rickjump1 0 #1 October 13, 2009 With exceptions, nukes have kept the peace by forcing major powers to get along. .."if nukes are outlawed someday, only outlaws will have nukes". I don't see them disappearing anytime soon. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.htmlDo your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 October 13, 2009 QuoteWith exceptions, nukes have kept the peace by forcing major powers to get along. What exceptions do you mean? I don't think there are any examples of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But a lot of really bad proxy wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan/USSR for example) that weren't all that limited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #3 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteWith exceptions, nukes have kept the peace by forcing major powers to get along. What exceptions do you mean? I don't think there are any examples of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But a lot of really bad proxy wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan/USSR for example) that weren't all that limited. the iraq/iran war in the eighties was another nasty proxy war...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 October 13, 2009 Quote the iraq/iran war in the eighties was another nasty proxy war... Since we sold weapons to both sides, I have a hard time classifying it as such. Certainly it benefited the US to have them both fighting - kept oil prices lower. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #5 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteWith exceptions, nukes have kept the peace by forcing major powers to get along. What exceptions do you mean? I don't think there are any examples of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But a lot of really bad proxy wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan/USSR for example) that weren't all that limited. You are correct, and maybe I was a little too vague. Outside the major powers, nukes never stopped the genocides like Cambodia and Rwanda. Sadly, there were more. EDITED TO ADD: According to the author, after the introduction of nukes, the massive killings have gone way down; nothing like prior or during WWII. Look at the numbers.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #6 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWith exceptions, nukes have kept the peace by forcing major powers to get along. What exceptions do you mean? I don't think there are any examples of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But a lot of really bad proxy wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan/USSR for example) that weren't all that limited. You are correct, and maybe I was a little too vague. Outside the major powers, nukes never stopped the genocides like Cambodia and Rwanda. Sadly, there were more. if iran had had nuclear weapons iraq wouldn't have waged war on it...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #7 October 13, 2009 So your argument is that the best guarantee of peace in any system is fear? That sucks. I have a happier life with more in it in a peaceful situation. That's true for a lot of people. Would that they would recognize it. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #8 October 13, 2009 QuoteSo your argument is that the best guarantee of peace in any system is fear? That sucks. I have a happier life with more in it in a peaceful situation. That's true for a lot of people. Would that they would recognize it. Wendy P. I just agree with the author that giving up nukes would just invite our destruction. Would you be more at peace if we were the first to give up nukes?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #9 October 13, 2009 QuoteSo your argument is that the best guarantee of peace in any system is fear? That sucks. I have a happier life with more in it in a peaceful situation. That's true for a lot of people. Would that they would recognize it. Wendy P. the fear is not having nuclear weapons as only countries without them get invaded...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 October 14, 2009 QuoteSo your argument is that the best guarantee of peace in any system is fear? That sucks. I have a happier life with more in it in a peaceful situation. That's true for a lot of people. Would that they would recognize it. Wendy P. Said Dr. Strangelove: "Deterrence is the art of producing in the minds of the enemy...the FEAR to attack. The Doomsday device is terrifying and simple to understand and completely credible and convincing." Wendy - do we have a world of peace? Have we, during your lifetime, ever been in a world of peace? Would the elimination of nuclear weapons leave us in a world of peace or would the peril remain? Perhaps the peril will increase because there will be no fear in the minds of those who wish to do us harm. It is a difficult question and we've been asking it for ages. I would prefer to live in a world where I would not be attacked. Since that isn't our situation, I'd prefer to ensure that those potential attackers think twice, thrice. Think a bunch of times whether you really want to fuck with me. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
