De Facto countries count as a country for the purposes of this question, including unrecognized ones.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Historically nukes have served as an effective deterrent to war, ironically. Given that very strong historical pattern, I’d assume the world would, overall, become a more peaceful and cooperative place thanks to mutually-assured destruction.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      an effective deterrent to war

      Do not fool yourself. Nukes have NOT achieved that on their own.

      It has always been humans who were somewhat responsible and willing to communicate (diplomacy) instead of shooting blindly.

      • isyasad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Vasily Arkhipov in 1962 and Stanislav Petrov in 1983 are usually credited as single-handedly preventing nuclear launches. If it wasn’t for them, perhaps people wouldn’t think that nuclear weapons are such a strong deterrent.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        It’s only happened twice in world history for a reason.

        There are thousands of nukes in the world, but no one ever fires them. They make the world more peaceful, not more dangerous.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          We’ve gotten very uncomfortably close to a nuclear exchange multiple times in history

          The only reason it didn’t happen is pure luck