Until one of them fires the nukes, that is. But sure, it might not happen
It’s like paying your rent by playing Russian roulette
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 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.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 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 2 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
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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 2 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.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Perhaps in other timelines, the world ended. Maybe this is the 1% of timelines that survived.