Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Technology

Nukes Are "The Only Peacekeeping Weapons the World Has Ever Known," Says Waltz 707

Posted by Soulskill
from the especially-when-we-drop-them-on-people dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Famed academic Kenneth Waltz for years has argued that more nukes around the world create peace. Why? Because the more nukes are around, the more people are afraid to start a war with a nuclear-armed state. Peace seems assured with a gun to the world's head. In a recent interview, he argues that Iran gaining nuclear weapons would be a good thing. He points out that 'President Obama and a number of others have advocated the abolition of nuclear weapons and many have accepted this as both a desirable and a realistic goal. Even entertaining the goal and contemplating the end seems rather strange. On one hand the world has known war since time immemorial, right through August 1945. Since then, there have been no wars among the major states of the world. War has been relegated to peripheral states (and, of course, wars within them). Nuclear weapons are the only peacekeeping weapons that the world has ever known. It would be strange for me to advocate for their abolition, as they have made wars all but impossible.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nukes Are "The Only Peacekeeping Weapons the World Has Ever Known," Says Waltz

Comments Filter:
  • Inevitably... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:52PM (#40566471)
    ...someone screws up.
    • Re:Inevitably... (Score:5, Informative)

      by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh AT gmail DOT com> on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:05PM (#40566745) Journal

      Luckily that never happens [everything2.com] and nukes are only launched after extensive consideration. [wikipedia.org]

      • Re:Inevitably... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:36PM (#40567265) Homepage Journal

        This just pushed wars underground.

        This is what creates FARC, AL Qaeda and KLA, etc.

        • Re:Inevitably... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by icebike (68054) * on Friday July 06, 2012 @03:34PM (#40568929)

          Don't forget that nukes are, for the most part concentrated in the hands of nations that value human life, or at least
          their own lives. Once that is changed, and the whacko religious states that see death as a pathway to virgins get
          ahold of nukes and a deliver vehicle all bets are off.

          AL Qaeda are symbolic pikers compared to religious zealots bent on ridding the world of something they
          perceive as evil and willing to sacrifice themselves and their own citizens to do so.

          In a world where everyone has weaponry of Mutually Assured Destruction, what means are left to maintain any order?
          One could argue it just gives anyone a free hand to do anything short of launching to anyone else.

          • Re:Inevitably... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Friday July 06, 2012 @09:31PM (#40572587) Journal

            In the end frankly it won't matter whether we have 'em or they have 'em because as the resources run dry there WILL be more wars, only for dwindling supplies instead of beliefs. We simply haven't been able to come up with anything even close to replacing the fossil fuels, not to mention as populations increase, especially in the third world where things are unstable as fuck, well shit IS gonna happen and adding more nukes to the mix would NOT be a good thing.

            The reason peace lasted so long between the USA and USSR was because we were frankly mirror images of each other. Both countries had plenty of resources, both countries had largely secular rulers and belief systems, both saw that the other was an even match for them and that MAD insured that even the winner would be seriously fucked up.

            All that shit goes right out the window when you have hundreds of millions that believe WWIII will bring back their spiritual leader [wikipedia.org] that will magically lay the enemy to waste and give them control of the planet. When you are dealing with THAT level of batshit frankly pointing out MAD would insure their homes glowed in the dark wouldn't do jack because they'd just argue right up until impact that their redeemer would turn the bombs into rainbows. Trying to put East/West ideology into that context is not only retarded but dangerous, because even Stalin wasn't keen on starting wars that he had no chance of winning.

          • Re:Inevitably... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rtb61 (674572) on Friday July 06, 2012 @09:42PM (#40572691) Homepage

            You really don't get it do you. Nukes are the weapon that most effectively targets leadership, the idiots pushing the buttons, the shit heads hiding in bunkers while every else does the fighting and dying. Every knew that wars would come to an end as soon as they created a missile that targeted the 'other guys' leadership from the top down. They are not so eager to fight when it is their worthless narcissistic arses on the line, then it's all let's negotiate and give peace a chance.

      • Re:Inevitably... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chewbacon (797801) on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:03PM (#40567755)
        Working in healthcare, I've come across some sick fucks. Some are born that way, some just wake up that way one morning. Any one person's behavior doesn't surprise me anymore. Regardless of how one ends up going ape shit, eventually one of them will have a nuclear weapon at their disposal.
    • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:09PM (#40566813) Homepage

      Right. There is a plausible argument that nuclear weapons may have decreased the frequency of large-scale war. (That argument could be challenged [the data set is only 67 years, which may not be statistically significant] but it's a defensible proposition). However, nuclear weapons increase the destructiveness of large-scale war. So it is not at all obvious that decreasing the frequency but increasing the severity of war is a good result.

