I’m in mixed mind about them because you’re right, they’re too destructive, but for the time being their existence has prevented conflicts from breaking out, and since wars are typically only waged with the promise of financing it afterwards via looting or expansion, nobody is really willing to render land unusable in the process of conquering it.
It will inevitably happen. One day a dumb enough ruler will use it.
But what happens next? Do we just stop there, apologize and go back to our normal lives?
And you’re probably right, the next bomb would destroy that ruler, but only if the receiver has nukes as well. If he doesn’t, who’s going to do anything to defend/avange him? No one wants to enter an nuclear war.
The reciever doesn’t need nukes. I live in Canada and we don’t have any. But the threat of retaliation from our allies that do protect us from that threat.
That comment is the first time you’ve considered MAD? I mean, congrats on being one of today’s lucky 10,000, but I’m surprised you didn’t learn about it in school.
When it’s presented in school, it is presented as thing of the past and localised to how Russia and America treated/still treat one another, rather than threading the needle by explaining that it still applies today. I’m pretty sure I only picked up on it after reading online explanations/justifications of nukes.
Or in other words people focus on the panic of it so much that they don’t stop to think of it as a good thing
TBF I think even without Nukes we wouldn’t have war between big countries. Because the UN would discourage it. Ukraine being a big exception to that
I’m in mixed mind about them because you’re right, they’re too destructive, but for the time being their existence has prevented conflicts from breaking out, and since wars are typically only waged with the promise of financing it afterwards via looting or expansion, nobody is really willing to render land unusable in the process of conquering it.
The problem is that it only takes one ruler insane enough to use them to wipe out most of humanity.
You’re right. But if that ruler does decide to nuke a city or something, the next bomb to drop will probably be where said ruler is.
It will inevitably happen. One day a dumb enough ruler will use it.
But what happens next? Do we just stop there, apologize and go back to our normal lives?
And you’re probably right, the next bomb would destroy that ruler, but only if the receiver has nukes as well. If he doesn’t, who’s going to do anything to defend/avange him? No one wants to enter an nuclear war.
The reciever doesn’t need nukes. I live in Canada and we don’t have any. But the threat of retaliation from our allies that do protect us from that threat.
If Trump decides to launch a nuke at Vancouver, which of your allies are bold enough to send one his way?
Well, none. He can do whatever he wants.
His government is slightly smarter than him so for now we’re safe, however no one’s going to stop a dictator.
The US probably since they’ll also be nuking part of their own country if they did that. The fallout would 100% affect Washington.
You think Trump is smart enough to listen when his staff tell him that?
This is a good point I never considered before.
That comment is the first time you’ve considered MAD? I mean, congrats on being one of today’s lucky 10,000, but I’m surprised you didn’t learn about it in school.
When it’s presented in school, it is presented as thing of the past and localised to how Russia and America treated/still treat one another, rather than threading the needle by explaining that it still applies today. I’m pretty sure I only picked up on it after reading online explanations/justifications of nukes.
Or in other words people focus on the panic of it so much that they don’t stop to think of it as a good thing
TBF I think even without Nukes we wouldn’t have war between big countries. Because the UN would discourage it. Ukraine being a big exception to that