This author wants to award the nobel peace prize to nuclear weapons

[Wesley Clark]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091011/us_time/08599192955300

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html?xid=rss-fullnation-yahoo

His argument is that nuclear weapons pose such a mutually assured destruction scenario that it kept the world's major powers out of war.

I've heard the theory before. However I have some problems with it.

1. Most of the deaths that occurred in the 20th century due to war were due to two wars, which were arguably just continuations of each other. The first world war and the second world war (which was fought while trying to reclaim territory and status the German government felt they lost in the first world war).

So saying '3 million people a year died, then it went down to 1 million after nuclear weapons' neglects the fact that most of the deaths from 1900-1945 were due to two wars which were arguably one single war. There were still wars and conflicts, but nobody had the level of destructiveness the world's powers has in WW1 and WW2. There was less killing because the nations doing the killing weren't as good at it as they were in WW1 and 2.

2. MAD only works when there is mutual destruction. Historically only a handful of nations have had nukes. The US, USSR, France, UK, China were the major ones. Then India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and South Africa.

So MAD would not apply except in a war between the communists and capitalists. So I don't think nukes are a major deterrent.

3. The democratic peace theory states that nations which have functioning liberal democracies rarely go to war with each other.

I believe the number (of the 192ish countries on earth) that were considered liberal democracies was roughly 0 in 1900, 40 around 1970 and 90 starting around 1990.

So democratic peace caused by a world of functioning liberal democracies could explain the decline in deaths as well.

4. Stalin may have been murdered by his inner circle because he was planning a massive pogrom and nuclear war against the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2793501.stm

So if there was a drastic reduction in deaths after WW2 it wasn't due to nuclear weapons (those would've added to the deaths), it was due to Stalin's death.

The world has come close to nuclear war before. The bay of pigs or the 1983 incident.

http://www.brightstarsound.com/



So all in all, it doesn't sound to me like nukes help bring about peace. To me the major reasons for fewer deaths is that the world's major powers didn't go to war because of issues like Stalin's death, economic interdependence or the democratic peace theory. Plus most of the deaths before nuclear weapons were due to 2 wars which were arguably just one war with 20 years of relative peace in the middle.

[billfish678]

[

4. Stalin may have been murdered by his inner circle because he was planning a massive pogrom and nuclear war against the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2793501.stm

So if there was a drastic reduction in deaths after WW2 it wasn't due to nuclear weapons (those would've added to the deaths), it was due to Stalin's death.

.


Point 4 makes the point that MAD is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Nuclear war BAD. Stalin is crazy old bastard who wants to do it anyway. Other crazy old bastards figure this is a BAD idea. Old crazy bastards kill even more crazy old bastard to save their own (and everyone else's for that matter) asses. And considering plotting to kill Stalin is probably about as dangerous a move as you can get in life, these guys apparently knew just how bad nuclear war is for everyone.


Point 4 makes the exact opposite argument that you seem to think it does. Assuming of course that the planning of war and assasination actually happened.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Much as I hate the whole concept behind MAD, I've come to the view that it did in fact help prevent the cold war from progressing into an all out war that would probably have been even worse than WW1 and WW2 combined. But one of the main reasons it would have been so bad is the nuclear weapon technology in the first place...

Anyway, MAD only works as an open strategy between sufficiently powerful states: you can't plan it in secret, all the parties involved need to know about it, they need to have something to lose, they need to have the potential for a powerful retaliatory strike, and everybody has to accept the logic behind it.

Which was fine as far as it goes during the cold war, but it doesn't work in many other scenarios. A country with a large nuclear capability can take out any non-nuclear opponent with impunity as long as they're willing to use those nukes (like the suggested use of nukes in Vietnam, for example). And small groups with nuclear capability that aren't easily identified with particular regions have a lot less to lose and a lot more to gain from using nukes instead of "traditional" warfare, even against nuclear opponents.

I really would not be surprised to see nukes being used in attacks during my lifetime, though I think the risk of it escalating to WW3 is probably a lot lower now than it used to be. But the technology is spreading, there is not way to put the genie back in the bottle and it only takes a few motivated and well funded nutbags to kill a couple of million people. Also see: tactical nukes.

