User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Nuclear peace

  1. #1
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default Nuclear peace

    Nuclear peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What are your thoughts? I personally think it's a very astute view of the effect of nukes on the international balance of powers. It's also why I think that complete disarmament is not only a pipe dream, but also potentially dangerous (think WWI-WWII scale destruction, but with modern conventional weapons. Nukes have prevented such a situation, in my estimation).

    So, have at it!

  2. #2
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Nuclear peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What are your thoughts? I personally think it's a very astute view of the effect of nukes on the international balance of powers. It's also why I think that complete disarmament is not only a pipe dream, but also potentially dangerous (think WWI-WWII scale destruction, but with modern conventional weapons. Nukes have prevented such a situation, in my estimation).

    So, have at it!
    From what I know about this concept I have a reason to think that it is correct. Since at this tech. level you can't win a global conflict anymore since there is too much firepower on the "map".
    So there is not need to start one.


    I also agree that complete nuclear disarmament could be a bad idea. However reducing a number of nukes on all sides would probably be a good choice because that reduces chances that some nuke will come into wrong hands one day.

  3. #3
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Nuclear peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What are your thoughts? I personally think it's a very astute view of the effect of nukes on the international balance of powers. It's also why I think that complete disarmament is not only a pipe dream, but also potentially dangerous (think WWI-WWII scale destruction, but with modern conventional weapons. Nukes have prevented such a situation, in my estimation).

    So, have at it!
    Retarded theory, which was most likely conjured up by an INTx crackpot.

    During cold war, there were a lot of close calls which could have resulted in apocalypse... just look the incident of fire on a soviet submarine off the US east coast (the captain opened the missle hatches to flood the fire and americans could have interpreted that as offensive action) and another incident where soviet satelites misread sunlight reflecting off of clouds as a missle launch (the colonel in charge of USSR missle defense had a nerveous breakdown after managing to talk Kremlin out of a counter strike)

    And this just two nations at odds with each other, with the most belligerent being buerocratic atheists (I e keenely aware they were not going to paradise when shit went down).

    Now we have a cult nation (N Korea) with nukes and islamic fundamentalist Iran seeking to get some.

    How the fuck does that make the world a safer place?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  4. #4
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    I swear to god if the world ever ends in nuclear holocaust it will be due to actions of INT retard or a NFJ mysanthrope.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  5. #5
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Retarded theory, which was most likely conjured up by an INTx crackpot.

    During cold war, there were a lot of close calls which could have resulted in apocalypse... just look the incident of fire on a soviet submarine off the US east coast (the captain opened the missle hatches to flood the fire and americans could have interpreted that as offensive action) and another incident where soviet satelites misread sunlight reflecting off of clouds as a missle launch (the colonel in charge of USSR missle defense had a nerveous breakdown after managing to talk Kremlin out of a counter strike)

    And this just two nations at odds with each other, with the most belligerent being buerocratic atheists (I e keenely aware they were not going to paradise when shit went down).

    Now we have a cult nation (N Korea) with nukes and islamic fundamentalist Iran seeking to get some.

    How the fuck does that make the world a safer place?
    Well, when I am talking about this concept then I am talking only about major powers. N.Korea + nukes simply can't be good for the safety of this world.


    As for the incidents you are talking about, you are right that didn't make world safer place. However it takes time and generational changes to create a mindset that you can't profit out of starting a major war. So in this moment of history nukes are actually a factor of stability (towards my opinion).

  6. #6
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Well, when I am talking about this concept then I am talking only about major powers. N.Korea + nukes simply can't be good for the safety of this world.


    As for the incidents you are talking about, you are right that didn't make world safer place. However it takes time and generational changes to create a mindset that you can't profit out of starting a major war. So in this moment of history nukes are actually a factor of stability (towards my opinion).
    So you would risk world destruction just to get a point across that war is bad?

    ....brilliant
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    The only way to win a nuclear war is not to participate.

    Seems pretty straight-forward logic. When losses will assuredly exceed gains by some orders of magnitude, there's huge incentive to work out one's issues in other ways. I'm curious how the US/Soviet relationship would have gone without nukes in the mix, but there's just no way to know.

    However I'm going to side with Sagan given the "more is worse" angle. When countries with unstable, irrational, or inadaquete government come into their own as nuclear powers they increase risk as they have less incentive to keep themselves intact. NK is a good example of this irrational state that's unhealthy on a global scale.

  8. #8
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    So you would risk world destruction just to get a point across that war is bad?

    ....brilliant
    The only thing I am saying is that if you somewhow/magically just remove nukes one day the WW3 suddenly becomes much more realistic since it can be won. But I fully understand your argument since this is certainly quite risky "choice". I mean, however you turn it we are on a narrow road.


    But if we are talking about large disarmament of nuclear, biological/chemical and conventional weapons then your will probably be making a good choice.
    I say probably because this way you are opening a possibility that someone will create a secret arsenal and start another major war which they will probably win.

    The fact is that things can't really be uninvented so a "real" disarmament is technically impossible.

  9. #9
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    This theory is bullshit. It does not take into account the current political climate.
    The USSR and the USA were both secular powers that wll understood that mutual destruction was the only outcome.
    Now we have Islamic nutjobs who KNOW that such a scenario does not apply to them. They have paradise to look forward too.
    So where is the bargaining chip in that equation?

    And if Russia starts to disarm, you better believe there will be terrorists lined up for that 'fire sale'.

  10. #10
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Nuclear peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What are your thoughts? I personally think it's a very astute view of the effect of nukes on the international balance of powers. It's also why I think that complete disarmament is not only a pipe dream, but also potentially dangerous (think WWI-WWII scale destruction, but with modern conventional weapons. Nukes have prevented such a situation, in my estimation).

    So, have at it!
    I agree with you on this one; of course, even if we are both wrong, nuclear disarmament by the major powers is a bad idea because the technology is already out there, and there is no way to be certain that rival nations are not developing WMDs in secret.

    I also side with Sagan over Waltz; the latter is invoking the neo-Realist fallacy that states are like actors

    Edit: I edited my post because I mixed up Waltz and Walt.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 07-28-2009 at 03:16 PM. Reason: self-evident

Similar Threads

  1. Way to inner peace
    By SolitaryWalker in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 12:34 PM
  2. is it possible to be a peaceful muslim?
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 04-23-2010, 09:11 PM
  3. What is your peace?
    By labyrinthine in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-23-2009, 02:32 PM
  4. I come in peace
    By Loz in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-16-2007, 02:42 AM
  5. So there's a nuclear war...
    By Langrenus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO