3 ms·

A nation's strong defensive capabilities deter action. If Ukraine had NATO level arms that could counter Russia's weapons, there would be no war in Ukraine righ

A nation's strong defensive capabilities deter action. If Ukraine had NATO level arms that could counter Russia's weapons, there would be no war in Ukraine right now. Instead, their military is all Soviet relics that current-gen and even most last-gen Russian arms can easily overrun; thus the Russian led artillery, Russian led AA, Russian led forces, and Russian special ops making mincemeat of their military. Its incredible how people pretend deterrence isn't real or a social benefit. Nation state warfare follows pretty simple game theory rules. You'd think techies would understand this. We're living under the most peaceful time in human history thanks to major deterrence, including but not limited to nuclear arms. -- Dr. Steven Pinker, Pulitzer prize-winning author and Harvard psychology professor, writes, “Today we may be living in the most peaceful era in our species’ existence.” He acknowledges: “In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene.” Pinker points out, wars make headlines, but there are fewer conflicts today, and wars don’t kill as many people as they did in the Middle Ages, for instance. Also, global rates of violent crime have plummeted in the last few decades. Pinker notes that the reason for these advances are complex but certainly the rise of education, and a growing willingness to put ourselves in the shoes of others has played its part. http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/were_living_through_the_most_peaceful_era_in_human_history_%E2%80%94%C2%A0with_one_big_exception_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/were_living_through_the_most...

chinathrow 11y ago
> Its incredible how people pretend deterrence isn't real or a social benefit. It's incredible how people pretend deterrence is for social benefit. It brought us already once near a global atomic war. Remember? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis We would live in a better world without nuclear arms, that I'm 100% sure of.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  The alternative to cold wars is hot wars. Do you really want another WWII (60 million dead)? The idea that peace will happen if we make shitty arms is historically untrue. The idea that peace happens when we make cutting-edge arms is historically true.
  - chinathrow 11y ago
    No for fucks sake, the alternative to hot/cold wars is peace. The idea that we have less dead when access to any kind of arms is heavily restricted, how about that?
    - DonQuixote1000 11y ago
      He is is making the correct assumption that even if some people want peace others will be more than happy to kill you and rationalise that it was actually a good thing. So you are both right: the alternative is peace or war. I would definitely prepare for war though. To do otherwise is naive and gratuitously stupid.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Si vis pacem, para bellum may be a practical advice, but the outcome of it is an arms race. Which is a big problem, because that feedback loop ties up resources and manpower that could be better used elsewhere. So even if it is the most practical option now (since we don't have a single global government), we need to recognize how shitty it is and maybe figure out how to reduce its impact.
      - chinathrow 11y ago
        It's not so much about preparing - it's about what you root/vote/lobby for. War should never be on the supporters agenda.
    - emidln 11y ago
      There is very little difference between arms and modern industrial chemicals. Without arms, we can still kill large populations by destroying their water supplies and crops. Even if you managed to rid the world of every weapon more advanced than a knife, if/when conflict arises, we can kill populations at a grander scale than ever before.
    - DonQuixote1000 11y ago
      He is is making the correct assumption that even if some people want peace others will be more than happy to kill you and rationalise that it was actually a good thing. So you are both right: the alternative is peace or war. I would definitely prepare for war though. To do otherwise is naive and gratuitously stupid.
- ethbro 11y ago
  > It brought us already once near a global atomic war. I think we disagree on how important that 'almost' is as a result, and what the alternative was / is.
  - chinathrow 11y ago
    True. One alternative was/is still nuclear de-foresting.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      This is a fact. But the nuclear game theorist's argument has always been that while functionally more dangerous (i.e. life on this planet could be obliterated at any moment), a nuclear-tipped détente has greater stability than any alternative (i.e. it is least likely to lead to hostilities). I see the argument for nuclear de-foresting a lot like the argument against nuclear power. Yes, at face value it seems an obvious best option. However, when compared to the realistic alternatives, other approaches may be preferable. It also allows both sides to maintain a minimal standing army while maximizing the cost of an opponent initiating hostilities. Most of the West's strategic nuclear position has historically been to counter an overwhelming Warsaw Pact numerical advantage in European conventional forces.
- louithethrid 11y ago
  Why not post all the Wikipedia links too bloody mass-murderous wars pre-deterance?
EliRivers 11y ago
Deterrence indeed; the nations keenest right now on developing their own nuclear weapons (DPRK and Iran, I'm looking at you) are doing it because they know damn well it's the only way to be safe from the world's current invasion-happy globe-trotting nation and favoured sidekick (who, to be fair, do seem a lot less keen to invade other countries after the long series of monumental clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan). The question is can they develop them before said warstarters decide to invade anyway? China remembers what the US was thinking the last time it was yomping about near the Yalu River and certainly won't put up with anyone invading the DPRK, so they're safe at least from that quarter, but if I was Iran, having watched Iraq get invaded and then screwed over for a decade for essentially no reason whatsoever, I'd be really keen to have some kind of deterrence before the US decided to invade.

