Any way to prevent a nuclear war?
 

A threat that has been on for 70 years: we have the means to make that happen -just add the exact amount of international friction and conflicts for basic resources, et voilà.

Is it something that just depends on the big bosses? Or can we make anything to stop that from happening?

I honestly see signing petitions or demonstrating quite pointless in this case.

I hope it can be prevented so long that humans are out of Earth's resources to start the war.. that's very unlikely though :/

I don't think its that simple. I think any government on the verge of a nuclear war would dissolve from within long before anything happens.

I don't think its that simple. I think any government on the verge of a nuclear war would dissolve from within long before anything happens.

"The only winning move is not to play."

But unfortunately, the players don't know that. So the only real way to prevent it would be to...remove the players, and destroy their pieces.

Now, how about a nice game of chess?

They do.. and that's why nuclear war has not taken place yet.

Nuclear War would only be likely in a case of massive hatred for another country, genuine need for more resources, or in a major conflict that's hit a stalemate, or isn't going too well.

For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis. That could've easily been a nuclear conflict.

None of the 'higher ups' actually want a nuclear war. Because:

1. Their country may be obliterated.

2. Massive slaughter of innocent civilians.

3. Infrastructure likely destroyed.

4. Bombed countries are now uninhabitable.

The end results aren't too favourable.

Then why do we still have nuclear missiles?

Simple. If someone does launch their missiles, they won't go unpunished.

In such cases the best move is not to counterattack.

At least then, half of the world would remain.

Tactical elimination of rogue state's nuclear devices.

Give all the nukes to the Swiss

A nuclear war will start, no one can deny it. I hate to say it but once the worlds major resources are VERY limited, then countries will start fighting over what is left. I can only hope im long gone before then :p

Nuclear weapons have only ever existed to prevent war. I thought you would know this too Zenit. That's why nuclear weapons are a necessity on this earth otherwise warfare would be a lot more common.

North Korea? Iran? Pakistan?

The whole theory of 'the only winning move is not to play' assumes you still want to survive the war. Back then, there were no psychotic dictatorships with nuclear weapons, only the US, UK, France, NATO countries with some of the US', and the USSR. All of those had an actual interest in their continued survival and nuclear weapons were (and still are for those countries) intended as a deterrent, not a 'take the rest of the world with us' option.

On the other hand, if Iran, North Korea and Pakistan were to be eliminated or to become democratic, then the risk of nuclear war would suddenly become a lot lower. Not even China would engage in a nuclear war which would result in their annihilation too. Every civilised nation with nuclear weapons knows that even a direct hit on a well developed country's population centres would not harm their capacity to retaliate (USA, UK, Russia, France, Israel and China all have this capability), not to mention the fact that launches cam be made within the warning window.

well, the most and simple way would be just destroying nuclear weapons and in general and dont allow production of new ones.

But as long as there are crazy People in our World, as long there are crazy things happening.

Quite depressive, isn't it?

You'd have to destroy quite a few- thousands.

noo. the atomic bomb was produced to end WW2 and to show the russians we were better.. the only reason they prevent war is because everyone knows their destructive power

The train of thought changed pretty quickly though as governments saw the power of nuclear weapons to prevent war. Nuclear weapons could never really be deployed in a global war due to collateral damage.

exactly, but you said the only reason they were produced was to prevent war.. which was untrue, but later on and now thats their perpose :)

I meant for the comment to be ambiguous as to prove my point to Zenit. It's no matter anyway.

Why making a weapon that will never be used?

To create fear I'd say.

Exactly. It's fear of retaliation that prevents nuclear war.

I mean, isn't that what the Cold War was? Just scaring each other by developing new mass destruction weapons planned to be used against the other side?; but never came to use.

In essence yes.

So we're all pointing guns to each other right now, in order to prevent shooting anyone down.

Nice.

The big guns, yea. Not the small ones :P

Why criminals/cops have guns, just to provoke by scaring the target from doing anything stupid. In most cases. Let's just exclude any occasion where the criminal/cop could be a gun triggered moron, like Grace explained :P

The problem with handling big guns is that you don't only kill the criminal but other 5 million people, y'know.

That's sorta gross.

What I-Man said:


Unless, there now is a trigger happy moron behind the buttons... we should worry. The only option would to be sacrifice few for the many (seen global population wise) And I agree... strongly! It is gross :S.
Still, I don't believe there are any war solved through diplomacy/politics only. How could it then be a war? (define war?) (If you exclude the Cold "War")

This is how I picture the whole thing.

"If you don't stop I will deploy my nukes all over your land"
"No, if *you* don't stop we will blow up your ridiculous country"

From this point on, either both countries realize they must reach a diplomatic solution; or shoot each other down (and millions of innocents, too). The probability of the second one increases as the basic resources available run out.

And we *are* running out of resources.

Nukes are something that should never have been invented in the first place.

I actually made a Chemistry/Environmental-report last year about "Powerplants and Nukes - OK or Not?" I didn't even have any arguments for what good nukes did... except having an extremely high kill ratio... if that is seen as good >.> (for the attacking country)

Powerplants is a different matter I don't think we should bring up. But scientists (Einstein) saw the potential power of fission; and put that together with a couple of ideas and they got the Nuke. If not Einstein, then someone else would've discovered it) It was inevitable I say.

As I said before, there are only a few countries mad enough to actually use them as a first strike option. If those countries were eliminated or had a revolution and turned to democracy, there wouldn't be a problem and the world could start talks on eliminating nuclear weapons. While North Korea and Pakistan still have nuclear weapons and Iran is attempting to develop them, any other country getting rid of theirs would be suicide. Not even China would be willing to be completely destroyed in return for doing so to the rest of the world.

It wasn't. But let's not discuss over the past.

I agree powerplants if properly maintained are a good source of energy -a quite fundamental one; for it's cheap, clean and constant. But nukes are another kind of thing altogether. They are a threat not for countries to each other, but for mankind as a whole: we can destroy the Earth. We have potential and tools to do so, and as long as the possibility exists it's only a matter of time and for the needed situations and conflicts arise to make such thing happen.

Even if countries could keep their nukes underground forever, I just hope we don't reach the point of nuclear terrorism. *That* is having a trigger happy moron around.

Don't believe democracy is perfect. It could let you down.

Specially here.

I was going to quote that as well. Democracy is by no means perfect. The majority can always be wrong, and has been wrong before.

The threat of nuclear warfare was the thing that made me get PAD in the first place. The thing that was really making me depressed was the fact that we still had weapons of mass destruction and that there was nothing I could do (at the time) to change it. After all, if you aren't holding the stick, then someone else will.

This all stems from mistrust between different countries, ethnicities, and religions. If people could work on forming that trust, by getting closer and learning about each other, then progress could be made. If extremists worked against it, this is the only time I would agree with having them eliminated, for what I believe is the betterment of our world.

The old troll quote: "Why not just blow the Na'vi from orbit? This movie is so unrealistic!"

Now... give that a thought. Did JC forget about Nukes in the future or are they perhaps gone? Supposedly that man is still fighting (in some masses), they have survived so far, so what about the Nukes?

Thoughts?

I think we agreed that the RDA didn't have access to any nuclear weapons. As it is, they didn't have a formal military. They hired mercenaries. I think this will have to be addressed if the humans ever return.

Exactly.
(PS. This thread is about on Earth, not in Avatar :P )

We are running out of resources but the fight over them will be fought with conventional albiet highly advanced weapons, just wait and see.