[Grumman]

There were still wars and conflicts, but nobody had the level of destructiveness the world's powers has in WW1 and WW2. There was less killing because the nations doing the killing weren't as good at it as they were in WW1 and 2.
The nations doing the killing weren't worse at it, they were pulling their punches.

[Voyager]

It is a kind of plausible idea, except you can't give an award to a thing, and all the architects of MAD are dead. I'd extend it to Hiroshima. I think that seeing the impact of an atomic bomb on real people did a lot to make the public understand what would happen if there was a war, far more than seeing fake towns in Nevada blown up.
The question is: what would have been the probability of a NATO - Warsaw Pact war in central Europe without MAD? That would have led to tens of millions of casualties and the total destruction of Germany at least, yet again, and would have dwarfed the wars we have had,

[gonzomax]

Then it is simple. Give nukes to every country in the world. Then war will end because the fear of nukes will save us all. Who would go to war if you knew for a fact that your enemy had nukes?
We have plenty of nukes, so we could give each county 10 of them and still have a bunch left over.

[John Mace]

It is a kind of plausible idea, except you can't give an award to a thing...

Sure you can. (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/1982.html)

[Wesley Clark]

Sure you can. (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/1982.html)

http://www.thephantomcity.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/20070629simpsonscarbonrod.jpg

[billfish678]

Then it is simple. Give nukes to every country in the world. Then war will end because the fear of nukes will save us all. Who would go to war if you knew for a fact that your enemy had nukes?
We have plenty of nukes, so we could give each county 10 of them and still have a bunch left over.

Its the internation equivalent of handguns.

Responsible, rational people/nations have em ? Probably a net positive. Every crazy dipshit has them? Probably not so good.

[gonzomax]

Its the internation equivalent of handguns.

Responsible, rational people/nations have em ? Probably a net positive. Every crazy dipshit has them? Probably not so good.

Even dipshits are afraid of nukes. We have guns and bombs. Apparently they are not scary enough.

[gonzomax]

Is the lesson, that if Russia did not get nukes, we would have used nukes on them? Is that what you believe? The only reason America did not use them was because the commies managed to get them too quickly? Perhaps we owe the Rosenbergs a thank you.

[Wesley Clark]

Even dipshits are afraid of nukes. We have guns and bombs. Apparently they are not scary enough.

Supposedly when Stalin was contemplating nuclear war he looked at all the people in the USSR who had died from famine, pogroms and WW2. It came to roughly 1/6 of the nation and he decided that because the USSR could still function after everything it'd been through from 1920-1950, that it would survive nuclear war.

Kim Jong Il isn't going to use nukes because he doesn't want to lose his lifestyle and power after the world beats his country to death in retaliation. But Al Qaeda would if they could. And Stalin would because he feels his nation would still survive.

If anything, EMP weapons might be the ultimate deterrent. The idea of causing trillions in damage to another nation's infrastructure and property could be a strong deterrent to war.

[Wesley Clark]

Is the lesson, that if Russia did not get nukes, we would have used nukes on them? Is that what you believe? The only reason America did not use them was because the commies managed to get them too quickly? Perhaps we owe the Rosenbergs a thank you.

Who are you addressing with this question?

The US didn't use nukes on Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq or any other nation we've gone to war with other than Japan.

MacArthur wanted to attack the USSR in 1945, before they had nuclear weapons. That idea was shot down. So the idea of attacking had already been presented and shot down.

[gonzomax]

It is the logic. We didn't use them because Russia got them. And the obverse that Russia didn't use them because we didn't. The idea that nukes makes the world safer in illogical. Apparently when countries that fear the US attacking them, getting nukes it is a no no. I wonder why we object? If we gave Iran nukes, then Israel would be less likely to attack them. The US might be more wary of attacking Iran. See ,peace in our time.

[Stranger On A Train]

. . .

[Stranger On A Train]

Then it is simple. Give nukes to every country in the world. Then war will end because the fear of nukes will save us all. Who would go to war if you knew for a fact that your enemy had nukes?
We have plenty of nukes, so we could give each county 10 of them and still have a bunch left over.I wish you were just making an ironic joke in bad taste, but I know that you're not.

The above poster, and the author cited by the o.p., both seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both the underpinnings and limitations of (Mutually) Assured Destruction; to wit, that it is a game between two players with effective parity, both of whom are assured that the other cannot launch some kind of disabling strike or counterforce attack, and neither of whom perceive a net gain despite the impact of a strategic nuclear exchange.

