It's basically just a Mexican standoff. Personally I don't think more countries should be allowed to create and have access to nuclear weapons because that makes the others more likely to pull the trigger.

>>1220693
Yes it is just a Mexican stand-off, but now NATO and Russia are currently forced to actually meet with each other to discuss problems.

But maybe that is what is needed, especially since Europe likes to fight devastating wars at the drop of a hat. Now they are forced to agree on things.

I feel that a really horrific war would have occurred if both the Soviet Union and The United States didn't both have nuclear weapons.

India and Pakistan have little skirmishes, but nothing really bad happens because they both have access. North Korea, the most volatile country in the world, has them now, and nothing has happen. They do use the power loosely, but that's just to get food. However no one really wants to fuck with them.

>>1220708
Israel has them and everyone is super butthurt at them, and the middle east is very volatile.

>>1220687
Yes but so does globalism.

Also we don't really need nukes per se because all the major powers have "nukes in the basement" capability, meaning if they didn't have nukes then they could produce nukes in 6 months.

So we don't need nuclear weapons for peace. The responsibility that comes with the power of modern warfare is apparent without them.

>>1220687
The problem with a hypothetical like this is that nuclear weapons affect competing deterrence strategies, and it's almost certain that a different one would be chosen in light of a hypothetical lack of nuclear weapons.

Take for instance the Soviets vs NATO for the Cold War. Historically, the NATO nations never attempted to match the Soviet conventional forces, because they had the nuclear deterrent to fall back on. Given the greater levels of population and industry in the west though, it's almost certain that if nukes don't exist, then you'll see a huge western buildup of tanks and planes and infantry in Europe to protect against the Soviets. The USSR isn't likely to start a war it'll probably lose, but on the other hand, liberal democracies aren't likely to start a war that promises to be expensive, bloody, protracted, and with a hell of an occupation of you do win.

Pointing to nukes and saying they're the peace is a bit of an oversimplification.

Maybe in the 1970's-1980's, but not since 2000 and not before 1970

>>1220737

Bullshit

The only reason MAD worked and sTill works is because the nuclear powers can expect to loose +75% of their population if they ever start shit with another nuclear power.

If we hypothetically said that all nations stood down and dismantled everything, the one nation which kept just 20 warheads would have an immense first strike capability that could take out carrier groups, large population centers, critical military infrastructure etc.

MAD saved the world from another world war

The answer to your question is - it's hard to say. It's trying to crystal-ball gaze and goes into the realm of alternate history. There were factors other than nuclear weapons that prevented conflict between the US and USSR, but sure, nuclear weapons were a big deterrent.

On the other hand, sure, nuclear weapons might prevent any number of conventional wars and save countless millions of lives by doing so. But you shouldn't forget how close we've come to the edge with them, and all it takes is one single fuck up and they begin to represent a very real existential threat to human civilisation, if not our existence as a species. If nuclear weapons prevent 1000 wars, but result in just one all-out nuclear exchange - those millions of lives they've saved don't mean anything. If you encourage a norm where nuclear weapons are seen as peace-makers you encourage their proliferation, and the potential dangers of unstable states gaining access to such weapons are pretty horrifying.

>>1220687
I mean it depends on your definition of peace.

Countries still fight, the only thing that's changed is the nature of the fight. Nukes made conventional war obsolete, true. But now there are just shadow and proxy wars like Syria or cyber wars as is currently going on with China.

Maybe?

But probably not.

>>1220791
>MAD saved the world from another world war

Nope

>>1220958
>Nope
Proof?

>>1223949
We don't have conclusive proof that MAD prevented a world war either.

We honestly don't know for sure besides the fact that we haven't blown ourselves up yet. You are likely to find plenty of scholarship arguing for your favorite reason why regardless of what that reason is.

>>1223961
Fair enough.

>>1220687
No, nuclear weapons don't keep the peace.

The only thing that keeps the peace is leaders who are rational and clear-headed.

If ISIS had nuclear weapons, the concept of MAD doesn't even begin to apply, and they wouldn't keep the peace at all.

>>1223967
This, it's not the weapons themselves but the fear and acknowledgement of mutually assured destruction that kept the peace, which goes out the window when you begin dealing with someone that glorifies and actively seeks martyrdom

>>1220687
At this moment yes but in the future I imagine they will have ways to stop nukes like some kind of shield or highly advanced missile that can adsorb the blast.

>>1220687
>Do major countries having access to nuclear weapons keep them from fighting each other directly?

Obviously no side wants a nuclear war. However, in theory it's possible that a war breaks out but and both sides refrain from using nuclear weapons. Basically, if you're attacked with conventional weapons only it's still not wise to retaliate with nuclear weapons because such an escalation would be even worse than a defeat. Both the aggressor and the defender have an interest in preventing a nuclear escalation of a conventional war. However, the defender has an interest to make the aggressor believe that it would in fact use nukes against an attack with conventional forces in order to deter them from attacking in the first place. During the Cold War, NATO threatened that they would use (tactical) nukes against a conventional attack. It's questionable if they had actually done it though because of the severe risk of escalation.