      • More data needed. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:23PM (#40567049)

        Once we have a few global nuclear wars under our belt, we'll have a better idea of the overall destructiveness, as well as the frequency, and we'll be able to make a more meaningful comparison. This is hypothetical, of course, because it's unlikely someone would seriously consider that question after a full scale nuclear war had occurred.

        • Is there any doubt that the overall destructiveness is huge? It is way too unlikely that a thermonuclear war stays at the level of WWII destructiveness or just a bit above it.

          The only open question is about the frequency.

          • by Opie812 (582663) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:44PM (#40567427)
            The only open question is about the frequency.

            I'd say, that'd be about 1.
            • by Tailhook (98486)

              Interminable large scale conventional wars — OR — one nuclear war.

              I honestly don't know which is worse. As it is we are at peace waiting for a nuclear war. I'm absolutely certain this is better than being in the middle of a conventional World War IV or V.

              The thesis that nukes prevent conflicts between nuclear powers is 100% correct in my opinion. Our propensity to indulge our rage explains the invasion of Iraq; there was a deeply felt need to bloody someone more significant than Afghan warlor

          • by mrsquid0 (1335303) on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:11PM (#40567865) Homepage

            So far we have had one nuclear war, one war between two nuclear-armed states that did not escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, and several wars between nuclear and non-nuclear states. We are still in the realm of small-numbers statistics.

        • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:00PM (#40567677)

          No human anyway, but I'm sure some kind of ant would wonder what kind of creature managed to make it to the moon without an exoskeleton.

    • Re:Inevitably... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:27PM (#40567119) Journal
      Also, Waltz seems to be making the assumption that nuke prices and availability are going to magically remain stuck at 'moderately competent nation state run by pragmatic and slightly pessimistic people' indefinitely...

      That(along with the desire to have feeble little countries that can't say no to their betters' proxy wars, and a mutual desire to spend less on maintaining ICBMs) is really what bolsters the enthusiasm for arms control even among countries that already have lots and lots of nukes. Up to a point, the availability of nuclear arms can reduce conflict, or at least relocate it to countries nobody loves very much; but their broad availability could get unpleasant.
    • by AugstWest (79042)

      Yeah, by writing this article in the first place.

      I mean, what does "peace" mean?

      Does it mean that a government with nukes can abuse the crap out of its own people because outside forces dare not intercede for fear of starting a nuclear war?

  • One small caveat (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh AT gmail DOT com> on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:53PM (#40566479) Journal

    His assumption requires that all the wielders of nuclear weapons are sane.

    • Re:One small caveat (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ackthpt (218170) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:56PM (#40566541) Homepage Journal

      His assumption requires that all the wielders of nuclear weapons are sane.

      Even when they are, war still finds a way.

    • Re:One small caveat (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MasaMuneCyrus (779918) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:56PM (#40566549)

      I think the assumption is that, despite the religious fanaticism and/or grandiose visions of world conquest of some leaders, those in possession of nuclear weapons are actually motivated by self-interest and self-preservation.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ShieldW0lf (601553)

        I think the assumption is that war is intrinsically undesirable. Clearly, it serves an important purpose, or we would have set it aside long ago. I'd say the purpose of war is to destroy a state that has become a liability to the human race, and it's past time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098)

      Not only that - it assumes that no one fucks up. Nuclear war was avoided for two reasons: both the USSR and the US were rational actors, and on both sides there were people who would rather die in a nuclear attack than press the button that started the nuclear war.

      If every nation in the world has nukes - some more, some less - it is guaranteed that some nutjob will think that it is better to kill your enemy and be incinerated yourself than to tolerate the affronts for one more second.

      There is a reason we do

    • by Snarfangel (203258) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:00PM (#40566637) Homepage

      We can prove this scientifically.

      First, assume a spherical dictator. For example, Kim Jong-un.

    • by Jiro (131519) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:04PM (#40566713)

      Also, he assumes that the problem is that someone wants to start a war with a nuclear-armed state, rather than the nuclear-armed state starting a war with someone else.If Iran nukes Israel, it won't be because Israel started it.

  • Preventing large scale conflict between Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Western Europe, United States.

    Meanwhile, we've had almost non-stop wars, revolutions, invasions and a few instances of genocide since Nagasaki & Hiroshima

    I don't think it's working...

    Now sharks with lasers, that might do the trick...

  • by Nursie (632944) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:54PM (#40566519)

    Kings, emperors, priests, dictators and all other types of power-seeking politicians, who drag a country to war seemingly over little more than a bad case of butthurt, maybe then we could have some sort of peace without the MAD.