The author also seems to be under the misapprehension that because no exchange occurred, Assured Destruction therefore "worked", i.e. was the proximate cause of the stalemate; never mind the at least half a dozen incidents where one party or the other was within a hair's breadth of launching weapons because of the fear that the other party would levy a disabling strike first, or, due to equipment malfunction and human error, was already engaging in an attack. So the author compares a hypothetical "might have been" without nuclear weapons to a "what was" with them, rather than factoring in the number of people who would have been killed had a nuclear attack occurred. This isn't just apples to oranges; it is a pineapples to papayas comparison.

While aversion to attack was certainly factored into all strategic decisions between the United States and its NATO allies and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact "client states", the fact is that planners in the Soviet Union never fully subscribed to the basic tenets and conclusions of Assured Destruction. Their reluctance to launch an attack, even when they had numerical superiority of weapons (late 'Sixties through the early 'Eighties) wasn't based on a fear of utter destruction, but the fact that they just didn't really have anything to gain, whereas fielding (or often pretending to field) new classes of weapons and delivery systems gave them considerable political clout at the negotiating table.

At any rate, basic game theory shows that with more than two players, Assured Destruction becomes an unstable, untenable game. See the Diner's Dilemma for an illustration as to why. In reality, the lack of parity between players makes this potentially more unstable, especially if alliances are drawn between powers that have a significant disparity between force capability.

Also, while the Nobel Peace Prize can be granted to an organization rather than an individual, it cannot be bestowed upon a nebulous entity or entities with no corporate personhood. I realize the author was being hyperbolic in this regard, but this also highlights his general cluelessness with regard to global politics and strategy.

If anything, EMP weapons might be the ultimate deterrent. The idea of causing trillions in damage to another nation's infrastructure and property could be a strong deterrent to war.Or a way to level the playing field between haves and have-nots. Far from being a bloodless attack, the destruction of power-generating, transportation, refrigeration, and medical instrumentation would result in millions, perhaps tens of millions of deaths almost immediately, and perhaps hundreds of millions in weeks as food and medicine become unavailable. I suppose for a Luddite this would be the ideal; for an adult human being who believes that there is benefit to the advantages of modern society and technology, this is a horrific stance to adopt.

Stranger

[Alex_Dubinsky]

It's not so much nukes that bring peace, but great offensive capability of any type. What brings war? Defensive capability.

MAD will stop working if we build missile shields and expect them to work, for example.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Is the lesson, that if Russia did not get nukes, we would have used nukes on them? Is that what you believe? The only reason America did not use them was because the commies managed to get them too quickly?
That's exactly what happened. Bloody america couldn't wait to invade the soviet union and suppress its dangerous revolutionary ideology for the benefit of all moneyed gentlemen. That's why we nuked Japan for no good reason... twice. That's why we tried to invade Cuba, and did other dumb things. The West was always the agressor. The communists were content with doing nothing because they more than agreed with the West's paranoia that it would revolt against capitalism from within.

[Stranger On A Train]

That's exactly what happened. Bloody america couldn't wait to invade the soviet union and suppress its dangerous revolutionary ideology for the benefit of all moneyed gentlemen. That's why we nuked Japan for no good reason... twice. That's why we tried to invade Cuba, and did other dumb things. The West was always the agressor. The communists were content with doing nothing because they more than agreed with the West's paranoia that it would revolt against capitalism from within.Yes, it's true. Communist nations have never participated in aggression or invasion of another nation, certainly not anywhere in Southeast or Central Asia, or in Eastern and Central Europe. And the Soviet Union never sponsored or support an organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern) with the avowed goal to "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."

Stranger

[elucidator]

Pinochet, Arenas, Batista, Trujillo, Samoza....any of these names ring a bell?

[John Mace]

Pinochet, Arenas, Batista, Trujillo, Samoza....any of these names ring a bell?

Sure they ring a bell. And...?

[gonzomax]

It is simply the illogic. More nukes makes us safer. I suspect we would be safer if all nukes were destroyed. MAD was crazy.
If you buy we did not have nuclear war because Russia had them, and we had them , then we can avoid nuclear war forever by giving them to everybody. MAD never made sense.

