This comment section seems to assume that just because the cold war never went nuclear, it never could have. It also seems to forget the stress of living under constant threat of nuclear war.
We need to get rid of nukes, not build new ones. One of our core projects as humanity should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. Our failure to do so is the fault of the Americans as much as the Russians, if not more. You guys sure love your bombs.
Thank you. It makes me lose hope for the future of humanity everytime I read comments saying we should remake the mistakes of our past. If we had nukes in 1914, the world would have ended because the Archduke of Austria was shot.
The Archduke of Austria, a title that doesn’t exist anymore, was the heir to rule Austria-Hungary, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. He was killed by a Bosnian because he didn’t like being a part of Austria-Hungary. Bosnia would later become a part of Yugoslavia, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. How many nukes would have been launched to save these meaningless titles and borders?
Well, my guess is that there wouldn’t have been a WW1 if nukes were present. Also, there wouldn’t have been a WW1 (as we know it) if pre-war leaders had known it would be a trench war of attrition.
Also, WW3 would probably have been a reality if nukes weren’t present.
But what should one do if one has a neighbor who constantly threatens with nuclear annihilation and who doesn’t respect anyone who’s not also a nuclear power? Just give in? I feel that we’re no longer in a Nash equilibrium.
Build up defence, and a plausible threat using other less awful weapons.
Nuclear threatens the civil population. Despots like Putin might not even care all that much about that. What we need is targeted weapons and intelligence. Putin should expect that, if he launches a nuke, it might not mean that Moscow will be transformed to ashes, but we’ll take out him and his crooks with targeted strikes wherever they may hide.
The Russians have a history of burning their cities to the ground, and of sacrificing their population for strategic reasons. Targeting the civilian population is pointless. We can do a lot better with targeted strikes, and with modern technology it should be possible.
It’s hard to launch a precision counter-strike when your adversary has the capability and quantity of nukes to not only completely overwhelm your air defense systems, but own enoughnukes to accept a loss of 80% of them and still have enough going through every layer of your countries defenses to destroy you and the entire rest of the world 6 times over.
Considering this is the problem, I struggle to believe “more nukes” is the solution. No matter how much American political realists enjoy jerking off to their doomsday scenarios.
Cool, but no county is going to say “let’s build just one nuke for deterrence and stop there”.
Also, after witnessing what happened in Libya and Ukraine, no country is going to say “no nukes needed, let’s dismantle what we have, we’re a sovereign and secure country”.
Pandora’s Box is opened and you all are living in a fucking fantasy world where no bullies exist or will never come to exist in the future.
Obama made this a goal of his second term, and while he achieved some success, the relationship between the west and the other major nuclear powers has significantly worsened since then.
It’s an admirable goal, but I’m not sure it’s going to be feasible any time in the near future.
This comment section seems to assume that just because the cold war never went nuclear, it never could have. It also seems to forget the stress of living under constant threat of nuclear war.
We need to get rid of nukes, not build new ones. One of our core projects as humanity should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. Our failure to do so is the fault of the Americans as much as the Russians, if not more. You guys sure love your bombs.
So to answer the question: Nah, fuck that.
Thank you. It makes me lose hope for the future of humanity everytime I read comments saying we should remake the mistakes of our past. If we had nukes in 1914, the world would have ended because the Archduke of Austria was shot.
The Archduke of Austria, a title that doesn’t exist anymore, was the heir to rule Austria-Hungary, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. He was killed by a Bosnian because he didn’t like being a part of Austria-Hungary. Bosnia would later become a part of Yugoslavia, a country that doesn’t exist anymore. How many nukes would have been launched to save these meaningless titles and borders?
and this sounds like and Ace Combat Zero radio call
Well, my guess is that there wouldn’t have been a WW1 if nukes were present. Also, there wouldn’t have been a WW1 (as we know it) if pre-war leaders had known it would be a trench war of attrition.
Also, WW3 would probably have been a reality if nukes weren’t present.
By the logic of mad, those countries would still exist.
But what should one do if one has a neighbor who constantly threatens with nuclear annihilation and who doesn’t respect anyone who’s not also a nuclear power? Just give in? I feel that we’re no longer in a Nash equilibrium.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Build up defence, and a plausible threat using other less awful weapons.
Nuclear threatens the civil population. Despots like Putin might not even care all that much about that. What we need is targeted weapons and intelligence. Putin should expect that, if he launches a nuke, it might not mean that Moscow will be transformed to ashes, but we’ll take out him and his crooks with targeted strikes wherever they may hide.
The Russians have a history of burning their cities to the ground, and of sacrificing their population for strategic reasons. Targeting the civilian population is pointless. We can do a lot better with targeted strikes, and with modern technology it should be possible.
It’s hard to launch a precision counter-strike when your adversary has the capability and quantity of nukes to not only completely overwhelm your air defense systems, but own enough nukes to accept a loss of 80% of them and still have enough going through every layer of your countries defenses to destroy you and the entire rest of the world 6 times over.
Considering this is the problem, I struggle to believe “more nukes” is the solution. No matter how much American political realists enjoy jerking off to their doomsday scenarios.
Cool, but no county is going to say “let’s build just one nuke for deterrence and stop there”.
Also, after witnessing what happened in Libya and Ukraine, no country is going to say “no nukes needed, let’s dismantle what we have, we’re a sovereign and secure country”.
Pandora’s Box is opened and you all are living in a fucking fantasy world where no bullies exist or will never come to exist in the future.
Fair point.
deleted by creator
Obama made this a goal of his second term, and while he achieved some success, the relationship between the west and the other major nuclear powers has significantly worsened since then.
It’s an admirable goal, but I’m not sure it’s going to be feasible any time in the near future.
This sounds like a Metal Gear Solid codec call
If it ever goes nuclear, it doesn’t matter. You’re toast. So nukes keep aggressors like Russia, out of Ukraine (if they had not given up their nukes)