When opposing nations gained access to nuclear weapons, it fundamentally changed the logic of war. You might say that it made questions about war more cleanly logical—with nuclear-armed belligerents, there are fewer classic military analyses about morale, materiel, and maneuverings. Hundreds of small-scale tactical decisions dissolve into a few hugely important large-scale strategic ones, like, What happens if one side drops a nuclear bomb on its nuclear-armed opponent?
Using a dangerous weapon like a nuclear bomb can of course provoke dangerous responses. If one country crosses the nuclear line, what will its opponent do? What will its allies, or other nuclear-armed states do? The decision to use a nuclear weapon is practically nothing next to the chain reaction it begins. The act of one nation simply developing a nuclear weapon can provoke a “nuclear proliferation cascade,” as other nations, concerned about new nuclear-armed rivals, rush to follow suit. This is cited as one reason why it’s so important to prevent Iran from building its own nuclear weapons.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Mankind since Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been incredibly lucky.
9 comments:
@wnu luck is part of it. But there's another much more important reason.
Over the last few decades the world has become less religious. While you still have a lot of people identifying themselves as xyz during census, the people who believe in heaven and a glorious afterlife are thank God (pun intended) fewer.Especially those with power. Trump is an example. He says he is Christian to appease to the electorate, but he barely would qualify. Kim Jong-Un is either atheist or agnostic. China's Xi is atheist. French macron is atheist. Leadership of Pakistan is Muslim, but judging from their actions even they are not hardcore believers. They know there's nothing, in all likelihood.
So the leaders -as long as they have it good on earth - money and women or men- will not use nukes unless ego gets involved.
That is why we are saver.
That and of course trade between nations.
On that topic. If Trump for whatever reason stops being president - then we're f'cked. Well, North Korea is for sure gone. Because Mike Pence is a true believer. He scares me. He believes in all the religious stuff and believes he's been selected as VP for a bigger l reason. Just look at his eyes when he stands behind Trump during a speech. That kind of delusion and self-centeredness is what starts nuclear wars. Hillary Clinton is obviously not a deeply religious person but she's so self-centered and self-entitled that I'm really happy she's not president either. Trump - the materialistic ego maniac - is actually better for peace. Why? He's got property all around the world. Do you really think he wants to risk any of his possessions for some war he doesn't believe in? Pence has nothing. He's poor. The poor and desperate long for an afterlife in which there's something better. That's why the Islamic radicals-and ISIS especially -would actually use nukes on everyone. They always said they would and now, with their caliphate,money and bi*ches gone, they've got nothing to keep them going throughout the day but hatred.
If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most peaceful nation on earth, while countries like some in Latin America or Eastern Europe the most belligerent and aggressive
Idiotic sentiments. Hitler and Stalin should then be more trustworthy than Churchill or Truman, since they do not believe in God.
Both Trump and Putin are believing Christians. Both Pakistanis and Indians are hardcore believers in Islam and Hindu. Macron believes in nobody but himself. Merkel is Christian.
With your reasoning mankind should put its hope on Kim and Xi since they are atheistic communists. Talk about snowflake reasoning ha ha.
The Aliens must be getting frustrated waiting for us to obliterate ourselves so they can take over the world. As for religion, remember when Christ said "My kingdom is not of this world." he was reminding us he was half human, half alien.
Your logic is flawed. In conventional warfare opposing sides assume they can survive/win. ..only once they realise they can't win, they surrender and sometimes the leaders are killed, completely in disbelieve. So both were not necessarily mad men from a strategic perspective. .both at some point had reason to believe they might win. Hitler was in the end wrong (morally wrong all the time and strategically in the end). Anyways. In nuclear warfare the assumption is both parties lose, ie there's no point in engaging as it is MAD - Mutually assured destruction. And I would argue the reduction of religion is helpful in that aspect as it reduces the likelihood from a game theory perspective that there's any successful outcome possible to a rationale player. If you argue that Hitler from the beginning was a lunatic from a strategic point of view (and I might share this perspective..his madness is just as high, just much much more evil than many religions - at least from modern interpretations. Happy to argue that too).. getting bored even writing this. Hope you got it
Only if religion were the only madness. It is not.
Fun thing you got bored writning, I got bored as well reading your stuff ha ha. I guess Dawkins has male groupies as well.
Damn, alien Jesus?! Do go on
*makes popcorn*
Post a Comment