[freeopinion]

I'm not convinced. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan again, Syria, Peru, Mali, ...

When you say "world peace", do you mean European peace? California peace? Where is your world?

[Const-me]

I live in Montenegro. The country was part of Yugoslavia.

I spoke with a guy who fought that war. I asked him "do you think the war would have ended without American intervention?" and he responded "no, I don't think it would".

I wouldn't describe the country as a blooming economy, but it's peace here, for more than 20 years and counting.

[wyager]

None of those countries had nukes, right?

[freeopinion]

Sigh. India, Pakistan, Falkland Islands, Tibet, Israel, ...

And yes, in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq, Syria, and others, one or more parties in the conflicts had nukes.

[wyager]

> in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq, Syria, and others, one or more parties in the conflicts had nukes.

I don't care about the other parties in the conflict. Nukes stop you from getting invaded, not from invading. Afaik, none of these countries were nuclear when they got steamrolled.

[freeopinion]

The original argument was that nuclear proliferation has brought peace. Even if you argue that it has brought peace to countries that own nukes, you'd be wrong. Israel does not have peace. USA does not have peace. Russia does not have peace. Argentina tangled with the UK despite the UK's nukes. The Taliban has no fear of USA nukes.