[XorNot]

Defending against a nuclear attack though isn't a desire for peace, it's a desire for freedom of action without consequence.

In a world with nuclear weapons and limited, unreliable defenses against them, you have to actually fully comprehend what "wanting peace" actually means - i.e. negotiation and diplomacy are the actual kings.

In a world without them, you always have the option of resorting to the barrel of the gun again - as happened to prior to WW2.

[dmbche]

I don't think reliable defenses against nukes can exist can they? Airbursting nukes high enough causes emp events and the irradiated material still floats around - that's without the assymetry in cost in trying to hit 100% of decoys produced by the nuke, stopping a single nuke is at least an order of magnitude more expansive than sending one - I don't think it could really be done!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>I don't think reliable defenses against nukes can exist can they? Airbursting nukes high enough causes emp events and the irradiated material still floats around

With enough anti-missile technology, it's possible (though challenging) to defend against that.

But good luck trying to stop them from smuggling a multi-kiloton device across your border and detonating it at a time calculated to cause the most casualties.

[XorNot]

I'd say that's debatable, but whether its possible isn't really the point: it's important to have both eyes open on the actual ramifications of nuclear weapons not being a reality anymore. Because the idea that that is "the peaceful option" isn't one borne out by history - past or present.