Isn't it funn how the nuclear weapon is both the greatest development for peace AND war?
Nothing else has made the idea of war more terrible nor peace more desirable.
We're really skating on thin ice though. I mean, we already came pretty close to disaster during the cuban missile crisis.
>>1166281
Daily reminder that deterrence doesn't work, and the only reason we're still alive is due to human nature
Eventually though making nuclear weapons will become too easy and some cultists/nutjobs decide to blow up Earth. "Balance of terror" works only if all parties with nuclear weapons care about self-preservation.
But then again.... It might be really peaceful after that.
>>1166310
Are you saying that the presence of nuclear weapons in a country's arsenal doesn't increase the risk of said country being invaded?
>>1166325
We're long overdue for armegeddon anyway.
>>1166310
>deterrence doesn't work, it's actually deterrence
>>1166294
>we already came pretty close to disaster during the cuban missile crisis
That wasn't even the closest we ever came to nuclear war, just the closest the US came to pushing the button. We came far closer during Able Archer '83 and again in the 90's during the Norwegian Rocket Test.
>>1166449
Faggot
>>1166325
World powers go to great lengths to control Uranium and prevent weak, irrelevant, or unbalanced states from gaining nuclear capacity.
It won't be very easy for a long time. There will probably be a nuclear exchange at some point in the future, because we have come very close to nuclear exchange in the past, but what you're saying won't apply for hundreds of years if ever.
I would say World War II as a whole played the biggest role, with nukes being a piece of the puzzle that set up for relative peace.
When WWII was over, out of the dozens of nations that entered, only 2 came out of the war in a stronger position than when they entered, the US and USSR.
The remaining allies, France, England, China, they were all devastated by the war to a point where victory didn't bring any sort of relief that was seen as truly worth it. Most nations outright struggled to provide food and housing to the survivors as a result of the destroyed farmland and industrial base, causing the greatest refugee crisis in history.
World War II was unlike any other war in that it required a titanic effort from each nation to wage. The ability to keep millions of soldiers fed, keep all that armor repaired and fueled, it was a war that broke every nation not called the US or USSR, the most resource abundant nations on the planet.
World War II taught us that even a conventional war ultimately isn't worth the immense cost to fight, let alone nuclear. That such a war can even bring the worldwide British Empire to its knees under the pressure of fighting such a war.
>>1166451
/thread
>>1166281
It's arguable that the world would be more peaceful today without nukes.
>>1167304
>World powers go to great lengths to control Uranium and prevent weak, irrelevant, or unbalanced states from gaining nuclear capacity.
They're shit at their work then, because Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and it's a barely working state full of wahhabists.
>>1167549
And an impoverished cold-war relic kleptocracy.