[Sam Stone]

That's exactly what happened. Bloody america couldn't wait to invade the soviet union and suppress its dangerous revolutionary ideology for the benefit of all moneyed gentlemen. That's why we nuked Japan for no good reason... twice. That's why we tried to invade Cuba, and did other dumb things. The West was always the agressor. The communists were content with doing nothing because they more than agreed with the West's paranoia that it would revolt against capitalism from within.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. At the end of WWII, the U.S. was a military colossus. For six years it was the only country with nuclear weapons. Its war machine was producing ungodly amounts of weaponry - provided not just to its own soldiers, but to soldiers of every allied country including the Soviet Union. Its industrial infrastructure was completely intact, and its economy never even went into recession during the war. The U.S. occupied countries across the globe. It was the sole superpower in the world.

And what did the U.S. do with all that might? It went home. It dismantled its military, and spend billions helping its former enemies rebuild. It voluntarily shrunk its military so much that a mere six years after the end of WWII it had trouble fielding enough soldiers for the Korean war.

Likewise, at the end of the cold war, Russia was in complete disarray, its military completely incapable of fighting any sort of major conflict. The U.S. was the sole superpower in the world. And what did it do with all that unilateral power? Nothing. It voluntarily shrank its military again - during the 1990's the U.S. military underwent a major downsizing, at a time when the economy was booming and it could have afforded to maintain an even larger military had it wanted to. And if had wanted to overthrow Castro in the 90's, no one could have stopped it.

And yet, nothing happened. Some expansionist empire.

As for nuking Japan for 'no good reason', that's just silliness. There was a total war going on. Cities were being firebombed across Europe and Asia. Japan was digging in and preparing to defend against an invasion, and the nukes helped break Japan's will to fight and probably saved two or three million people.

[Lumpy]

I coined this saying in another thread, but it applies here too:

Regional nuclear wars are like a knife fight- fascinating to watch from a safe distance, not something you want to get caught in.

[elucidator]

Trouble is, there is no "safe distance". Strontium-90 isn't forever, but close enough.

[gonzomax]

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. At the end of WWII, the U.S. was a military colossus. For six years it was the only country with nuclear weapons. Its war machine was producing ungodly amounts of weaponry - provided not just to its own soldiers, but to soldiers of every allied country including the Soviet Union. Its industrial infrastructure was completely intact, and its economy never even went into recession during the war. The U.S. occupied countries across the globe. It was the sole superpower in the world.

And what did the U.S. do with all that might? It went home. It dismantled its military, and spend billions helping its former enemies rebuild. It voluntarily shrunk its military so much that a mere six years after the end of WWII it had trouble fielding enough soldiers for the Korean war.

Likewise, at the end of the cold war, Russia was in complete disarray, its military completely incapable of fighting any sort of major conflict. The U.S. was the sole superpower in the world. And what did it do with all that unilateral power? Nothing. It voluntarily shrank its military again - during the 1990's the U.S. military underwent a major downsizing, at a time when the economy was booming and it could have afforded to maintain an even larger military had it wanted to. And if had wanted to overthrow Castro in the 90's, no one could have stopped it.

And yet, nothing happened. Some expansionist empire.

As for nuking Japan for 'no good reason', that's just silliness. There was a total war going on. Cities were being firebombed across Europe and Asia. Japan was digging in and preparing to defend against an invasion, and the nukes helped break Japan's will to fight and probably saved two or three million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations I can not understand what planet you live on. This is a nice list of our peaceful ways. it does not include our CIA assassinations and overthrows in the name of corporate freedom.
We spend more on the military than the rest of the world. Good grief.

[Frank]

The time to give the Peace Prize to Nuclear Arms was in the 50s or 60s. MAD relied on the assurance that all nuclear weapons were controlled by sane, reasonable men who were fully aware and alive to the knowledge that using nukes would begin a war that would obliterate Western Civilization from the planet.

Since the 70s, this is increasingly no longer so. What's going to happen if Iran and Israel, or Pakistan and India nuke each other, for instance? It's highly unlikely to start WWIII.

[Wesley Clark]

Pinochet, Arenas, Batista, Trujillo, Samoza....any of these names ring a bell?

What do Latin American dictators have to do with this issue? None of them had nukes.

