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.
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
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.
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