[clawoo]

Really? That's an interesting world view.

On the contrary, the existence of nuclear weapons makes significant conflicts between large nations less likely, as both fear nuclear escalation.

Just a year ago, Chinese and Indian soldiers engaged in a free-for-all melee at the border using nothing but sticks and stones. Both are nuclear states, and they feared an escalation to a proper armed conflict if actual weapons were involved. Pakistan and India, also both nuclear states, have a localized conflict in Kashmir that has been ongoing for decades. However, neither state dares to fully commit to a decisive military intervention there. If Russia didn't possess nuclear weapons, it's not unimaginable to think that the US would have intervened directly in Ukraine, maybe even with boots on the ground. The US and Russia have been in conflict for the last 70ish years through proxy wars, yet neither has thought of pushing the big red button.

I believe that nuclear weapons, terrible as they are, bring about peace to a certain extent, as long as rational actors are involved. Nobody wants to die in a fiery ball of plasma.

[lukan]

"I believe that nuclear weapons, terrible as they are, bring about peace to a certain extent, as long as rational actors are involved. Nobody wants to die in a fiery ball of plasma."

Yeah, "as long as rational actors are involved". But people do go crazy. Like the pilot who decided to do suicide and take the whole plane with them. And some mad dictator, who developes late stage cancer and feels like he has nothing left to loose and feels betrayed by everyone also might say, fuck it. Then there are religious nuts, who hide their fanatism, till they are in control. The world was already close to someone pushing the button too many times, but yes prevented by some rational actors, but I do not see, how we can take it for granted, that it always stays like it.

Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong, given enough time.

[xorcist]

That not using nuclear weapons is a rational choice, but somehow using conventional is, is far from clear.

That we are alive now is a fact. But that we have nuclear weapons to thank for it, is not. It is a common argument that the cold war would have developed into a hot war otherwise, but we don't know that. That it feels right is not a good argument.

But irrationality of nuclear weapons aside, it is also a fact that whole nation states act irrational from time to time. Invading Ukraine certainly wasn't, but it happened anyway. Taking both of these facts into account it is increasingly unlikely that nuclear weapons actually protect us from conflicts going hot.

Too bad we don't have similar planets in a comparison group.

[BlueTemplar]

> It is a common argument that the cold war would have developed into a hot war otherwise, but we don't know that.

We can take a pretty good guess after WW1 and WW2. Especially considering what the USA and the Soviets thought of each other.

[samus]

Would it really have developed into a hot war though? Already WW1 made most countries way less willing to engage in another one. Was not enough to prevent the next one of course. WW2 was quite terrible even though nukes were used only at the very end*. Conventional Soviet strength was overwhelming immediately after WW2; it can therefore be argued that the developing nuclear stockpiles contributed to the Cold War as it happened. It would have still happened in a different way, but the Soviets might have eventually prevailed without the threat of nukes stopping Soviet tanks from reaching the Atlantic.

Edit:

*: Which meant that only the "true" winner nations were able to hold on to colonies and go on military adventures.

[BlueTemplar]

I was puzzled as to whether you were agreeing with me or not, but you seem to be thinking that a huge war that would see no military fighting taking place on continental Americas (yet again) would not be considered a "World War" (or even weaker, a "hot war") ? If so, I disagree with that.

[samus]

Such a war might not necessarily be limited to Europe though, as the various alliances are spread globally, and thus the designation "World War" would again be appropriate. Anyways, my point was more that such a war would be much more unlikely with the Soviets as the hegemon across most of Europe. This doesn't preclude proxy wars from time to time of course.

[BlueTemplar]

If your history only diverges around the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's hard for me to imagine a likely scenario where the conquest of Western Europe (minus UK?) by the USSR wouldn't qualify as "WW3". (Maybe if it immediately follows WW2 - for which I somewhat doubt the Soviets has the strength for, considering the heavy US presence... and even then this seems like hair-splitting ?)

[xorcist]

Dresden should suffice?

[BlueTemplar]

You'll have to be more specific ??

[jncfhnb]

> If Russia didn't possess nuclear weapons, it's not unimaginable to think that the US would have intervened directly in Ukraine, maybe even with boots on the ground.

