior, frankly losing only two cities means Japan came out ahead in the game too. Looking at the mess we've made of Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam and everywhere else, you can imagine a guy calculating and "either this makes them back down completely, or we lose maybe just two cities... either way it'll be better than letting them invade for a generation..."

InclinedPlane 12y ago
I doubt any remotely rational actor would look at things that way. Nuclear weapons are more potent than they were in WWII and more numerous. And also more deadly, due to increased population density in most urban areas. If the same nuclear bombs were dropped in the same locations today as in WWII nearly ten times as many people would die. Moreover, the economic loss would be extreme, which serves as a further deterrent.