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.

[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.

[electrosphere11]

Give all the nukes to the Swiss

[Spartan]

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

[Spock]

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.

[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.