Miscellaneous desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 31

Nuclear weapons are keeping the world at peace

I just developed the theory that the presence of nuclear weapons in several nations may have kept much of the world at peace; does anybody agree?. Since the invention of the first nuclear weapon in 1945 and used it to end World War II, none of the nuclear-armed nations went to war (except for getting involved in fighting for another nation, such as U.S. in Syria. The Cold War between U.S. and Soviet Union was closest ever to the war between these two. If one of these nuclear-armed nation go to war with one another, the result could be catastrophic. The reason for the peaceful world since the end of the Cold War was because of the measures taken to prevent such wars from happening that would use nukes. Right now, the tensions are rising between U.S. and North Korea. I read one article that they're preparing for war to preserve peace. They might not actually go to war, but threaten one another with preoccurring scenarios. For example, if North Korea nukes one of U.S. cities, the U.S. would respond by nuking Pyongyang, which is the only big city in NK. Therefore in order to preserve the nation, they would not nuke U.S. Planet Star 06:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not developed this theory. It has been around since the end of World War II. See mutual assured destruction. --Viennese Waltz 06:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Deterrence theory, brinksmanship, Massive retaliation, Nuclear arms race, Bernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, John Foster Dulles, Curtis LeMay, Robert McNamara, who were some key concepts and historical figures regarding the OPs idea. Indeed, it's as old as nuclear weapons are, and as a coherent concept has been around since the 1950s. It actually forms the basis of Dr. Strangelove, one of the best cold war satires ever filmed. Indeed, one of the best satires of any era ever filmed. --Jayron 32 12:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are wrong, Jayron. It is one of the best films ever filmed. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your undescended spiritual testicles are showing through again, Divine Ms M. Jayron's statements were completely correct. As was yours. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that assessment. --Jayron 32 16:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I too, agree that Jack's right (save for the apocryphal undescended testicles), as Jayron's claim was not false, just narrow, and not in contradiction to my opinion. Evidenceμηδείς (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see balance of power to understand how this concept long predates nuclear weapons. The idea there is that if everyone has equal military capability, none will attack another, as that would mean years of stalemate, like WW1, where the cost to each nation is far more than any benefits from captured territory. Thucydides is one of the first to write these theories down, although they likely predate him, as well. Nuclear weapons do take this to a new level, though, as they cause massive destruction without directly capturing anything of value.

As for NK, the problem there isn't so much that they will use them, as that they will be able to threaten to use them to extort money from the rest of the world. They've already done so when they promised to stop developing nukes for money. They also randomly attack their neighbors. They kidnapped many Japanese civilians when they wanted translators, shelled SK, killed a US peacekeeper on the border with an ax, recently killed a US student who was visiting and stole a banner, etc. With the ability to nuke everyone, they would have even less reason to exercise restraint, as they would fear no retaliation. StuRat (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the world isn't at peace, I would say your theory is flawed.--Ykraps (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relative to the first half of the last century it is. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just this century, we are returning to the peace levels during the Holy Roman Empire. Since the Thirty Years War through WWII, war deaths have been highly elevated with periodic, very short-term drops. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, the world is roughly more peaceful today than at any time in history: [1]. Which is not to say that it is without war, just that on the balance there have been less war deaths since the end of world war II, and a continuous downward trend in war death. Knowing that correlation is not causation, I would not conclude anything about why, buy the statement that ..."given that the world isn't at peace" is a flawed one, because relative to the past, it is more peaceful. --Jayron 32 19:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Pet peeve alert]: "at any other time in history" [end alert]. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

[pedantic retort alert] Today is not history. Yesterday is when history starts. "Other" is redundant when the comparison is to the now. --Jayron 32 01:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[pedantic retort retort alert] "Today" doesn't necessarily mean literally the current 24 hours, especially in this context. [end alert] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

