Any way to prevent a nuclear war?

[ZenitYerkes]

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.

[Fosus]

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 :/

[caveman]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

et voilà.

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.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

et voilà.

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.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by caveman

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.

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.

[Exoblade]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

I'm afraid I have to disagree on you on the topic of Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. I feel that they have nuclear weapons mainly used as a deterrent.

Pakistan developed their weapons in response to India nuclear weapons after the 1971 war in an attempt to counter Indian miltary superiority, an attempt to prevent a further indian invasion by use of the MAD doctrine.

North Korea developed nuclear weapons to provide a further deterrent against invasion either by the south or the US. Again its the MAD doctrine, if you attack us we can hit you hard (assuming they can get their rockets to work)

Iran is an semi-isolated state who is in a stand off with two nuclear powers (Israel and the USA) the later having a massive miltary superiority. Acquiring nuclear weapons would protect them from attack via the MAD doctrine.

Of course these states have their problems. Pakistan is suffering internal ethnic conflicts and its intelligence services are supporting terrorist groups but as far as I see the army itself (though weak) is stable. North Korea may be a brutal dictatorship but its leadership is more concerned with thier lifestyles and therefore have no reason to risk being deposed through a war. Iran is a bit of a wildcard due to the power of radical clerics but from what I see the government knows the risks and so steer close to the edge but doesn't try to fully cross it, after the invasion of iraq and the fear of US invasion they slowed down their missile side of their weapon programme.

[Tsyal Makto]

"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?

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

"The only winning move is not to play."

But unfortunately, the players don't know that.

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

[Advent]

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.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Advent

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?

[Advent]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

Then why do we still have nuclear missiles?

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

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Advent

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.

[Isard]

Tactical elimination of rogue state's nuclear devices.

[Advent]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

In such cases the best move is not to counterattack.

If your country was about to be obliterated, you wouldn't go down without a fight.

[electrosphere11]

Give all the nukes to the Swiss