Why do people argue for nuclear disarmament when history has shown that nuclear weapons are the only thing preventing a major war between two developed nations?
Because fear.
Because ordinary wars between major powers kill lots of people, in the unlikely event of a nuclear war everyone dies.
>>313912
Because many people on this planet are just plain stupid and ignorant.
>>313912
> Why do people argue for nuclear disarmament when history has shown that nuclear weapons are the only thing preventing a major war between two developed nations?
We can start with the fact that history hasn't proven any such thing, and that Hegemonic Stability Theory provides a far neater explanation for the relative lack of warring post WW2.
Because hippies are retarded.
>Why do people argue for nuclear disarmament
Russian psyops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures#Supporting_political_movements
>According to Sergei Tretyakov, "The KGB was responsible for creating the entire nuclear winter story to stop the Pershing II missiles."[4] Tretyakov says that the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying the missiles in Western Europe and that, directed by Yuri Andropov, they used the Soviet Peace Committee, a government organization, to organize and finance demonstrations in Europe against US bases.[4][5][6] He claims that misinformation based on a faked "doomsday report" by the Soviet Academy of Sciences about the effect of nuclear war on climate was distributed to peace groups, the environmental movement and the journal Ambio,[4] which carried a key article on the topic in 1982.
>>313953
>We can start with the fact that history hasn't proven any such thing
The concept of MAD prevented the cold war from going hot. USA and Russia fought each other through proxy wars only. Hence no developed nations have fought each other in conventional warfare since ww2.
Because old style wars were kinda cool and nuclear weapons have made history very boring, with slight intervals of interest when total global annihilation of the human race is a possibility.
>>313977
>The concept of MAD prevented the cold war from going hot. USA and Russia fought each other through proxy wars only. Hence no developed nations have fought each other in conventional warfare since ww2.
And you know this how exactly? Bear in mind, the nuclear fallback in itself governed strategic choices, especially in armament levels.
In a world where nuclear weapons don't exist, the U.S., with its greater industrialization and population levels, simply builds up a conventional force that can match what the USSR has and sits in Germany with it. Peace preserved, because the Soviets don't want to take on a force they can't beat, and the U.S. doesn't want to go through the hassle and bloodshed involved in chopping their way to Moscow and imposing a government there.
Peace preserved, the same way it was preserved during Roman, Mongolian, and British hegemonies.
>>313977
MAD is exclusively an american/'western' theory. both Russians and the Chinese believed they could survive in the initial nuclear strikes and then win a conventional war.
>>313968
Everyone saying anything other than this is a liar.
>>313991
>with its greater industrialization and population levels, simply builds up a conventional force that can match what the USSR has
you realize that strategy is what bankrupted the USSR in the 80's right?
If we had done the same WE would have lost cold war becuase our military would've been unsustainable.
>Soviets don't want to take on a force they can't beat,
That would have not deterred Stalin or Khrushchev.
>>313991
>And you know this how exactly?
Because that's how it happened?
>U.S., with its greater industrialization and population levels, simply builds up a conventional force that can match what the USSR has and sits in Germany with it.
I'm sure West Germany wouldn't mind 5 million American troops on it's soil and tens of thousands of tanks.
Building up a conventional force would cost too much and supply might not even be feasible across the Atlantic. Remember on of the reasons the first atom bomb was built in the first place so the US didn't have to fight a massive conventional battle in an invasion of Japan.
>>313991
>Peace preserved, because the Soviets don't want to take on a force they can't beat, and the U.S. doesn't want to go through the hassle and bloodshed involved in chopping their way to Moscow
Who says the Soviets think they wouldn't be able to beat a conventional US force? They definitely could have between 1945-1950.
And it's doubtful the US could have invaded Russia successfully and conquered Moscow. Everything is pure speculation and fantasy.
>>314016
>you realize that strategy is what bankrupted the USSR in the 80's right?
>If we had done the same WE would have lost cold war becuase our military would've been unsustainable.
You realize that the U.S. had roughly 5 times the GDP of the Soviets, and could quite easily match them if they wanted and still continue to meet civilian necessities and continued economic growth?
>That would have not deterred Stalin or Khrushchev.
Yes, the ultra-conservative Stalin, who waited and hesitated over attacking fucking Romania, would have charged headlong into an attack against an opponent whose heartland he can't even get to, and have to fight at near even odds at the outset, and a long term odds that give him no chance at all.
>>314046
>Because that's how it happened?
Yes, I"m sure the enormous U.S. economic superiority had nothing to do with it, nor the ease at which the U.S. could convert that to military assets should they want. It was totally nukes and only nukes! [/sarcasm]
>I'm sure West Germany wouldn't mind 5 million American troops on it's soil and tens of thousands of tanks.
They historically complained whenever the U.S. withdrew troops. They were actually kind of scared of the Soviets.
>Building up a conventional force would cost too much and supply might not even be feasible across the Atlantic.
[citation needed] They were planning an ultra-huge buildup to continue on into 46 and 47 should Germany keep fighting, and could supply all of that.