chinathrow 11y ago

> Its incredible how people pretend deterrence isn't real or a social benefit. It's incredible how people pretend deterrence is for social benefit. It brought us already once near a global atomic war. Remember? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis We would live in a better world without nuclear arms, that I'm 100% sure of.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
The alternative to cold wars is hot wars. Do you really want another WWII (60 million dead)? The idea that peace will happen if we make shitty arms is historically untrue. The idea that peace happens when we make cutting-edge arms is historically true.
- chinathrow 11y ago
  No for fucks sake, the alternative to hot/cold wars is peace. The idea that we have less dead when access to any kind of arms is heavily restricted, how about that?
  - DonQuixote1000 11y ago
    He is is making the correct assumption that even if some people want peace others will be more than happy to kill you and rationalise that it was actually a good thing. So you are both right: the alternative is peace or war. I would definitely prepare for war though. To do otherwise is naive and gratuitously stupid.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Si vis pacem, para bellum may be a practical advice, but the outcome of it is an arms race. Which is a big problem, because that feedback loop ties up resources and manpower that could be better used elsewhere. So even if it is the most practical option now (since we don't have a single global government), we need to recognize how shitty it is and maybe figure out how to reduce its impact.
    - chinathrow 11y ago
      It's not so much about preparing - it's about what you root/vote/lobby for. War should never be on the supporters agenda.
  - emidln 11y ago
    There is very little difference between arms and modern industrial chemicals. Without arms, we can still kill large populations by destroying their water supplies and crops. Even if you managed to rid the world of every weapon more advanced than a knife, if/when conflict arises, we can kill populations at a grander scale than ever before.
  - DonQuixote1000 11y ago
    He is is making the correct assumption that even if some people want peace others will be more than happy to kill you and rationalise that it was actually a good thing. So you are both right: the alternative is peace or war. I would definitely prepare for war though. To do otherwise is naive and gratuitously stupid.
ethbro 11y ago
> It brought us already once near a global atomic war. I think we disagree on how important that 'almost' is as a result, and what the alternative was / is.
- chinathrow 11y ago
  True. One alternative was/is still nuclear de-foresting.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    This is a fact. But the nuclear game theorist's argument has always been that while functionally more dangerous (i.e. life on this planet could be obliterated at any moment), a nuclear-tipped détente has greater stability than any alternative (i.e. it is least likely to lead to hostilities). I see the argument for nuclear de-foresting a lot like the argument against nuclear power. Yes, at face value it seems an obvious best option. However, when compared to the realistic alternatives, other approaches may be preferable. It also allows both sides to maintain a minimal standing army while maximizing the cost of an opponent initiating hostilities. Most of the West's strategic nuclear position has historically been to counter an overwhelming Warsaw Pact numerical advantage in European conventional forces.
louithethrid 11y ago
Why not post all the Wikipedia links too bloody mass-murderous wars pre-deterance?

EliRivers 11y ago

Deterrence indeed; the nations keenest right now on developing their own nuclear weapons (DPRK and Iran, I'm looking at you) are doing it because they know damn well it's the only way to be safe from the world's current invasion-happy globe-trotting nation and favoured sidekick (who, to be fair, do seem a lot less keen to invade other countries after the long series of monumental clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan). The question is can they develop them before said warstarters decide to invade anyway? China remembers what the US was thinking the last time it was yomping about near the Yalu River and certainly won't put up with anyone invading the DPRK, so they're safe at least from that quarter, but if I was Iran, having watched Iraq get invaded and then screwed over for a decade for essentially no reason whatsoever, I'd be really keen to have some kind of deterrence before the US decided to invade.