  • The Main Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loteck (533317) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:56PM (#40566539) Homepage
    The main problem is that the first time there is an exception to this trend of peace, it could conceivably be the last exception for everyone, period.
    • Nuclear technology is verifyable and in a reasonably stable world it is possible to enforce a ban. So we should. Bioweapons and cyberwarfare isnt verifyable so we should be working on that.

  • by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:58PM (#40566587)

    Lisa, I want to buy your rock...

  • Gandhi's threats of NUCLEAR WEAPONS never kept me from going to war with him, so clearly this premise is false.

  • Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sparticus789 (2625955) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:59PM (#40566605) Journal

    The 2.25 million people that died in the Korean War, and the ~ 2 million people that died in the Vietnam War would beg to differ.

    • Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:12PM (#40566861)

      That's exactly what he said, wars have been relegated to "peripheral states", not major states. Proxy wars between major states inside a third-party country is not the same thing as a direct war between the two major states.

  • by psydeshow (154300) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:59PM (#40566611) Homepage

    If nuclear weapons have made war so unlikely, then why does the USA spend so much time and money fighting wars?

  • by proslack (797189) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:00PM (#40566651) Journal
    Nothing new. "If that's the only thing that's stopping war then thank God for the bomb" ---Ozzy
  • Ultimate Time Bomb (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:01PM (#40566669)

    Sorry to be blunt but anyone who thinks this is a moron.

    The lack of wars involving countries possessing nuclear weapons does not demonstrate that it is a good peacekeeping measure. It demonstrates that it's a good _TEMPORARY_ peacekeeping measure. The problem is, eventually, at some point, someone will push the button. And the button has drastic results that will instantly eradicate any concept of "peace" in an instant as well as plunging the planet into the stone age. Just because a weapon _temporarily_ prevents violence does not mean it will _permanently_ prevent it. We are, in the end, human. We will, eventually, fight. Someone will sling insults and then, eventually, someone will throw a punch. The problem is the punch will wipe out an entire city and be followed by hundreds of other punches.

    Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are a peacekeeping tool is an idiot. They are the ultimate ticking time bomb. They are a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

    To be blunt.

    • by Mullen (14656) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:27PM (#40567117)

      Well, if I can be blunt, what you state are the words of a simpleton.

      The fact is, there are nuclear weapons in the world. They are here and they are not leaving until something more powerful comes along and to decry their existence is pointless and left for debating by simpletons who live in a dream world.

      Permeant peace is an unachievable dream since every State has their own goals and many of those goals go against another States goals. In a sense, nuclear weapons create a temporary peace that is very very very long. Creating a balance where if one nuclear actor strikes another, they will strike back with nuclear weapons. This creates a very balanced, and I will admit, frightening peace.

      Iran and North Korea, with all of their bluster, are never going to strike their nuclear neighbors since the neighbors will strike back with nuclear weapons. The balance being; anything they have to gain will be lost in the mushroom clouds that soon form over their own cities. Their leaders might be crazy, but they know the day they strike with nuclear weapons, is the last day they are in power and power is all they care about.

      • by mrjatsun (543322)

        > Their leaders might be crazy, but they know the day they strike with nuclear weapons,
        > is the last day they are in power and power is all they care about.

        Yes, and what if they are about to removed from power, e.g. uprising? What's to stop them from having the
        mentality of "if I can't have, no one will".

  • by UltimaBuddy (2566017) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:02PM (#40566693)
    ... and everyone got all uptight about me handing out guns indiscriminately to known & repeat violent offenders.

    Why can't they see that I'm trying to keep them safe?
  • Ponder This (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:04PM (#40566719) Journal

    In May, 1945 as Germany collapsed completely, the Soviets had over six million troops in Eastern Europe. War planners in Britain and the US had already been planning for WWIII. To my mind, one of things that stopped the Red Army in its tracks and ended any possibility of trying to take advantage of the numerical superiority in that theater was the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The unconditional surrender of the Japanese to the Americans after those attacks also meant that the Soviets only managed to grab the Kuril Islands, and never made it as far as the Japanese main islands (there are some who theorize one of the reasons that Truman gave the go ahead was to convince the Japanese to surrender quickly before the Soviets could start moving south from the Kurils).

    • Re:Ponder This (Score:4, Informative)

      by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:15PM (#40566933)

      (there are some who theorize one of the reasons that Truman gave the go ahead was to convince the Japanese to surrender quickly before the Soviets could start moving south from the Kurils).

