# Is the claim that nuclear arsenals are justified because they prevent wars sensible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2025, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329 "2025-05-13T13:39:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dirtymartini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e4f/32.png) [@Dirtymartini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dirtymartini)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/21 "2025-05-13T18:22:49Z")
I’m thinking of the 2025 crisis of the former nuclear power Ukraine being invaded nuclear power Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/22 "2025-05-14T00:42:20Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I can’t imagine Ukraine would be in their current situation had they not surrendered their nuclear arsenal. This is true, and its why Ukraine is looking at making rudimentary nuclear weapons. > **[Ukraine Could Rapidly Build Nuclear Weapons if U.S. Reduces Aid](https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/ukraine-could-rapidly-build-nuclear-weapons-if-u-s-reduces-aid/)** > > Kyiv has the means to produce “hundreds” of small warheads, report says. > **[Ukraine can develop nuclear weapons "within a short time": Ex-Zelensky aide](https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-can-develop-nuclear-weapons-within-short-time-ex-zelensky-aide-1808663)** > > A former adviser to the Ukrainian president said that his country could produce its own nukes if Moscow uses such weapons against them first. > **[Give Ukraine nuclear weapons, says Zelenskyy](https://www.politico.eu/article/give-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-says-volodymyr-zelenskyy/)** > > If Ukraine isn’t granted NATO membership it will need another way to defend itself from Russia in future, said the Ukrainian president. Generally, mutually assured destructin is a viable strategy, unless you’re dealing with a sociopath. I could see the Kim regime in North Korea using nukes if they feel their regime is going to fall, as a way to get revenge on the invaders. If the Nazis had had nukes, even if they were going to lose I could see them firing off nukes before the leadership committed suicide. ---
**Author:** ![Dirtymartini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e4f/32.png) [@Dirtymartini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dirtymartini)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/23 "2025-05-14T01:41:47Z")
The Nazis did not have nuclear weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/24 "2025-05-14T02:04:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We just can’t point at the wars we didn’t have, and ignore all those wars we _did_ have, are having now and will definitely have in the future. Yeah, these counterfactual arguments may be valid, but there’s absolutely no way to tell. Our sample space for the global nukes-or-no-nukes experiment consists of one outcome. All attempts at drawing inferences about other possible outcomes are sheer speculation. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/25 "2025-05-14T11:42:52Z")
But, we can point to remarkable lack of major wars since nukes came on the scene. Has any period been as peaceful as the post-WW II period? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/26 "2025-05-14T11:50:34Z")
For the reasons already stated, I think the idea _can_ be considered “sensible”. It might be right or wrong, true; if civilization is destroyed in a nuclear war the survivors probably won’t buy into that theory anymore. But it does line up with the observed lack of a third World War so far. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/27 "2025-05-14T11:53:35Z")
Well, over the last 80 years, we’ve had nothing but limited regional wars with conventional weapons, so the evidence heavily favors that assertion. On the other hand, if world conditions continue to worsen and, if people get desperate enough, that could change literally overnight. It’s true until its not. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/28 "2025-05-14T12:17:36Z")
I agree with the OP, but I just don’t think an obvious answer is going to fall out of this. On the narrow question of whether nukes prevent escalation of some conflicts, or even prevent some conflicts starting at all, then the answer in my opinion is clearly yes. No-one wants to launch significant attacks against a nuclear power and test what they will do with their back against the wall. OTOH, as the OP says, if a nuclear war does kick off, it could, in the worst case, result in the deaths of billions and end civilization as we know it. And owning nukes encourages others to try to get nukes. I don’t know how to weigh a clear advantage in the most probable case, versus a very unlikely but literal apocalypse scenario. The status quo, as bad and hypocritical as it is, might be about as stable as we can get (well…obviously we’d rather India, Pakistan and NK in particular didn’t have nukes, but I mean just a handful of nations having them might be near the best case scenario). ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/29 "2025-05-14T14:27:14Z")
