Other reasons why nuclear weapons suck (1 Viewer)

[Antiwar]

I think the theory of mutually assured stupidity is that it has prevented another world war.

There are definitely two things happening with the popular war.

1. The USG has to be very careful about jumping in.
1a. Why? Well duh. Risks mutually assured stupidity.
1b. What's a result? The USG is very reluctant to try to stop these human rights and environmental abuses.

What's a result of #1?

2. The popular war can grow and grow. What can happen when a popular war grows and grows? World war.

So, are nuclear weapons preventing nuclear war? Hmm, it not only sounds funny when you say it that way, but you've also presented a strong chain of logic and reasoning.

Bonus material: Does violence, or the threat of violence, prevent violence? I beget to differ.

 

[aociswundumho]

Bonus material: Does violence, or the threat of violence, prevent violence?

For animals (especially humans) it does, because violence is expensive. Lone predators like tigers in the jungle or some thug mugger in the city will always seek out the prey which is easiest to kill or rob. Muggers tend to pick old ladies to mug, not football players.

But this doesn't hold for states. One of the main reasons why government works so poorly in all areas is because there is no real accountability. Politicians can initiate violence and wars while keeping themselves and their families safe from harm.

 

[Antiwar]

One of the main reasons why government works so poorly in all areas is because there is no real accountability.

I agree to a degree. But that's no reason to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Politicians can initiate violence and wars while keeping themselves and their families safe from harm.

Mutually assured stupidity disagrees.

 

[Cardinal]

Nuclear weapons suck? I never thought about it like that until now.

 

[aociswundumho]

I agree to a degree. But that's no reason to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

In this case it's Rosemary's baby.

 

[Tigerace117]

I think the theory of mutually assured stupidity is that it has prevented another world war.

There are definitely two things happening with the popular war.

1. The USG has to be very careful about jumping in.
1a. Why? Well duh. Risks mutually assured stupidity.
1b. What's a result? The USG is very reluctant to try to stop these human rights and environmental abuses.

What's a result of #1?

2. The popular war can grow and grow. What can happen when a popular war grows and grows? World war.

So, are nuclear weapons preventing nuclear war? Hmm, it not only sounds funny when you say it that way, but you've also presented a strong chain of logic and reasoning.

Bonus material: Does violence, or the threat of violence, prevent violence? I beget to differ.

Without nuclear weapons there almost certainly would have been a Third World War, at a minimum, by now.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think the theory of mutually assured stupidity is that it has prevented another world war.

Let me save you some time.

Hiroshima Paperback – January 22, 2019​

by John Hersey
This book, John Hersey's journalistic masterpiece, tells what happened on that day. Told through the memories of survivors, this timeless, powerful and compassionate document has become a classic "that stirs the conscience of humanity" (The New York Times).

Almost four decades after the original publication of this celebrated book, John Hersey went back to Hiroshima in search of the people whose stories he had told. His account of what he discovered about them is now the eloquent and moving final chapter of Hiroshima.



---Yes, everyone* agrees that nuclear war is awful.

*in their right mind

 

[Antiwar]

---Yes, everyone* agrees that nuclear war is awful.

Then why do we (American federal taxpayers) keep investing in "upgrading" nuclear weapons?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Then why do we (American federal taxpayers) keep investing in "upgrading" nuclear weapons?

You may want to read some of Oppenheimer's musings but the short answer is that the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.
We're not adding to the stockpile, just upgrading so that the ones we do have will function.
There's not a speck of disagreement about how awful these bombs are, I expect you actually know this.

But anyway, if a nation has them, kind of stupid if they don't even work, yes?

 

[Antiwar]

You may want to read some of Oppenheimer's musings but the short answer is that the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.
We're not adding to the stockpile, just upgrading so that the ones we do have will function.
There's not a speck of disagreement about how awful these bombs are, I expect you actually know this.

But anyway, if a nation has them, kind of stupid if they don't even work, yes?

What's stupid is nuclear weapons.

