Hey, would /his/ be the right place to ask about global nuclear disarmament vs the stockpiling of nuclear arms in the interest of preserving peace between developed nations?
The topic came up at a friend's house earlier today and I'm been wrestling with it on the drive home. I will say, I've used the threat of atomic annihilation (in vidya) to ensure that my enemies/rivals think twice about going to war with me and have thought twice myself when I faced the same threat without countermeasures or the capacity for an equal response. Outside of video games the idea of a cold war scenario and the 11th hour decisions men like Vasili Arkipov may not be there to make compel me to lean towards disarmament...but then I think about the interests of a nation vs the interests of the world! What if I lived somewhere where my sovereignty in the face of encroachment by a larger nation (think NK or Ukraine) could only be guaranteed by nukes?
I don't know. What do you think? Sorry if my thoughts aren't very well developed.
My thinking is.
>nukes trade a constant death toll from conventional conflicts for an unpredictable risk of a much larger death toll
>the less individual command structures there are that are capable of conducting a nuclear strike, the lower the odds of a nuclear strike
>collective defense allows one hegemon with a substantial nuclear arsenal to provide a nuclear umbrella for other countries, while reducing the risk of Dr. Strangelove happening
>it is still possible for treaty obligations to lead into a nuclear holocaust, but clearly defined military commitments reduce the risk of a strategic miscalculation
>negotiations between nuclear powers are essential to prevent an arms race
>nuclear proliferation is generally bad
>>1053160
>>it is still possible for treaty obligations to lead into a nuclear holocaust, but clearly defined military commitments reduce the risk of a strategic miscalculation
Reminds me of WWI without the secrecy.
Is the argument:
>The invention and stockpiling of nuclear weapons stopped large scale wars between global powers
True or common misinformation?
>>1054212
False. Countries military budgets have sky rocketed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and nuclear war is not even a threat anymore.
>>1054228
>since
Did nuclear weapons undeniably stop direct conflict in the cold war?
>>1054232
This is your homework isn't it kid?
Mutually Assured Destruction stopped this direct conflict. The US had measures in place that would allow field commanders to use nukes whenever they saw necessary without Washington's permission. Once the Cold War ended, countries realised the nuclear war was too costly for the one who fired the nukes and now most don't even see it as a threat.
>>1054232
Very debatable.
Nukes were unironically not that important in strategic calculations until the 1970's.
Why?
Because the delivery systems were literally shit or too few until the late 60's in America and late 70's in the USSR.
Only with the advent of ICBM's and Boomers did MAD take effect in our nuclear doctrine.
So, no global war broke out 1945-1970 when nuclear weapons were rather meaningless to overall strategic victory.
It's very likely the world today would be similarly peaceful if we had no nuclear weapons.
>>1054240
MAD didn't take effect in our strategic calculations until the 70's.
For example, the Soviets were objectively outmatched in nuclear war until 1975-1980.
In 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviets had 20 shit ICBM's, 30 shitty strategic bombers that would have mostly been shot down, and 300-400 inaccurate SRBM's.
The DoD and CIA agrees that America could destroy all Cuban missiles if they had the go ahead.
War was only averted because of our fear of Soviet conventional military dominance in Europe, and their fear of our nuclear retaliation.
>>1054240
No, I would've told you about MAD if the question were posed to me, but it'd be me repeating what I've already learned without much insight into the conflict.
I'm looking for perspectives and hindsight highschool doesn't teach you.
>>1054259
But war in Europe was prevented by the Tripwire strategy that the US ingeniously devised. They would position troops right in West Germany making it impossible for the Soviets not to attack, making the US have to retaliate. At the same time, field commanders were given semi-autonomous authority to use small nuclear weapons on the field. Before that, the Soviets did not believe that the US would use nuclear weapons as it had lost too much credibility in it's previous threats before. By putting the power out of the hands of Washington and into the hands of field commanders who would use the weaponry out of stress, the Soviets were successfully deterred from invading Europe.