      Which is nonsense. The USSR didn't even attack Japan until August 18, which was after both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

      Truman making the decision to drop the atomic bombs to prevent the Soviets from grabbing more than Kurils when the Soviets didn't have the Kurils till after the bombs were dropped would be an amazing example of prescience....

      • by Shatrat (855151)

        Would it have taken Nostradamus to figure out that the USSR would do the same thing to Japan that they did to Eastern Europe if given the chance?

      • by Svartormr (692822)

        At the Tehran and Yalta Conferences Stalin agreed to wage war on Japan within 3 months after the war ending in Europe. And the U.S.S.R. did so to the day on August 9, 1945.

        Althought there may have been thoughs about limiting Soviet opportunities for expansion, dropping the bombs on Japan was the alternative to amphibious invasion by the United States, Britain, and the other allies. From Wikipedia's article on Operation Downfall [wikipedia.org]:

        Japan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kysh, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties[1] and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.

  • by BForrester (946915) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:08PM (#40566807)

    The citizens of Nagasaki second the argument.

  • by gman003 (1693318) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:12PM (#40566879)

    So the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Dominican Republic wars, the Arab-Israeli and Yom Kippur wars, the Soviet and American invasions of Afghanistan, two Persian Gulf wars, the Falklands War, the Invasion of Grenada, the Serbia-Bosnia war, and too many more to list... those are just what, "police actions"? Some of them you can discard as "non-major countries", but too many of them had major, nuclear-armed powers on at least one side.

    In fact, you could argue that nukes have produced *more* wars. Just look at Wikipedia. They obviously don't have a single page listing every war that ever was, but they've got it broken up by dates:
    List of wars before 1000
    List of wars 1000–1499
    List of wars 1500–1799
    List of wars 1800–1899
    List of wars 1900–1944
    List of wars 1945–1989
    List of wars 1990–2002
    List of wars 2003–2010
    List of wars 2011–present

    Weird how roughly 40% of all wars happen *after* 1945, when he says war basically ended. That assumes that all sub-lists have approximately the same length, which isn't precisely true, but it's close enough for our purposes (in fact, the longest seem to be the 1900-1944 and 1945-1989 lists). So you could easily argue that, while nukes may prevent major wars, they do so by converting them into numerous small wars.

    And even his premise of "no major wars" is not proven. Sure, we haven't had a World War since '45. That's 65 years or so. They've had wars that *lasted* longer than that. Having a peace that lasts that long in "Western and Northern Europe and North America" isn't exactly uncommon. I can imagine people made the same argument about the rifle in pre-Napoleonic Europe, and I know people said such things about machine guns after WWI.

    The Fallout games had it right - war never changes.

    • Considering the Western Hemisphere, there were several "general wars", involving the major powers of the day. The Seven Years War could probably be considered the first actual world war, as it involved the Great Powers and their overseas empires.

      That is considerably different than regional or civil wars. Yes, there have been more of those, but when you compare them to the sheer losses of massive conflicts like the Thirty Years War or WWII, it's hard see how your comparison is all that fitting.

    • by arceum (1828814) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:24PM (#40567069)
      Wikipedia breaks it down like this because of the availability of information, not the frequency of the subject. You really think there have been the same number of wars from the beginning of time to 1000ad as the last 18 months, as you imply? There have wars that took out entire civilizations that you've never heard of, that no one has heard of, Wikipedia is no time traveler. There have been no major wars, what makes a war major, you ask, my answer would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll [wikipedia.org]
    • by MobyDisk (75490)

      No wars... right... (Score:5, Insightful)

      The article doesn't say no wars. You just refuted a point the article didn't make.

      Some of them you can discard as "non-major countries", but too many of them had major, nuclear-armed powers on at least one side.

      Exactly as the article says. Things like police actions and proxy wars will still be fought.

      I can imagine people made the same argument about the rifle in pre-Napoleonic Europe.

      Imaginings are not evidence.

      Also: Any Wikipedia list of anything will be biased toward current events.

  • by onyxruby (118189) <.onyxruby. .at. .comcast.net.> on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:12PM (#40566881)

    Love it or hate it, MAD is the most successful peace program this world has ever known. I know a lot of the anti-nuke zealots out there while immediately shout "but, they could kill whole cities, hundreds of thousands of millions could die".

    History will tell you that conventional arms are leading that race by well over a hundred million just in the last century alone. Because of nukes the cold war remained cold and never became hot. Pick a body count site and look at the body count from the number of people killed before, during and after the cold war.

    I'm on the pro-nuke side of this argument and my body count is many, many millions less than the other side of the argument. The bottom line is that the cold war with it's policy of MAD was the most peaceful period in human history.