>Remember on of the reasons the first atom bomb was built in the first place so the US didn't have to fight a massive conventional battle in an invasion of Japan
Yes, and had the atom bomb not existed, they were fully prepared to try Downfall.
>>314061
>Who says the Soviets think they wouldn't be able to beat a conventional US force? They definitely could have between 1945-1950.
Because the U.S. under-built its military post WW2 and relied upon nuclear deterrence in order to preserve the balance of force. Again, 5 times GDP. You can channel that into a far more powerful military post Industrial revolution.
>And it's doubtful the US could have invaded Russia successfully and conquered Moscow. Everything is pure speculation and fantasy.
With enough force they could have. Granted, it's extremely doubtful they would militarize to that point, but we are talking roughly 3:2 population and 4-5:1 wealth. You can turn out a hell of an army with that if you really set your mind to it.
>>314089
>Yes, I"m sure the enormous U.S. economic superiority had nothing to do with it, nor the ease at which the U.S. could convert that to military assets should they want. It was totally nukes and only nukes! [/sarcasm]
Please read a book on MAD, the fact 100 million casualties could be inflicted in 24 hours had more of an effect than a countrues economy.
>With enough force they could have. Granted, it's extremely doubtful they would militarize to that point, but we are talking roughly 3:2 population and 4-5:1 wealth. You can turn out a hell of an army with that if you really set your mind to it.
The US population isn't going to take tens of millions of casualties, nukes are and were the only viable deterrence. A world without nukes would see another world war sometime in the 20th century.
>They historically complained whenever the U.S. withdrew troops. They were actually kind of scared of the Soviets.
They complained because they needed enough to stall a Soviet advance before America, France and the UK used their nukes. Big difference between that and needing bases for millions of men and storage for 20k tanks allover the German countryside. Which is what would be needed in a world without nukes.
[citation needed] They were planning an ultra-huge buildup to continue on into 46 and 47 should Germany keep fighting, and could supply all of that.
[citation needed]
>Yes, and had the atom bomb not existed, they were fully prepared to try Downfall.
By operation downfall the Japs had no Navy or Airforce left and most of their army was either destroyed or still in China. Incomparable with fighting the Soviet Union in a conventional war.
>>313917
There aren't nearly enough nukes to knockout all of humanity and it would only take a generation or two before people started repopulating any nuked areas.
The real problem here in America is that our country would be inherited by everyone in the flyover states.
Only reason I don't support nuclear weapons is because it ruined the traditional cycle of Empires and war.
>>313912
A war between NATO and Commintern nations would be rad without any nukes.
That's why I want disarmament. I want to see a replay of WWII only using F-22s and M1A1-Abrams
>>313953
Well, I mean Ukraine isn't a country, after all.
>>313912
Becuase if the slight chance the deterinat does fail, we're done. It's somewhat like "this button has a 1/10000000 chance of destroying the universe if it is pressed and not destroyed instead". Will you keep the button? Statistically nothing will happen, but the results if the small chance does occur is disasterous.
Thinking like that
>>315069
deterrent*
>>313991
>conventional force that can match what the USSR has
top kek, NATO wan't able to build conventional army to match SSSR and satellites. Thats why they bet on nukes and massive retaliation.
>>315040
>Ukraine got rid of nukes in exchange of guarantee of territorial integrity
it makes nuclear disarmament so appealing
>>313912
Nukes won't prevent war forever. If you look at ww2, chemical weapons were considered the most deadly weapon that every power had but nobody used. Even at the end, Hitler refrained from using it(reluctantly). By this logic, if another state was conquered, they would probably refrain from using nukes as it would be end to all people, including there own. No, there will be another war. It will probably last a short time but claim many, many casualties.
>>315114
>Hitler refrained from using chemical weapons.
Pfft. Look what all that integrity got him.
>>315268
He'd have gotten raped sooner if he did.
Allied logistics were motorized because lol Detroit. Axis logistics were still mainly horse drawn.
In the event of a gas war, the Wehrmacht would be crippled overnight.
>>313912
Mh, people really do need to get the idea that a nuclear war does not *have* to be on an apocalyptic scale.
Limited nuclear wars are possible.
Citation: Current US policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection
NUTS > MAD
Limited nuclear war argues that by the fact that everything on the table (for even the simplest infraction) it provides a far greater deterrent value because of the nuclear threshold (when to use the nukes) being far lower than compared to MAD.
MAD: Gunshot for a gunshot.
NUTS: Any possible reaction.
If you cannot be sure of your opponent's move, would you not be more cautious compared to if you knew his reaction?
Whilst NUTS does have its ambiguity. That's actually its strength, the ambiguity is actually the thing that gives it clarity, both sides CANNOT make assumptions, unlike in MAD which presumes that nuclear attack shall be met with a nuclear response - which leaves allowance for lower intensity conflicts to happen. Both must constantly tell one another what they are doing in order to prevent misunderstanding.