I can pick random names too.

Suzanne Somers, David Duchovny, Chris Farley, Brad Pitt, Malcolm McDowell.....

[elucidator]

All of those have Kevin Bacon numbers less than three, the same cannot be said of South American dictators.

Sorry if I my point evades you, I rather thought that American support for such dictatorships was widely understood, and that it was largely justified on the basis of "anti-Communism". In other words, a mirror image of the dreaded international communist conspiracy whose ghost is invoked. Any tinhorn who could afford a pair of snappy aviator glasses and a really stupid hat could declare that the people who were trying to oust him were Communists, and could be assured of our complete support. Did it ever fail?

[tomndebb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations I can not understand what planet you live on. This is a nice list of our peaceful ways. it does not include our CIA assassinations and overthrows in the name of corporate freedom.
We spend more on the military than the rest of the world. Good grief.Your statement utterly misses the point that Sam made.

The U.S. has been the aggressor in far too many cases of one nation bullying another. However, Alex_Dubinsky made the rather absurd claim that the U.S. was always the agressor, (at least following 1945), and that the only thing that kept the U.S. from invading and or destroying the U.S.S.R. was that the Soviets acquired nukes, themselves.
Sam Stone's post demonstrated that that was a false claim: we held back and refrained from attacking the U.S.S.R. for six years during which time relations between our countries continuously deteriorated while only we possessed the bomb and an air force capable of delivering it.

The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. each initiated proxy wars and supported the overthrow of governments and the suppression of people throughout the Cold War as we each engaged in paranoid fantasies about what the other planned to do, but claiming that the U.S. was the sole aggressor is ludicrous and demonstrates an execrable ignorance of history.

(Alex_Dubinsky might have been making an odd allusion of the idiotic 1919 invasion of Russia that figured so prominently in Soviet paranoid fantasies for a need to defend themselves from what would actually be a non-existent future attack, but his willingness and your willingness to ignore the Soviet attacks on Finland and Poland, the taking of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and numerous other examples of aggression, is just silly.)

[sweeteviljesus]

Trouble is, there is no "safe distance". Strontium-90 isn't forever, but close enough.

This is beside the point of this thread, but in a regional conflict, there certainly is a safe distance. I am not getting sick from Chernobyl half a world away.

[Henrichek]

This is beside the point of this thread, but in a regional conflict, there certainly is a safe distance. I am not getting sick from Chernobyl half a world away.

It's not so easy as a specific distance though, as fallout spreads with the wind and can affect areas quite far away too.

In some areas here in northern Sweden we received quite high doses of Cesium-137 from rainfall after the Chernobyl disaster, which are still concentrated in mushrooms, berries, fish, and in animals that eat them. For example, in the first year after the disaster, 78% of the produced reindeer meat had to be discarded. The radiation levels are lower now of course, and only a few dozen animals must be discarded every year. Some kinds of mushrooms are best avoided however, as their levels are sometimes significantly over the safety threshold.

Not to sound too apocalyptical though, there haven't been any great increases in cancer malignancy here, but we have nonetheless been affected.

That was something like 1000 miles away, so please keep a significantly longer distance than that if you really need to play with nuclear fallout generating activities :).

[billfish678]

This is beside the point of this thread, but in a regional conflict, there certainly is a safe distance. I am not getting sick from Chernobyl half a world away.

Yes, lets please nip this tangent in the bud.

Many, Hundreds? of atomic bombs were tested in the open air in the 40s,50s, 60s?. People around the world did not keel over dead or become mutant zombies.

The real danger to the world due to a limited regional nuclear conflict is one that causes a global nuclear conflict, starts WW3 with conventional means, or causes a global economic depression/collapse.

[gonzomax]

Your statement utterly misses the point that Sam made.

The U.S. has been the aggressor in far too many cases of one nation bullying another. However, Alex_Dubinsky made the rather absurd claim that the U.S. was always the agressor, (at least following 1945), and that the only thing that kept the U.S. from invading and or destroying the U.S.S.R. was that the Soviets acquired nukes, themselves.
Sam Stone's post demonstrated that that was a false claim: we held back and refrained from attacking the U.S.S.R. for six years during which time relations between our countries continuously deteriorated while only we possessed the bomb and an air force capable of delivering it.

