Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
nuclear weapons, too feckin dangerous to have
I'm in mixed mind about them because you're right, they're too destructive, but for the time being their existence has prevented conflicts from breaking out, and since wars are typically only waged with the promise of financing it afterwards via looting or expansion, nobody is really willing to render land unusable in the process of conquering it.
Except the part where we have exhaustive evidence that nukes do not always render land unusable.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are entirely fine. The radiation levels were back at safe levels in days. Yes, we definitely fucked up a lot of land with nuclear testing and power plant overloads, but the actual nukes humans have dropped on other humans? They're most effective when used in an air burst, and they clear up within days.
The power generation and medical applications of nuclear science cannot be overlooked based on warmongering, especially when the part youre concerned about isnt even an issue in that application of the field.
The problem is that it only takes one ruler insane enough to use them to wipe out most of humanity.
You're right. But if that ruler does decide to nuke a city or something, the next bomb to drop will probably be where said ruler is.
It will inevitably happen. One day a dumb enough ruler will use it.
But what happens next? Do we just stop there, apologize and go back to our normal lives?
And you’re probably right, the next bomb would destroy that ruler, but only if the receiver has nukes as well. If he doesn’t, who’s going to do anything to defend/avange him? No one wants to enter an nuclear war.
The reciever doesn't need nukes. I live in Canada and we don't have any. But the threat of retaliation from our allies that do protect us from that threat.
If Trump decides to launch a nuke at Vancouver, which of your allies are bold enough to send one his way?
Well, none. He can do whatever he wants.
His government is slightly smarter than him so for now we’re safe, however no one’s going to stop a dictator.
The US probably since they'll also be nuking part of their own country if they did that. The fallout would 100% affect Washington.
You think Trump is smart enough to listen when his staff tell him that?
This is a good point I never considered before.
That comment is the first time you've considered MAD? I mean, congrats on being one of today's lucky 10,000, but I'm surprised you didn't learn about it in school.
When it's presented in school, it is presented as thing of the past and localised to how Russia and America treated/still treat one another, rather than threading the needle by explaining that it still applies today. I'm pretty sure I only picked up on it after reading online explanations/justifications of nukes.
Or in other words people focus on the panic of it so much that they don't stop to think of it as a good thing
TBF I think even without Nukes we wouldn't have war between big countries. Because the UN would discourage it. Ukraine being a big exception to that