Nuclear weapons are the only things that stop countries from going to war. They're why we don't have world wars any more. I think that's a big plus for nukes!
However, nuclear war between the US & USSR was not prevented by the existence of nuclear weapons. Even ignoring the logical absurdity this would require, the simple fact is that nuclear war nearly happened on many occasions as a result of various misadventures, and it was a matter of pure dumb luck that it didn't. It literally is just an accident of fortune that we didn't have a world-encircling cataclysm. Your and my existence hinges merely on happenstance. Huge amounts of documentation attest to this. The best single-volume account is probably Eric Schlosser's Command and Control.
Nuclear weapons don't prevent war. They reduce the frequency of some types of conventional war, at the cost of making cataclysm absolutely inevitable. They will be used at some point, whether by malign choice or accident. It is only a matter of time.
There are a whole bunch of other questions discussed by military historians which complicate the matter further, arguing (for example) that nuclear weapons increase the number and length of proxy wars. But even that's all a detail in the face of the manifest fact that if nuclear weapons continue to be deployed, we will have a nuclear war one day.
So perhaps we should be working on some less risky peace-building efforts, while there's still time?
No - this is false.
It was the existential and immense nature of the consequences of war that enabled the parties to 'back down'.
Without nukes - the US and USSR would have likely started a bunch of scuffles here and there.
There's a great chance that US/USSR navies duked it out over Cuba - because the consequences would have been likely very limited - unless they escalated of course.
Yes, we were lucky that it didn't go down as well, but nukes have been a huge factor in keeping the war basically cold..
"some less risky peace-building efforts" - there is really no such thing. 'Balancing Power' is what creates peace for the most part.
They did.
False. 'Proxy wars' is a misleading title.
The Korean war was not a 'proxy war' it was a real war, that happened to also be a proxy for other powers.
Country A does not fight random country B for no reason.
They are generally real conflicts where their actions may happen to have geostragetic alignment with other powers.
No, they usually don't. But countries, nations, and people often have very long lasting disagreements. Instrumentalizing those, for another "bigger" cause isn't really that hard of a task for the far more influential and powerful countries C and D.
C and D end up supplying A and B with money, weapons, training and sometimes even direct manpower.
The result is usually a conflict that escalates much more quickly in scope and severity than it would have without the involvement of C and D.
The outcome is a tire fire that will burn for my lifetime at least.
Run the experiment several times, and this luck inevitably runs out. Continue with nuclear weapons, and there just will be a nuclear war.
I don't have a good explanation for that number of coincidences, though.
Why these guys aren't better known, I have no idea.
[0] http://time.com/4947492/stanislav-petrov-soviet-officer-nucl...
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
My assumption is that those scientists working on the bomb, where perfectly aware of what humanity was capable of (even with democracy and hightech) and decided to raise us this rockets as a monumental finger of "Never again or never ever after!". Way to go to tame a beast, who thinks you are a useful plaything. Well played Mr.Oppenheimer.
Rage all you want upon this monument of reason, erected against the intellectual treason you commit against the humanity that is- not the humanity you wish for.
The inferno of the first WorldWar, the Inferno of the second WorldWar, the various Colonial Wars and all the useless carnage before - these all started with a humanity capable of deducing deterrence, but true deterrence appeared first in presidential discussions after the existence of ICBMs.
They are the reason that Turkey can shoot down Russian fighters without Russia attacking Turkey.
They are the reason USA can invade Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. without being counter-attacked by others.
Because of nuclear weapons, we can have dozens of "wars" all the time where nobody has the courage to stop the 10Ks of deaths in each one because we're terrified of millions of deaths.
I don't know how you can say it stops countries from going to war. The largest nuclear powers are in a constant state of war, daring anyone to stop them.
Current situation sucks, but I'm not convinced removing nukes from the equation would improve it.
Compare with a story of a real country not so long ago. A large power invented a false reason to start a war, and then suddenly the country gets bombed all across the territory, and few days later there are shock troops in the capital. Total death toll of citizens of this country is, to date, around 0.55M [0].
Were you living there, I'm not sure you'd have time, or capacity, to "go camping until it all blows over".
Now this situation - and a bunch of similar ones in recent years - only reinforces the perception that if you don't have nuclear weapons, or don't have very close friends with some, you risk being abused or outright invaded by the larger players. It's actually no surprise NK is so aggressive in their nuclear program.
--
[0] - I'm counting the 0.37M of those who opposed the invasion and 0.18M who switched sides.
By the most liberal estimates, the Iraq war killed 1 million. World War 2 killed 70 million easy.
Gulf Arab states on the ground hunted him down, it was Qatari forces that likely killed him.
The US did some drones, AWACS and coordination, but to suggest it was the US is not quit fair.
This is not what the world thinks.
Gaddafi was not about to obtain nuclear status - not even close.
There's no way he would have been allowed to anyhow.
Libya is a fairly small country, smaller than Chicago, fragmented, spread apart, with no industry other than some oil.
North Korea is not remotely comparable to Libya - I don't think the North Koreans see a true analogy.
Another great country, that totally does not get pushed around comes to mind. Israel. Surrounded by enemys, with some really nasty wars in its recent history- that suddenly stopped.
Or India, dear god, that country was fractured and ripe for the taking- and yet, suddenly its independence is well respected- just like it is by all those companies and foreign powers in africa.
I wonder why.(not)
Delusional Intentions do not equal good outcomes, just because they timewise correlated.
This is ridiculous.
The US didn't take a drop of Iraqi, Kuwaiti or Libyan Oil.
The US could take all the Oil in the Middle East in a heartbeat if it wanted to.
This whole 'war for Oil' bit is mostly rubbish.
'War for continued access to energy' yes - but the us is not grabbing resources with military power, moreover, North Korea has nothing anyone wants.
Current US Intel chief on this subject: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nu...
"Don’t invade a country if you are too lazy to learn the language." is a good rule of thumb here.
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_mili...
Except for the part where Gaddaffi was using his military against half his nation in revolt.
If a nation-state is doing it's dirty work through a terrorist organization, MAD no longer works.
Nuclear weapons states and their force commanders are well aware of this capability. It’s been publicly advertised for decades for deterrence.
Since we're on the U.S. - they have nukes and a clear technological superiority to everyone else. I don't see them doing much for world peace though.
Veto power in the security council strongly correlates with being a nuclear power.