The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. each initiated proxy wars and supported the overthrow of governments and the suppression of people throughout the Cold War as we each engaged in paranoid fantasies about what the other planned to do, but claiming that the U.S. was the sole aggressor is ludicrous and demonstrates an execrable ignorance of history.

(Alex_Dubinsky might have been making an odd allusion of the idiotic 1919 invasion of Russia that figured so prominently in Soviet paranoid fantasies for a need to defend themselves from what would actually be a non-existent future attack, but his willingness and your willingness to ignore the Soviet attacks on Finland and Poland, the taking of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and numerous other examples of aggression, is just silly.)

Stone added that we went home and were not aggressive. We were ,and have been over and over. He said clearly, that we did nothing. We did plenty . Through the CIA and our regular use of the military, we have been involved in aggression .

[Gangster Octopus]

To nuclear weapons? Why not to physics, instead? Or electrons? Or uranium?

[John Mace]

All of those have Kevin Bacon numbers less than three, the same cannot be said of South American dictators.

Sorry if I my point evades you, I rather thought that American support for such dictatorships was widely understood, and that it was largely justified on the basis of "anti-Communism". In other words, a mirror image of the dreaded international communist conspiracy whose ghost is invoked. Any tinhorn who could afford a pair of snappy aviator glasses and a really stupid hat could declare that the people who were trying to oust him were Communists, and could be assured of our complete support. Did it ever fail?
Assuming that was addressed to me, I'm still not getting how this addresses the OP. The article linked to explicitly acknowledges that:

...Hundreds if not thousands of wars, small and large, have been fought since Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

What he's talking about is WWII and pre-WWII industrialized warfare between the global powers, which seems to have halted once nuclear weapons appeared on the stage. Of course, correlation isn't causation, but it does make one think.

[Voyager]

It is the logic. We didn't use them because Russia got them. And the obverse that Russia didn't use them because we didn't. The idea that nukes makes the world safer in illogical. Apparently when countries that fear the US attacking them, getting nukes it is a no no. I wonder why we object? If we gave Iran nukes, then Israel would be less likely to attack them. The US might be more wary of attacking Iran. See ,peace in our time.

I don't think you get the point of the proposal. It is not concerned with the fact that MAD prevented a nuclear war, but that MAD prevented a conventional WW III. The question is, was what would have happened if nukes had never been invented? The speculation is that there would have been a conventional war, a war which didn't happen because it would have obviously escalated into a nuclear one. This didn't happen in regional conflicts because even in the worst case the national interests of us or the Soviets were not threatened enough to break the first use barrier.
BTW we had several years where we could have attacked the Russians with nukes before they had them, but those were more idealistic times and there were even proposals for having all nukes controlled by the UN. I think just having gone through the horrors of war helped also. But, give HST some credit.

[Stranger On A Train]

I don't think you get the point of the proposal. It is not concerned with the fact that MAD prevented a nuclear war, but that MAD prevented a conventional WW III. The question is, was what would have happened if nukes had never been invented? The speculation is that there would have been a conventional war, a war which didn't happen because it would have obviously escalated into a nuclear one. This didn't happen in regional conflicts because even in the worst case the national interests of us or the Soviets were not threatened enough to break the first use barrier.The flip side to this is that the Soviet Union kept the Warsaw Pact "client states" under its thumb for forty years, draining nations like the Ukraine and Poland for resources and goods, and keeping the Baltic states impoverished even compared to the other nations of Eastern Europe, and generally repressing the hell out of technical innovation, free expression in literature and arts, and investment in human capital. How many lives were wasted, and what could have been had the nations of Western Europe pushed back on the Soviet Union and been allowed more open commerce? Indeed, it was the American installation of intermediate range nuclear missiles in Southern Europe which precipitated the Soviets to attempt to install weapons in Cuba and subsequently led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which resulted in Khrushchev being deposed and the economic and political reforms he hoped to enact being stillborn.

Praising nuclear weapons as the savior of mankind and deliverance from warfare is like a battered wife praising her husband for not beating her more severely.

Stranger

[elucidator]

Assuming that was addressed to me, I'm still not getting how this addresses the OP. The article linked to explicitly acknowledges that:....

You assume wrong, it is addressed to the theme of post #19.

