17 votes

What if we nuke a city?

12 comments

  1. [2]
    moocow1452
    Link
    Kinda stinks that "Mutually Assured Destruction" and "We can never let this happen" are fundamentally incompatible. Would solve a whole lot of problems if we could all agree to get rid of the...

    Kinda stinks that "Mutually Assured Destruction" and "We can never let this happen" are fundamentally incompatible. Would solve a whole lot of problems if we could all agree to get rid of the devices that could kill millions of people at once and scar the Earth for ten generations, but I guess we're unable to geopolitic without high yield destruction on the table.

    2 votes
    1. papasquat
      Link Parent
      I think getting rid of those devices would ultimately be a disaster. Yes, they killed hundreds of thousands of people, but it's nothing compared to the hundreds of millions that died in the war...

      I think getting rid of those devices would ultimately be a disaster.
      Yes, they killed hundreds of thousands of people, but it's nothing compared to the hundreds of millions that died in the war that pushed them to be developed. It's not a coincidence that there hasn't been significant war between major world powers since that time. They almost certainly prevented war between the US and the Soviet union, and who knows how many others.
      Total war between nations with technology as advanced as ours would absolutely devastating regardless of whether we have nuclear weapons or not. As far as I see it, nuclear weapons have been the main thing that's kept that from happening over the past 80 years.

      2 votes
  2. [8]
    JeanBaptisteDuToitIV
    Link
    Nukes are literally the only reason WW3 hasn't happened yet. Would it really be wise to get rid of them?

    Nukes are literally the only reason WW3 hasn't happened yet. Would it really be wise to get rid of them?

    2 votes
    1. [7]
      Qis
      Link Parent
      That's a significant claim... are you quoting someone or is that original analysis?

      That's a significant claim... are you quoting someone or is that original analysis?

      2 votes
      1. [4]
        Diet_Coke
        Link Parent
        It's a pretty widely held belief with some evidence to back it up. No two atomic powers have ever declared war on each other, and no atomic power has had its borders changed. This doesn't...

        It's a pretty widely held belief with some evidence to back it up. No two atomic powers have ever declared war on each other, and no atomic power has had its borders changed. This doesn't necessarily equate to more peaceful times, it just means that proxy wars get fought.

        8 votes
        1. [3]
          JoylessAubergine
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          India and Pakistan both had nukes during the Kargil war but i think that war further supports the claim of Nukes as a major war deterrent. A lot of media and political attention and pressure was...

          No two atomic powers have ever declared war on each other,

          India and Pakistan both had nukes during the Kargil war but i think that war further supports the claim of Nukes as a major war deterrent. A lot of media and political attention and pressure was focused on that war due to the Nukes and ended up being a very limited war that lasted just 2 months.

          However every man and his dog was against Pakistans actions (including china). These days who knows whether there would be such a consensus to help deescalate things.

          5 votes
          1. [2]
            Diet_Coke
            Link Parent
            I didn't know about that, it is a good point though. Maybe the exception that proves the rule? Even though I kind of hate that phrase. I'm thinking about current actions in Kashmir too, you can...

            I didn't know about that, it is a good point though. Maybe the exception that proves the rule? Even though I kind of hate that phrase. I'm thinking about current actions in Kashmir too, you can see the nationalist Modi coming right up to the line, maybe even pushing the line a little bit, but not crossing into actual war either.

            1. [2]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. Akir
                Link Parent
                Hmm. I always took it to mean that the damage caused by not following the rule is the reason why you should follow said rule. In other words, people dying by running red lights is the reason why...

                Hmm. I always took it to mean that the damage caused by not following the rule is the reason why you should follow said rule. In other words, people dying by running red lights is the reason why you should not run red lights.

                1 vote
      2. JeanBaptisteDuToitIV
        Link Parent
        Perhaps I exaggerate, but I don't think it is so controversial to say that the lack of any direct conflict between superpowers in the past 50-60 years can largely be attributed to the invention...

        Perhaps I exaggerate, but I don't think it is so controversial to say that the lack of any direct conflict between superpowers in the past 50-60 years can largely be attributed to the invention and proliferation of the nuclear bomb. See Mutually Assured Destruction.

        1 vote
      3. mrbig
        Link Parent
        It’s game theory.

        It’s game theory.

        1 vote
  3. [2]
    unknown user
    Link
    Finally got to watch the video. The thing that bothers me the most about the proposal to “destroy all nuclear weapons and never make them again” is planetary defence. Nuking the incoming asteroids...

    Finally got to watch the video.

    The thing that bothers me the most about the proposal to “destroy all nuclear weapons and never make them again” is planetary defence. Nuking the incoming asteroids and comets is still one of the most possible courses of action there. I am 100 % for removing the nukes from the hands of the military, but completely destroying them seems like an overkill

    Also, salted nukes are a thing.

    1. Eylrid
      Link Parent
      You can't keep them seperate from the military. If war breaks out and push comes to shove there's no way civilian nukes don't get commandeered. Layer on top of that other countries maintaining...

      I am 100 % for removing the nukes from the hands of the military, but completely destroying them seems like an overkill

      You can't keep them seperate from the military. If war breaks out and push comes to shove there's no way civilian nukes don't get commandeered. Layer on top of that other countries maintaining military nukes in case it does happen and we're right back to MAD.

      Also, salted nukes are a thing.

      The video says no countries claim to have them. I'm more or less inclined to believe that. The biggest utility of nukes is as a deterrent, and something the other side doesn't know you have isn't a good deterrent. Unsalted nukes are a pretty big deterrent as it is.

      1 vote