Any way to prevent a nuclear war?

[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.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Advent

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

Problem is that we aren't in feudal times where wars couldn't go any further than your little local village and were a matter of honor and glory.

Here you're wiping out a whole country. Counteroffensive movements will go for yours, the fallout will spread throughout near countries... And that if there's only two nations involved. Think about mutual defense treaties.

Now, on WMD weapons in general: if all the relationships we are going to have here are fear based... It's sad, you know. But it's all what power is about. You make what I say; or else you are dead, capisci?

Perhaps what we shouldn't go discussing about is the weapons but the hand that handles them. As they say "guns don't kill people: people kill people".

Any case, and now regarding modern war in general, it's unfair. It's gross. I don't mean we can reach an idyllic state of "everyone living in harmony and peace as we sing 'Age of Aquarius'"; violence will exist as man exists too, since we aren't always the rational animals we are supposed to be.

But this is mass violence and the people interested in making such conflicts happen do not even get involved. It's the powerful sending their armies to kill other armies and innocents (the so-called collateral damage; such nice words they use in journalism) that don't have anything to do, weren't guilty for it and their only crime is being born in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

I repeat and state again: I defend and demand the right to live to be turned back to the people. War is the greatest denial of that right any nation can make.

[Advent]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

I don't mean we can reach an idyllic state of "everyone living in harmony and peace as we sing 'Age of Aquarius'"; violence will exist as man exists too, since we aren't always the rational animals we are supposed to be.

No no no. Humans are the same as any animal. We use violence just like a tiger, or a hippo, or an ape.

Humans, as we have advanced, have simply advanced the violence as well.

And yes, I agree that a massive counterattack doesn't seem all too well. But tell that to military officers, leaders of countries. Patriotic, angry, nervous citizens.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Advent

No no no. Humans are the same as any animal. We use violence just like a tiger, or a hippo, or an ape.

Humans, as we have advanced, have simply advanced the violence as well

Not so simple IMO. Not all humans blindly attack back once attacked. We can also seek the sympathy of others by staying out of the violence, which can be way better than a direct attack.

If an innocent country gets bombed by another country, it's nowadays high likely that the information will spread fast making the attacker hated by the rest of the world. Now if the other country revenged, the rest of the world would pick their sides way differently.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Advent

No no no. Humans are the same as any animal. We use violence just like a tiger, or a hippo, or an ape.

Humans, as we have advanced, have simply advanced the violence as well.

And yes, I agree that a massive counterattack doesn't seem all too well. But tell that to military officers, leaders of countries. Patriotic, angry, nervous citizens.

I thought reasoning and consciousness allowed us to control our instincts.

Just like we don't jump on the first female we find in our way.