 

[Hypothetical]

What's stupid is nuclear weapons.

what do you do when we no longer have nuclear weapons but countries like Russia and China do?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What's stupid is nuclear weapons.

Again, no argument there however just saying they're stupid isn't having an effect on anything.
It's like Nancy Reagan and "JUST SAY NO".
It's like saying you're going to ban ALL guns.

 

[Antiwar]

Again, no argument there however just saying they're stupid isn't having an effect on anything.
It's like Nancy Reagan and "JUST SAY NO".
It's like saying you're going to ban ALL guns.

The first step in recovery is to admit that one has a problem with militarism.

 

[Antiwar]

what do you do when we no longer have nuclear weapons but countries like Russia and China do?

^ Nice variation of "But Mommm, he hit me first!"

 

[Antiwar]

Without nuclear weapons there almost certainly would have been a Third World War, at a minimum, by now.

What's the first thing that comes to mind when I say 'World War Three"?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The first step in recovery is to admit that one has a problem with militarism.

More Nancy Reagan posturing.
Stop acting like anyone thinks nukes are wonderful or "not a problem".

 

[Antiwar]

More Nancy Reagan posturing.
Stop acting like anyone thinks nukes are wonderful or "not a problem".

See #8 and the first four words of #12.

 

[Hypothetical]

^ Nice variation of "But Mommm, he hit me first!"

nice variation of nothing, what if we have no nukes, russia does,and russia says it wants to own the western US or they will nuke a city until they get it, and they proceed to do so?

 

[Deuce]

For animals (especially humans) it does, because violence is expensive. Lone predators like tigers in the jungle or some thug mugger in the city will always seek out the prey which is easiest to kill or rob. Muggers tend to pick old ladies to mug, not football players.

But this doesn't hold for states. One of the main reasons why government works so poorly in all areas is because there is no real accountability. Politicians can initiate violence and wars while keeping themselves and their families safe from harm.

Was the dog whistle really necessary?

 

[Antiwar]

nice variation of nothing, what if we have no nukes, russia does,and russia says it wants to own the western US or they will nuke a city until they get it, and they proceed to do so?

"Mommm, tell her to stop hitting me (< substitute 'maintaining and upgrading their nuclear arsenal') first!"

 

[aociswundumho]

Was the dog whistle really necessary?

There was no "dog whistle", it's just your own prejudiced mind equating the word thug with black people. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be able to see that the race of the mugger or the victim is irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[lwf]

What's the first thing that comes to mind when I say 'World War Three"?

The first thing that comes to my mind is "nukes."

But that objectively wouldn't be the case if nuclear weapons didn't exist, and there is an argument to be made that if nukes didn't exist, world war three might already have happened and the world would look very different. While I would rather have a world war three without nukes, my preference is no world war three at all. And the latter is what we've gotten so far with nuclear weapons.

 

[Questerr]

I think the theory of mutually assured stupidity is that it has prevented another world war.

There are definitely two things happening with the popular war.

1. The USG has to be very careful about jumping in.
1a. Why? Well duh. Risks mutually assured stupidity.
1b. What's a result? The USG is very reluctant to try to stop these human rights and environmental abuses.

What's a result of #1?

2. The popular war can grow and grow. What can happen when a popular war grows and grows? World war.

So, are nuclear weapons preventing nuclear war? Hmm, it not only sounds funny when you say it that way, but you've also presented a strong chain of logic and reasoning.

Bonus material: Does violence, or the threat of violence, prevent violence? I beget to differ.

So in your Anti-Militarist world with no nuclear weapons, the optimal result would be for America to get directly involved and turn a regional war into a world war?

 

[Questerr]

Then why do we (American federal taxpayers) keep investing in "upgrading" nuclear weapons?

Because they have shelf lives and need replacement.

 

[Questerr]

"Mommm, tell her to stop hitting me (< substitute 'maintaining and upgrading their nuclear arsenal') first!"

In your Anti-Militarist world, what would the course the unilaterally disarmed United States would take when threatened by a nuclear armed dictatorship?

Immediate surrender to their demands?