Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

Post by fifilura » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 6:52 PM UTC

cynicalpeace wrote: post #236

bonzini wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a spiral, the moment you allow a nuclear power to use that status to force the hand of an opposing nation at war you open a can of worms. Since 1945 the world has been trying to control proliferation through other means, wars of annexation have been shunned, you really don't want that to come back into a world armed with nuclear weapons. You also have an example of what happens when some countries are more pow…

When did Russia withdraw from the nuclear testing treaty?

Post by WillPostForFood » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 6:55 PM UTC

Hammershaft wrote: post #224

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire purpose of nuclear armaments is to make certain wars too nasty to fathom engaging in. If their organization didn't exist at all, we'd still have exactly the same number of nuclear war casualties since the 1940s.

Interdependence via global trade makes it unlikely that without nuclear weapons we would have nearly the number of wars we had in the 1940s.

Post by valval » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 7:00 PM UTC

w0m wrote: post #233

timeon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is not just about coping. We as society, can make policies to decrease chance of getting a cancer and decrease traffic deaths. We just chose not to out of convenience and profit.

it's easier to ignore 100 papercuts than it is to ignore missing a hand.

Post by valval » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 7:04 PM UTC

w4 wrote: post #165

sandworm101 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On an individual level, we all have a variety of hammers over our heads. Cancer has killed far more people prematurely than nuclear weapons. Something like 500,000 people a year are murdered. Traffic/bicycle/pedestrian accidents also kill more than nuclear weapons. Even compared to a once-in-a-century nuclear war that perhaps kills a billion people, cancer will kill roughly a billion in the next century anyway. So, f…

> So, for the rational/selfish person, the nuclear threat isn't worth worrying about. Until you have children and future generations to worry about. Then it suddenly seems quite a bit more pressing that their world could be obliterated at a moment's notice by a small handful of decision makers.

Post by bryanlarsen » Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 7:10 PM UTC

cynicalpeace wrote: post #230

bryanlarsen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a classic short-term vs long-term tradeoff. Letting Russia get away with an invasion of Ukraine decreases the risk of a nuclear war in the next couple of years but increases it in the following decades. I personally believe the long-term thinkers have the better argument

It's not long vs short term. It's money and conquest vs peace and compromise. The "long term" vision you're proposing is a decades long entrenched conflict with multiple nuclear states. Literally every single foreign policy disaster of the past 40 years has been orchestrated by following this exact playbook, by the exact same people. The "long term" vision I propose is normalizing relation with these nuclear states a…