At least 500,000 people have died to the lack of a solid western response.

Edit: casualties*

[Shorel]

I think there are several reasons for that. John Nash was right, and MAD has been a factor in global issues since then.

But some other factors could also have some influence:

The aftermath of WWII did show the world that for a nation, engaging in an all out war was no longer profitable. Wars have been profitable for most of human history, but now, with such reliance on technology and logistics, which are so much easier to destroy than to rebuilt, wars are a serious economic risk, with total economic destruction a very possible result.

Also, for many leaders in prosper nations, declaring a war would be a cause of political death, as the majority of the population would be against it, and continuing with the conflict would require a dictatorship or other forms of destruction of democracy.

I think the economic argument is very strong, probably stronger than MAD, and the democracy argument can have a small positive or negative influence, depending on the society.

[andrewflnr]

Unfortunately, there are still a few national leaders who don't entirely operate under those constraints. Fortunately, I think they're still militarily weaker than the big democracies (if the US still counts in 5 years), so deleting nukes might still be a good idea.

[Shorel]

Deleting nukes is always a good idea. =)

[raccoonDivider]

Isn't there a middle ground? Suppose we could make ICBMs useless (known storage sites for bombers and ground-based missiles, lots of time and distance to track and destroy them in the air) while shorter-range weapons stayed relevant (smaller, easier to move, maybe spread over a battlefield). This could both keep the cost of a war too high to consider for great powers, while greatly lowering the civilizational risk caused by thousands of high-yield weapons on hair trigger.

For example, a border war between India and Pakistan or China would be a disaster that no side wants to see. But a massive ICBM launch due to tensions and miscalculations between the three biggest arsenals would have a much lower impact. These arsenals might even become irrelevant enough that they stop being maintained. Seems like a win-win?

[patcon]

You might be interested in this SFI Complexity science podcast episode

Fractal Conflicts & Swing Voters with Eddie Lee https://complexity.simplecast.com/episodes/39-9ugXDtkC/trans...

It basically asks whether conflict is fractal, or whether it's patterns of outbreak are self-similar at different scales. Is it like forest fire where, if you suppress it at smaller scales, it eventually reasserts itself at larger scales?

This leads to interesting hypotheses on the evolution of language (which is certainly conducive to less destructive conflict at smaller scales) among other things

[boffinAudio]

> Really? That's an interesting world view.

Indeed, it is a world view, and not a nationalist one.

> On the contrary ...

You say that as the one with the weapons and thus, the loudest dogma.

Really, think about this again but instead - indeed, contrarily - try looking at it from the perspective of those nations which must always and dutifully bend a knee to the nuclear-armed thugs in their neighborhood. This would of course require you to apply something more powerful than any technology, and which is a far more effective substance than fission when it comes to producing peace: empathy.

Technological inequality is the basis of all oppression. Oppressors only get away with it because they have the technology to do so, and their victims don't.

There is much motivation to believe that the world would be a lot more fair and equitable place to live in without this technological oppression consistently and unfailingly being used to blackmail the worlds poor into submission. Especially in societies where empathy for ones fellow human beings has been sapped by relentless dogma.

Just because you can build nukes, doesn't mean your self-acclaimed "great society" [0] should consistently be allowed to lead the world into calamity and chaos, over and over again.

Which is precisely what the nuclear thugs are doing with their power. They don't make the world more peaceful - indeed, they make it more dangerous.

If bayonets were all we had to fight each other with, we wouldn't be so keen to do so. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate expression of utter irresponsibility for ones fellow human beings, and under the threat of their use, much atrocity has been committed.

Peoples who consider themselves truly equal, share technology for the good and do not weaponize it against themselves.

It is only the "moralistic" imperative to demonstrate ones higher power against 'the lesser, unclean others' that motivates the user to turn technology into a weapon ... so yes, de-nuclearization would, by definition, mean a lot more peace in the world.

Maybe not for those with the privileged nuclear buttons to push, initially, but not long after, certainly for those who have no choice but to live as though foreign uncontrollable powers may destroy the world within 45 minutes, any day of the year ..

[0] - This will always be met with resistance, because there is no true one great human society. They all suck.