I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”
The only reason it stayed cold the whole time is that both sides had nukes. Even the most adamant of chicken hawks hesitated to pull the trigger with the consequence of the world becoming uninhabitable hanging over our heads.
“More nukes” is never a good solution to any problem
I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”
You’d think so, but it worked out surprisingly well during the cold war.
The war that was caused by nuclear arsenals and ended with treaties to get rid of them? The fuck
The only reason it stayed cold the whole time is that both sides had nukes. Even the most adamant of chicken hawks hesitated to pull the trigger with the consequence of the world becoming uninhabitable hanging over our heads.
I’m not saying that MAD is not a thing, I’m just saying it’s a stupid thing. And that the cold war ended when both parties eventually realized that
Perhaps not a good one, but still a solution, when a bear gets overly familiar.
Bear
Beets
Battlestar Galactica
what if your nuclear weapon collection is looking too small? How, other than getting more nukes, does on remedy this problem?
North Korea is a good example of a small collection of Nukes being an effective detterant.