It has been a long time since two first world nations went to war with each other. Many think that one of the reasons is fear of nuclear annihilation. So lets just say for a moment that nukes were no longer effective. Whether this is because a way to counter them was found or for any other reason. Under this scenario, if the threat of nuclear annihilation/nuclear winter no longer existed do you think the first world countries would start to war with one another again?
A world with out nukes
501 Views | 7 Replies
It's hard to say. You need people like HIt;er who were willing to go to war for something. You could probably only find those people in America; any world war would be an escalation of a smaller conflict like ROC v PRC or Poland v. Russia and I don't think people in China and Russia would go to war for any other reason than to prove how powerful they are.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
Yes and no.
Up into the 1990s I would say that this was entirely true. Throughout the extent of the Cold War, the biggest deterrent against maor powers going to war was MAD (mutualy assured destruction) brought on by nuclear fallout. While that is still a threat today, the biggest deterrent to ar is economic MAD.
Globalism has made our economies so interweaved that they are reliant upon eachother. China relies upon the USas its market and as a place to steal technology form (instead of inventing it itself). The US relies on China largely as its factory and for many raw materials. Western Europe relies on Chinese goods and Russia Oil. Russia relies on China for market share and as an oil customer. Russia relies on Western Europe as a customer for its oil. The US and Europe rely on each other as major markets for export.
Send any of two of the four of the world's major powers and the ENTIRE net could and likely would falling apart, starving many nations of manufcturing ability and others of a place to sell their wares, plunging them into severe economic depression.
So while nuculear weapons still remain a deterrent, they have been surpassed by the new economic deterrent.
First world countries aren't going to fight each other anytime soon, simply because of globalization and the realization that no one is going to risk isolating themselves by getting a totalitarian dictator bent on correcting perceived slights. Countries like India and Pakistan on the other hand are still at each other's throats, and North Korea is still at it for what's it worth, but the former aren't really fond of pulling the trigger and getting obliterated over some worthless land, and the latter can only talk a big game, but won't step to the plate.
In an ironic way, nuclear weapons are more effective at peace than any hippie peace protest, when it comes to global extermination. Convential wars, on the other hand are still going strong today, and to quote the tag line from Fallout 3, war never changes.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
At 6/6/14 11:51 AM, Warforger wrote: It's hard to say. You need people like HIt;er who were willing to go to war for something. You could probably only find those people in America; any world war would be an escalation of a smaller conflict like ROC v PRC or Poland v. Russia and I don't think people in China and Russia would go to war for any other reason than to prove how powerful they are.
I don't know, Vladimir Putin has been very aggressive to the countries bordering him of late. First with Georgia, now with Ukraine. Maybe if the threat of nuclear destruction was not there he would try to invade the rest of Europe.
At 6/7/14 12:07 PM, Rome-forger wrote: I don't know, Vladimir Putin has been very aggressive to the countries bordering him of late. First with Georgia, now with Ukraine. Maybe if the threat of nuclear destruction was not there he would try to invade the rest of Europe.
Yes because Georgia and Ukraine are within Russia's sphere of influence; the US can pretend to care but in reality it won't do anything, Russia ultimately decides what goes on. The reverse happens as well like in Libya or Iraq where the US demonstrated its influence much to the chagrin of Russia and China. Things like ROC v. PRC or Syria have potential because they're in the borderline tug of war between China and Russia vs. the US.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
I look at it this way: Why did the United States invade Iraq but not North Korea? Why did Russia invade Ukraine but hasn't touched the Baltic states? My answer is one word: nukes.
Nukes are the ultimate deterrent for war. Nobody wants a nuclear war nor does anybody think they can win one without MAD. If you take nukes out of the picture, you'd only facilitate a conventional arms race like what Reagan tried to do in the 1980s. You'd have further militarized countries and less of a deterrent. Nukes are horrible things but they are better at deterring war than prompting it.
OK, we have heard different opinions on my question so here's my next question. If you had a device or at least found a way to counter nukes would you give the it away to the government/military? Would you be at all worried about potential consequences?
