if only one side has nukes slavery will be much more widespread if everyone has them all the slave traders competing with each other will be at least mitigated
kind of crazy they saw all the graffiti license plate games that early
kind of crazy they saw all the graffiti license plate games that early
There’s no evidence that is the case.
It has been eighty years since a nuclear weapon was used in an act of aggression.
It would appear a state sort of only really comes to have nuclear weapons when it has got its act together sufficiently to be well enough behaved to not use them.
A sort of maturation process, if you will.
The meek[1] shall inherit the Earth, and all of that.
If we’ve got data, let’s go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let’s go with mine.
1. this is best as interpreted as those who have the ability to use force, but do not use it, except maybe to defend themselves.
Increasing the odds by introducing hundreds of players some willing to gas their own people is rolling the dice. The few countries that have the ability has been responsible but that does not mean that will always be the case or new players will be as responsible.
In about five billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen and expand, engulfing Mercury, Venus, and likely Earth.
In the mean time, you could respond to the argument I actually made.
The level of organisation at the state level required to build a working nuclear weapon, along with the forces working against that, eg. how difficult it’s been for Iran to get across the line, and the fact of the near miss you mentioned, allows most of us, it would seem, to sleep well at night.
If they couldn’t, then they wouldn’t be considered to have superior political power.
With enough power differential that won't even be a consideration.
if everyone had a way to completely disintegrate the planet no one would be above another
I think you might be counting on way too many decision makers to remain rational and wise enough to avoid and defuse non-trivial situations that want to escalate.
In the 8 billion times 8 billion potential nuclear exchanges that universal nuke would enable (64 quadrillion!), there is at least one scary bad one. At any time of day. That you are standing too near.
Please acknowledge my wisdom here. (Hard unblinking stare. Wiggling finger wanders toward red button… “Kind person, I have no interest in harming you, but my sources inform me you have at most one nuke. So I must be prepared to be first. Please keep those hands where I can see them while I only, and with full peaceful intent, rest my finger here.”)
more than nukes one can survive nukes the ability to completely disintegrate the planet for everyone
"John von Neumann" was a very famous and influential person defending just that.
Plus all that nonsense on replicators/celular automata in later life.
Not worthy of the hype as far as I'm concerned.
A world with only the USA would have been far worse.
bad citizen don't you want all the marines and special forces to be employed?
just wow what would jesus say we both know he hates all the savages but he loves jobs more
well it was always pick and choose but i had high hopes for the tech barons sigh