[Voyager]

The flip side to this is that the Soviet Union kept the Warsaw Pact "client states" under its thumb for forty years, draining nations like the Ukraine and Poland for resources and goods, and keeping the Baltic states impoverished even compared to the other nations of Eastern Europe, and generally repressing the hell out of technical innovation, free expression in literature and arts, and investment in human capital. How many lives were wasted, and what could have been had the nations of Western Europe pushed back on the Soviet Union and been allowed more open commerce? Indeed, it was the American installation of intermediate range nuclear missiles in Southern Europe which precipitated the Soviets to attempt to install weapons in Cuba and subsequently led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which resulted in Khrushchev being deposed and the economic and political reforms he hoped to enact being stillborn.

Praising nuclear weapons as the savior of mankind and deliverance from warfare is like a battered wife praising her husband for not beating her more severely.

Stranger

So, you think the Iraqis who lost their family to the results of the American invasion should thank us because at least it wasn't Saddam? Do you think that a satellite nation could have gotten out from under in the '50s or '60s without a war?

One can argue that Khrushchev being deposed was good in the long run since if the reforms did work the rot inside Communism would have been reduced and the fall postponed. Brezhnev's mismanagement was a good thing for the world in the long run. Remember also that the same Khrushchev who denounced Stalin and allowed One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich be published also stomped on Hungary.

[Stranger On A Train]

So, you think the Iraqis who lost their family to the results of the American invasion should thank us because at least it wasn't Saddam? Do you think that a satellite nation could have gotten out from under in the '50s or '60s without a war?

One can argue that Khrushchev being deposed was good in the long run since if the reforms did work the rot inside Communism would have been reduced and the fall postponed. Brezhnev's mismanagement was a good thing for the world in the long run. Remember also that the same Khrushchev who denounced Stalin and allowed One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich be published also stomped on Hungary.No, I just think making authoritative statements based upon unfavorable "What if?" comparisons to actual history are frivolous and pointless. Perhaps more have been saved by the existence of nuclear weapons than may have been killed; we can't know. But many, many more might have died had a strategic exchange of nuclear weapons had occurred, and we came close to this possibility on several well-documented occasions. And saying that Assured Destruction worked merely because nobody actually got just quite scared enough to hit the button is like saying that its wisest to drive as fast as possible on an icy highway because you happened to make it to your destination without incident.

Stranger

[John Mace]

You assume wrong, it is addressed to the theme of post #19.

I leave it Stranger to figure out what you meant, then.

[Stranger On A Train]

I leave it Stranger to figure out what you meant, then.Beats me, seems like a non sequitur. Alex_Dubinsky claims that it's all the "Bloody america couldn't wait to invade the soviet union and suppress its dangerous revolutionary ideology for the benefit of all moneyed gentlemen," and that all the Commies want is peace and love, man, so I illustrated (in admittedly sarcastic fashion) that in fact the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic of China participated in numerous acts of invasion and suppression in Asia and Europe. Listing a group of repressive autocrats propped up by the United States doesn't mitigate that.

Stranger

[elucidator]

So, you posted in response to what you regarded as a one-sided argument that ignores factors that mitigate against it. To that end, you presented a one-sided argument that ignored factors that mitigate against it. So I reminded you that America did not, in truth, consistently support the advance of truth and justice. Quite the opposite on most occasions, more's the pity.

Your use of such phrases as " all the Commies want is peace and love, man" leads me to suspect that you want to present yourself as a hard-headed realist who scorns fuzzy-thinking hippy peaceniks. We are offered to believe how smart we were to pour trillions of dollars into the coffers of Lockheed, General Dynamics, and Boeing. Rather than frittering it away on education, infrastructure and social programs.

With all due awe, I think this is probably nonsense, but the truth is we don't know, and cannot, there being no possible experiment we can perform to reveal hard fact. Did we escape our fate (thus far!) because of sheer luck, or because sensible men on both sides behaved sensibly? I favor the latter, but cannot prove anything more than you can, which is to say, diddly-squat.

