[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_larges...
[2] http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
tl;dr those who protect peace also nurture war.
See also
>The Decline of War - We are experiencing one of the least discussed, yet most remarkable cultural shifts of all time: war, one of our species’ most abiding and defining social practices, is at its lowest ebb ever
https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b...
Yuro Orlov: "I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of those men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year, sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So, you call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."
Lord of War. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295
The world is becoming more peaceful.
And in theory, nuclear weapons make the world more so, which is why these countries pursue them. Despite what the mainstream news likes to report, there's a microscopic probability that the DPRK would attempt to use a nuke offensively.
Probability of nuclear war after nuclear weapons were invented: > 0
No matter what you say, fact remains that by simply developing nuclear weapons, we've dramatically increased the chances of a nuclear war in the future.
I would like to believe that, but I'm not so sure I do. There have been plenty of people in history who have advocated a nuclear first strike: MacArthur and 'Che' Guevara being two examples. I don't feel that Kim Jong Un or the North Korean government are particularly rational.
[Edited for spelling]
Honestly, I don't know how the U.S. would respond to such an event, especially if they were not certain that they could prevent another launch.
The US is obligated by treaty to defend Japan against imminent military threat[0]. As far as I know, that doesn't allow for a preemptive strike by the US, but landing a nuke on Japanese territory would probably require the US to respond in kind.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_a...
I think a large conventional attack (with the blessing of China and Russia and possibly also their assistance) is far more likely. That is what I would do. However, you need to be reasonably confident that you can take out their ability to make further nuclear launches not to mention conventional attacks against the South. Remember that Seoul is within artillery range.
At this point, the consequences of not acting are probably greater than the consequences of attacking, but I don't see a scenario where it really ends well for anybody. Would the North take that risk? I certainly hope not, but as I said, I don't trust them to be rational.
As sadly as it sound, the H-bomb seems to promote peace through the status-quo : developped country (eg. USA, UK, France, ..) send troops but wheres there is no nuclear threats. Damocles Swords like that (nuclear / bio weapons) prevents us to go to traditional war against each others. Without them, we will end fighting each others, with fists and stones if needed.
It might be due to the lack of this equlibrium weapons that terrorism arise : they can't fight traditionally on their land, neither can't they protect their ideology, so they aims at our weakest part.
* Oh and, as a side note, it only seems to prevents physical war. Nowadays we fight and kill rather through our economy than our bullets.
I don't think it's quite a MAD situation. Hopefully very few are so disillusioned as to think that packing heat is the only thing stopping this whole place from erupting into gun-fire.
[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment [1]: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
As an aside, on the topic of American violence itself, I recall reading a study a while back that America has always had much higher levels of violence than European nations, but I cannot seem to find it now. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about?
Skip to 14:00 for the relevant part.
The number of casualties in conflicts has going down FAST in the second part of the 20th century. We are in a historical worldwide period of unprecedented peace.
The most recent aberrant point in that downward path has been the Iraq war. But even this one pales in comparisons of the horrors of the past.
[0] - http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
(I love wait but why, and Tim Urban writes some fantastic stuff, but this particular page is just an embedded video)
If they had the means to fight back like the Vietnamese did, it would have been a whole different ball game.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-after-1945/
Don't pin me down on this one. Statistics differ because they count differently. However, overall they will agree that the number of conflicts is declining.
On a side note, the number homicides is also constantly declining in most developed countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...
Now where's your citation to the historical increase in violence?
The continuous gun pointing has been some of the safest times in all of human history. Sure it's probably bad for your nerves if you think about the reasoning behind how it all works, but I'd much rather have this than go back to actually using conventional weapons on a regular basis.
When was the last time that happened before nuclear weapons? I can't think of a time without going back at least a millenium.
And the cold war peace have not been that much different from the colonial times.
IOW mankind reached such astounding levels of destruction potential that it just obliterated the possibility of war between potent parties.
Case in point, I'm confident we could build even more powerful weapons, but we don't, because it's useless.