    It really boils down to one idea, and you have to make a simple value judgement to know which side of the argument to sit on. Is the concept of nuclear free /peace/ in the air more important than the reality of millions of dead bodies in the ground? Try as you might, the one thing you can never change is human nature.

  • by na1led (1030470) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:13PM (#40566899)
    Doesn't mater how powerful a gun someone has, they will eventually find reason to use it.
  • Yes and no (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:16PM (#40566943)

    Nuclear weapons have eliminated wars between major powers, yes. But this does not mean they are peacekeeping weapons. Instead what they do is effectively put a ceiling on the scale and intensity of a conflict. The US doesn't want to get in a major set-piece battle with Russia, because everyone knows if that happens, there won't be a US, Russia, or probably a Europe either. Most wars these days are very low-intensity, and many of them involve proxies of some sort or another: Vietnam, Afghanistan(1980s), Iraq (2003). In all 3 of these cases you have major military powers fighting an enemy that is not as well equipped or armed, but has external backing of another major power to one extent or another. In Vietnam you had the Soviets arming, training, and in some cases fighting for the North Vietnamese; Afghanistan has mujaheddin funded and armed by US money and weapons, and in Iraq you had Syria and Iran assisting the insurgents. Here's an analogy: if you dislike a guy, but you know he carries a gun with him, you aren't going to walk up to him and punch him in the face: you're going to get shot. But you can get at him by paying a kid $20 to go slash the guy's tires while he's sitting in a bar or something. You two are not exactly "at war", but you are also not at all at peace. So what nuclear weapons do is basically force you, as a leader, to draw the line at how far you are willing to take a conflict, and who you're willing to fight against. But hostile action is, and mostly likely always will be, a major and vital part of statecraft. And this would be true even if every state had nuclear weapons.

    That being said, I have read Waltz numerous times, and I know I've cited him him several times while in grad school. And he is right that we still need to keep nukes around, because even a bunch of low-intensity conflicts are "better" (ie, not as costly in terms of human life and money) than just one major conflict between large nations like the US and Russia (partly because any conflict of this magnitude would certainly draw in other states, while a low intensity conflict is more likely to stay isolated).

  • by tsotha (720379) on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:27PM (#40567113)

    The flaw in this argument, of course, is nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers in the same way the IMF, World Bank, and the Fed prevent the collapse of banks. That is, they can do so for decades, but when the banking system fails everyone goes down together.

    It's an academic question anyway. There isn't any way to verify a country hasn't stashed a few nukes away on the sly, which means nobody is going to get rid of their arsenal completely. There will never be a nuclear weapon free world.

  • by The Mister Purple (2525152) on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:15PM (#40567933) Homepage

    But if we don't abolish nukes, then we won't get a proper world war going again, and what will FPS developers do?

  • by raque (457836) <jimwall.mac@com> on Friday July 06, 2012 @03:37PM (#40568967)

    I am horrified that the smart people of slashdot are simply accepting the premise that nukes have exclusively created peace in the world. Misunderstanding this point can cause that it is trying to avoid. Mr Waltz's thesis is that since the end of WWII there hasn't been a major war between Nuclear powers. He asserts that the major change has been the existence of nukes, therefore nukes are what are keeping the peace. That logic is flawed horribly. This is confusing correlation with causation. Other things have changed also. For example:

    I can assert that since 1945 the United Nations has existed. Therefor the UN has prevented a major war;

    World War II is the most heavily documented event in human history. Since we cannot ignore the mountains of history we are able to avoid repeating it. Santayana is proved, not Waltz;

    After WWII education and communications have boomed. Since smart people anywhere on Earth who can commentate in written English can exchange ideas freely on Slashdot the conditions for war are ameliorated. Therefor Slashdot and the internet and mass communication have prevented war.

    As a corollary: To be correct Waltz would have to rephrase his comments to: Nukes can't keep the peace, they are objects. It is knowledge of what will happen if the Nukes are used that keeps the peace. The confounding of Nukes and knowledge is troubling.

    This also ignores two facts: First, that except for a tiny part all of the damage of WWII was done with conventional weapons. When we look at image after image of different blasted cities, only two were nuked. If we hid the few important landmarks could anyone here tell the difference. Horror and death are horror and death -- how they are achieved may not be important. Second, India and Pakistan are still well within the average, 17.3 years, between wars. We have no proof that Nukes have done anything to maintain peace between them.

    It is most important to realize that none of these are exclusive. It can easily be argued that it is some combination of the factors I have laid out that keeps the peace.

                       

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.

Working...