But in that case I'm not convinced the claim is entirely true. Yes you said 'roughly' but if you're only talking about today as in literally right now, rather than in terms of very recent history you make your claim less true than it would have been. Well I mean I don't know, since we don't have estatistics, but it's easily possible today is not more peaceful today than it was on 2004. We know from the available statistics that many todays in 2007 were not more peaceful in terms of war deaths than 2004 as one example. It seems more meaningful to do as Clarityfiend did and rather than referring to literally today, use it more generally to mean very recent history so such issues to not arise Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are we arguing the grammatical point or the statistical one? Because the answer depends on which is in dispute. I was, just here, only dealing with the former. What you're on about is a different matter entirely. --Jayron 32 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the link provided to claim that we are currently at the most peaceful time in history, it is clear that we are NOT in the most peaceful time in history. Just look at the graph. The red line representing deaths is higher at the far right (now) than at many places on the graph (the past). Don't be fooled by the blue line. That is military deaths only, not total deaths. We don't have that data for the most recent years, so the red line ends before the blue line. Looking at the blue line (and considering genocides that are still happening), civilian deaths are on the rise. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think U.S. would've went to war with Soviet Union if nuclear weapons weren't invented. Knowing that the use of nukes would result in a probable global catastrophe, they would not just use it without hard thinking and making very very very accepting decision, therefore tensions would have to be really really high for such attack to take place. Over the history, they only have it, test it, and set it up for strike in order to threaten one another, but won't actually attack one another. Now the history is repeating with U.S. and North Korea. Again if nuclear weapons weren't invented, this same amount of tension between US and NK would've result in war, but because both sides got nuclear weapons, they're not fighting in war now. Actually using nuclear weapons in war was OK or even good for the world at one point in history. U.S. nuking Japan was used to end World War II, which was OK because no other nation had nukes at the time. If bombs weren't dropped on Japan, World War II would've kept on going. Having nuclear weapons was a contributor towards a more peaceful world. Nations having nuclear weapons was mainly used to protect themselves and use it to retaliate if it was attacked by one another. If those two nations were attacked (first strike then retaliate), then these two would keep nuking one another, resulting in crippling of the nation. So the only way to preserve the offending nation is not have even a first strike. Even going to war with using just conventional weapons may result in the one using nuclear weapons to attack the offending nation, so the best course of action between nations in tension is to not fight in war using weapons of any kind. That's how the presence of nuclear weapons are used to prevent wars. I heard about the agreement towards disassembling all nuclear weapons to end the risk of nuclear apocalypse, but counterintuitively following the ban, there will be more wars. Planet Star 01:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Have went"? Unpossible!μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What no one has pointed out yet is the nature of our human jungle. Unlike other animals, we employ and develop technology. However, this 'current' peace is just winding up the spring. The longer it gets wound the more suddenly and violently it will release that built up tension. As is often quoted: "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

A verse from Ozymandias:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away

Anchent eychipt grease and rome

There is nothing our 'elected' politicians (who don't appear to inhabit our real world) can do to avoid leading us into oblivion again by their own ignorant volition, unless 'we all' hammer some common sense into them at every opportunity. </rant> Aspro (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually related to him. My formal title is "Aussie Mandias, King of Things", but I rarely use it, preferring to go among my subjects unrecognised, spreading benificence wherever it may be needed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I'm very much in need of benificence...a few thousand $'s worth should be enough to guarantee some slavish loyalty for a while,O mighty benevolent one Lemon martini (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My benificence is of a, shall we say spiritual nature. Yeees, that's it. Much more permanent than drab dollars, shameful shekels, repugnant rupees or pleniloquent pounds. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Aussie Mandias/Mandoas makes sense. For if one can can perambulate amongst lesser mortals with out being seen, it would suggest that one has an antipodean 'μανδύα αόρατου' (cloak of invisibility). All the more reason for driving through town with roo bars in case an invisible Aussie Mandias gets in the way and treats you to a fender bender. ;¬) Aspro (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find the "Anchent eychipt grease and rome" line, Aspro? I'm sure it wasn't there when I went to school. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]