4 ms·

Well consider the following question, is it crazy to call Nuclear Weapons one of the biggest peace-keeping phenomena of all time? It appears that because of MA

Well consider the following question, is it crazy to call Nuclear Weapons one of the biggest peace-keeping phenomena of all time? It appears that because of MAD, sovereignty between Nuclear armed countries is pretty much ensured. I mean I'm scared to death by Nuclear weapons (intellectually scared, similar to say Global Warming being a gigantic threat), but I can't help but wonder if these things don't prevent a WW3, and force conflicts to be resolved diplomatically, through economic sanctions, cyberwar, through export of ideology or comparatively smaller 'cold war' type conflicts. e.g. Yemen today is essentially Iran fighting Saudi Arabia for a bit of regional influence in a way without Iran & ally Russia/China actually fighting with Saudi & ally US/West. Conflicts that are all preferable in scale to an all out WW3, which wouldn't happen (on paper) because of MAD due to Nuclear Weapons.

digi_owl 12y ago
The question is, what are the fighting for. Nukes makes zero sense if it is a resource war, and those are the oldest ones there is. A influence war also has little use for nukes, as you want those friendly to you to live and thrive afterwards. As best i can tell the only time using nukes "make sense" is when faced with a enemy that is committed to your total elimination, and that are completely unified in this goal.