Doesn’t mean the situation is not a powder keg, doesn’t mean that if basically one exceptionally stupid command, conflicting with a far less stupid command from another authority, is acted on, it could escalate rapidly.
I get your cynicism, but hasn’t this kinda been the global situation since nuclear armament? And yet here we are nearly a century later. We may be pretty dumb as a species, but we’re surprisingly good at not intentionally setting off those powder kegs when were standing right next to them.
I dont really know what to say other than, no, historically we are very, very good at accidentally /as well as intentionally/ setting off metaphorical powder kegs, in situations where large segments of the population believes in the inherent stability of society, either ignorant of or in spite of actual history.
Specifically in regards to cold war era nuclear weapons… beyond the cuban missile crisis having, very, very easily gone out of control, take some time and look up the numerous instances where, due to basically either an overzealous command being issued, or a rational decision being made with imperfect information led to an actual order to use a nuclear weapon that was actually stymied by a single individual disobeying a direct command.
Or look at the numerous instances that basically a mechanical failure, intelligence failure, maintenance failure, something like that, led to a nuclear weapon basically being accidentally used, where it was basically down to dumb luck that further failures, or heroic actions from unsung heroes, prevented a nuclear blast from going off that could have easily spiraled into a full fledged nuclear exchange.
But more to the actual point of discussion: Saying that nukes exist and we have not obliterated each other yet, so that implies that a totally different scenario with totally different relevant factors at play is not likely to result in a mass armed civil conflict of some kind… thats basically not even a useful analogy.
EDIT: also for what its worth, im not the one who downvoted you. I generally only downvote people who are extremely abusive or very obviously unable to actually understand the words people say and then also refuse to understand them when explained another way, things like that, at least in the context of fairly serious and complex topic like this.
I actually think its more important that people be able to have a genuine discussion involving disagreement, and also for others to view such discussions, than it is to be angry and downvote some words i dont agree with, but seem to be written in good faith.
I get your cynicism, but hasn’t this kinda been the global situation since nuclear armament? And yet here we are nearly a century later. We may be pretty dumb as a species, but we’re surprisingly good at not intentionally setting off those powder kegs when were standing right next to them.
I dont really know what to say other than, no, historically we are very, very good at accidentally /as well as intentionally/ setting off metaphorical powder kegs, in situations where large segments of the population believes in the inherent stability of society, either ignorant of or in spite of actual history.
Specifically in regards to cold war era nuclear weapons… beyond the cuban missile crisis having, very, very easily gone out of control, take some time and look up the numerous instances where, due to basically either an overzealous command being issued, or a rational decision being made with imperfect information led to an actual order to use a nuclear weapon that was actually stymied by a single individual disobeying a direct command.
Or look at the numerous instances that basically a mechanical failure, intelligence failure, maintenance failure, something like that, led to a nuclear weapon basically being accidentally used, where it was basically down to dumb luck that further failures, or heroic actions from unsung heroes, prevented a nuclear blast from going off that could have easily spiraled into a full fledged nuclear exchange.
But more to the actual point of discussion: Saying that nukes exist and we have not obliterated each other yet, so that implies that a totally different scenario with totally different relevant factors at play is not likely to result in a mass armed civil conflict of some kind… thats basically not even a useful analogy.
EDIT: also for what its worth, im not the one who downvoted you. I generally only downvote people who are extremely abusive or very obviously unable to actually understand the words people say and then also refuse to understand them when explained another way, things like that, at least in the context of fairly serious and complex topic like this.
I actually think its more important that people be able to have a genuine discussion involving disagreement, and also for others to view such discussions, than it is to be angry and downvote some words i dont agree with, but seem to be written in good faith.