404 Not Found

Last time I checked, only eight nations actually have nuclear weapons? How can you abolish something you never had?

xandreu wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:21 pm 404 Not Found

Last time I checked, only eight nations actually have nuclear weapons? How can you abolish something you never had?

No quick censorship necessary. Just using the correct link works fine.

The OPs link is missing an 'l' from the end of html. Try this one >> https://www.juancole.com/2021/01/abolis ... tries.html


A treaty to abolish nuclear weapons means nothing if just one nation decides not to sign.

Is a world without nuclear weapons safer than a world with? If there's one thing humans are good at, it's going to war. We've been doing it constantly for millennia. At least, we did, up until the end of the last big one. It's looking like my generation is going to be the first generation ever that can live their entire life without having to go to war.

How big a part have nuclear weapons played in that? Difficult to say. It's likely a combination of things, but you can't deny that nuclear weapons have played 'a' part in keeping the relative peace. I think we can all agree that the cold war would have played out very differently if it wasn't for the threat of nuclear annihilation on both sides.

It's a tough cookie. Personally, I err on the side of the world being safer with them rather than without them, but I would probably change my view as more and more countries begin to posses them. You could bring in the 'rogue state' argument such as North Korea, but again, they would have nothing to gain from launching a nuclear attack. From their point of view, they act as a security measure against outside forces. The same way that all countries with nuclear weapons currently use them.

After World War I the League of Nations voted unanimously to outlaw or ban war. From then on, no nation would pursue hostilities with any other nation.

It worked out so well.

Prediction. War is coming.

Mutual assured destruction with nuclear weapons is can not be won.

There have been numerous regional conflicts since then.

The UN assures that aggressor nations usually don’t lose much if they lose on the battlefield. See Arab Israeli wars, Korea, etc. The UN always intervened. The wars were never allowed to end with one side total defeated.

Now the likelihood of conflict with major powers and the next World War is much more likely.

The path of good intentions.

Yerg wrote:You’ve undermined your own argument. Mutual assured destruction = world war much likely????

Mutual Assured Destruction with nuclear weapons. See the Cold War as an example. The US and the USSR never went to a World War Three as a result.

No more nuclear weapons available, means conventional war only. There are been numerous conventional wars among regional powers. When the aggressor countries start losing they run to the UN to halt stop the war. So low risk to starting wars.

My argument is that a World War becomes much more likely.

How does this undermine my argument?