[Stranger On A Train]

So, you posted in response to what you regarded as a one-sided argument that ignores factors that mitigate against it. To that end, you presented a one-sided argument that ignored factors that mitigate against it. So I reminded you that America did not, in truth, consistently support the advance of truth and justice. Quite the opposite on most occasions, more's the pity.Pick another strawman to stick your pitchfork in. I said nothing of the kind. Certainly the United States has unjustly supported dictatorial regimes, and waving the spectre of Communism doesn't excuse that. But Alex_Dubinsky didn't address that; he just stated that the United States was the unilateral aggressor and that all the Soviets and other Communist regimes were innocent victims of "the West's paranoia."

Have your occulist check your reading prescription; it seems to be out-of-date.

Stranger

[elucidator]

Then why didn't you say so? If that moral equivalence is part of your argument, why didn't you include some acknowledgement? Would have been easy enough to do, I should think,and would have precluded any unfortunate misinterpretation by the aged and infirm.

[Voyager]

No, I just think making authoritative statements based upon unfavorable "What if?" comparisons to actual history are frivolous and pointless. Perhaps more have been saved by the existence of nuclear weapons than may have been killed; we can't know. But many, many more might have died had a strategic exchange of nuclear weapons had occurred, and we came close to this possibility on several well-documented occasions. And saying that Assured Destruction worked merely because nobody actually got just quite scared enough to hit the button is like saying that its wisest to drive as fast as possible on an icy highway because you happened to make it to your destination without incident.

Stranger

I don't think anyone was making authoritative statements. The proposal considers what would have happened if there were no nukes at all. Given that there were, whether MAD or some other strategy was the best is definitely debatable, but not the point of the article referred to in the OP. Like I said, I have my doubts about MAD working without the example of the effects of an atomic bomb used in war on a real city.

It is interesting because there is something odd to explain - the longest period of peace in Europe since pax Romana.

[Stranger On A Train]

I don't think anyone was making authoritative statements. The proposal considers what would have happened if there were no nukes at all.The author of the original article makes an authoritative (if hyperbolic) statement, to wit that we should award the Nobel Prize for Peace to nuclear weapons. No doubt the exaltation is a reflexive reaction to the absurd endowment of the same prize on Barack Obama, but his reasoning is tenuous at best.

It is interesting because there is something odd to explain - the longest period of peace in Europe since pax Romana.One might as the Armenians and the native Britons what they thought of Pax Romana. A goodly amount of the fighting--especially ethnic strife--that occurred in Europe prior to WWII was within the boundaries of the East Bloc (or inside Yugoslavia, which became an independent socialist--Titoist--nation), so if you want to credit peace in Europe you could credit it to the oppressive authoritarian governments. You could also point to the exhaustion of European nations of their suitable-age-for-soldiering men, and the influx of money into Western Europe from the Marshall Plan.

Stranger

[Voyager]

The author of the original article makes an authoritative (if hyperbolic) statement, to wit that we should award the Nobel Prize for Peace to nuclear weapons. No doubt the exaltation is a reflexive reaction to the absurd endowment of the same prize on Barack Obama, but his reasoning is tenuous at best.

Considering they don't even qualify (and John can nominate them to Time if he wishes) hyperbolic is putting it mildly. I think it was an excellent hook - would we be debating a dry and properly academic statement?

One might as the Armenians and the native Britons what they thought of Pax Romana. A goodly amount of the fighting--especially ethnic strife--that occurred in Europe prior to WWII was within the boundaries of the East Bloc (or inside Yugoslavia, which became an independent socialist--Titoist--nation), so if you want to credit peace in Europe you could credit it to the oppressive authoritarian governments. You could also point to the exhaustion of European nations of their suitable-age-for-soldiering men, and the influx of money into Western Europe from the Marshall Plan.

Stranger
You have me - since the invention of weapons, then. It is true that the were tired in 1945 - not too tired for guerrilla war in Greece, though - but they were pretty tired in 1918 also, and the peace did not last long.

I'll agree that the Soviet Empire helped to keep a lid on things, but they maintained it partially due to the nuclear deterrent. Wars often begin in support of a breakaway faction or new government wishing to get out of an alliance. Would have our reaction to the Hungarian uprising been different without nukes? Might we have bet that the Russians wouldn't considered keeping it important enough for a full war? Who knows, but there were plenty of flashpoints which got damped down because of fear that a conflict would get out of control.

[gonzomax]

If Obama can get the world to destroy nuclear weapons, he would get my Nobel prize vote. If I had one.