So, considering the unlikely event that the world undergoes complete nuclear disarmament, will this be actually any good?
On the one hand, it would eliminate the possibility that some wacky leader somewhere could set one off, killing some great number of people and triggering world destruction through repeated, alternated retaliation.
On the other hand, I really do believe nukes work as a deterrent, not only from nuclear strikes from other parties, but to conventional, full-scale warfare between major world powers.
What are your thoughts, /pol/?
What's wrong with full scale warfare? The lack of it may very well be responsible for our current course.
>>70494285
it would be illegal to remove nukes from the world.
>>70494352
I mean, assuming peace to be a general objective within the world.
Sure, I agree that omission from war is not always the answer, but it's a reasonable assumption that people wish for peace and all that shit.
>>70494285
I think everyone decided not to use nukes at this point. In fact, most countries work towards global objectives, maybe there are opposing blocks, but only block conflicts would use nukes.
>>70494423
How so?
Even then, I'm pretty sure nuclear disarmamentists are seeking to make it, uh, legal.
>>70494541
There's not even a need to agree, is there? There's the whole thing about "mutually assured destruction" to assure nukes don't get used. And anyone who uses nukes against a nation that doesn't have them is sure to become an instant enemy of the world (I mean, anyone post WWII).
>>70494285
On one hand, at least if we have full blown wars that will tear up a lot of the world, we can recover.
On the other hand, it only takes one mistake to annihilate the planet comparable to mass extinction events to which we will most certainly never recover from and go extinct.
>>70494285
Yeah I think certain responsible parties need a handful of nuclear weapons... no more than 200 warheads per nation, with maybe 4 nations having them. That will always be a Damocles Sword above the heads of any group acting too retarded are crazy or to keep power, aggressive entities under control they can be used for good purposes.
The huge peak stockpiles were not so good. But 800-1000 moderate yield warheads would never destroy civilization. Ruin it, sure, but never end it.
>>70494285
Never happen unless you impose a global police state.
>>70494285
>>70494496
Uses an image from a series devoted to the ethical ramifications of nuclear warheads.
25 year series detailing to minute details using real life historical events that deterrence is a hopeless pipe dream
Believes deterrence is a viable political strategy
>nowthisisshitposting.jpg
>mysidea.jpg
>huehuehuehuehue.jpg
>>70494779
That's a good point.
But I guess the current world policy is to "avoid mistakes" even if there's the risk, while allowing the world to develop and people to live their normal lives in peace within the limits of what's possible as it is.
>>70494984
>Believes deterrence is a viable political strategy
Could you explain why it wouldn't be? I mean, it has prevented a third world war up until now. Not using this as a definitive argument, just pointing it out as I ask you sincerely.
>>70494984
nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. No country is going to trust every other country to do away with nukes.
No country with nukes has been the victim of a full scale invasion.
>deterrence is a hopeless pipe dream
... hmm yup. American flag. dont know why i bother with you people.
>>70495310
As I said, deterrence as it is has worked until now.