> [@Dirtymartini](#): > > I’m thinking of the 2025 crisis of the former nuclear power Ukraine being invaded nuclear power Russia. We could go back as far as 2022 for that. Although by all accounts Biden forced Putin to back down from his nuclear saber-rattling in 2022-2024, Biden was not courageous enough to send surplus advanced weapons systems that would’ve ended this conflict already. I don’t think Trump would pass any part of that test, except for him and his administration being so erratic that he constitutes an erratic “madman” for the purposes of madman theory. I remain convinced that Trump won’t knowingly risk a hair on his head, but it’s not at all how much of the nuclear response chain he controls or understands, nor what are the likely responses of the chaos monkeys who work for him. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/30 "2025-05-15T14:22:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We just can’t point at the wars we didn’t have, and ignore all those wars we _did_ have, are having now and will definitely have in the future. But those further support the point. Skirmishes, raids, border disputes, rebellions, proxy wars, those are essentially constant throughout history. They are military actions, sure, but not _war_ in the sense that the Punic Wars, Seven Years’ War, Napoleonic Wars, or the World Wars were. _Total war_? The kind where most of the advanced countries in the world put their _entire_ economies onto a war footing, sacrificing nearly everything for battlefield victory, at all costs, potentially even complete annihilation of the enemy? The kind where every living person on Earth is deeply affected? Those haven’t happened at all since nukes were invented. The Cold War lasted nearly 50 years (and might still be happening, by some interpretations). Can you really imagine a situation like that happening at any time before nuclear weapons were invented? I can’t. I’m not saying I 100% attribute that to nukes. I’m just saying it’s a legitimate idea that has merit and should be taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/31 "2025-05-15T18:40:05Z")
Through much of the '50s many experts thought that a nuclear war was inevitable. It clearly wasn’t. It might be interesting to discuss if the number of proxy wars increased from what it would have been if there were no nuclear weapons, decreased, or stayed the same. I think that it wasn’t the existence of weapons that kept us from total war, but the fact that they were used. Blowing up fakes villages in nuclear tests would not have the impact of seeing what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction of the cities, the casualties, and the effects of radiation permeated popular culture after the war. There were enough people claiming a nuclear war was winnable as it were, might that have been a more accepted position without the demonstration of what atomic bombs could do? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/32 "2025-05-15T18:49:28Z")
As **DrCube** pointed out, every war since WWII has been pretty small and limited compared to WWII and pre-WWII wars. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/33 "2025-05-15T18:50:02Z")
I agree that seeing the actual effects is what made the horrible reality seem more real and likely prevented an all-out nuclear war. I’m sure there have been more small proxy wars in place of large wars, but those are better than large wars for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/34 "2025-05-15T18:52:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think that it wasn’t the existence of weapons that kept us from total war, but the fact that they were used. Blowing up fakes villages in nuclear tests would not have the impact of seeing what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction of the cities, the casualties, and the effects of radiation permeated popular culture after the war. There were enough people claiming a nuclear war was winnable as it were, might that have been a more accepted position without the demonstration of what atomic bombs could do? I’ve seen the argument before that humanity was very lucky with the exact timing that nuclear weapons were invented. Much earlier, and WWII would have been nuclear. Much later, and there wouldn’t have been the same deterrence effect and the first use of nuclear weapons would have been a major war culminating in a nuclear exchange with large arsenals. As it was, only one side had nuclear weapons and only a small number of them. So Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened, but only two cities were hit, there was no nuclear exchange and there was a long lasting deterrence effect. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/35 "2025-05-15T21:09:51Z")
Assuming the same timeline played out, though (the United States being the first and only nation to have nukes, for a while) it might have just meant an accelerated one-sided Allied victory. You could see the Allies prevailing by 1941 instead of 1945, with both Tokyo and Berlin nuked. But if it meant that the Axis and Allies alike would have nukes in the 1930s, having stocked up in peacetime, then yeah, we’d be looking at a big exchange, maybe even some nuclear winter. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2025, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/36 "2025-05-16T00:09:38Z")
That sounds plausible. Let’s add the fact that the German side kicked out a good number of the scientists who could have helped them develop a bomb. Not just the German ones - Fermi came to the US because his wife was Jewish. ---
**Author:** ![Dirtymartini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e4f/32.png) [@Dirtymartini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dirtymartini)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2025, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329/37 "2025-05-16T07:36:54Z")
While I do believe Ukraine would not have been invaded if they still had nuclear weapons. Mutual assured destruction only works with somewhat logical leadership of nuclear powers. There are some countries I’m quite concerned about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-claim-that-nuclear-arsenals-are-justified-because-they-prevent-wars-sensible/1018329.md?page=1)