Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="briggart" data-source="post: 9515305" data-attributes="member: 6805135">I think the context is significantly different here. USA and Japan had already been at war for a long time. We can argue that the boms hastened the end of the war and avoided a lengthy invasion of Japan, which would have costed many more lives on both sides.&nbsp; But IMO, this shows that nuclear weapons can actually make a war more likely, as long as the aggressor is the only one who has them. This creates a need for a nuclear deterrent, but precisely because somebody has nuclear weapons in the first place. USA and USSR were too far away to have a direct land war like the invasion of Germany or Japan in WWII, so even if nuclear weapons had not been invented, I believe the cold war would have played out mostly as it did in real life. Several proxy wars, lots of behind the scenes actions, and possibly few more open skirmishes between USA and USSR armed forces.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="briggart, post: 9515305, member: 6805135"] I think the context is significantly different here. USA and Japan had already been at war for a long time. We can argue that the boms hastened the end of the war and avoided a lengthy invasion of Japan, which would have costed many more lives on both sides. But IMO, this shows that nuclear weapons can actually make a war more likely, as long as the aggressor is the only one who has them. This creates a need for a nuclear deterrent, but precisely because somebody has nuclear weapons in the first place. USA and USSR were too far away to have a direct land war like the invasion of Germany or Japan in WWII, so even if nuclear weapons had not been invented, I believe the cold war would have played out mostly as it did in real life. Several proxy wars, lots of behind the scenes actions, and possibly few more open skirmishes between USA and USSR armed forces. [/QUOTE]

Verification