Nuclear War must become obsolete OP/ED

[Edwardo Piet]

Nuclear war won't become obsolete until greater means of mass destruction make it so.  War in general will not become obsolete unless and until we achieve a post-resource scarcity society and overcome human tribalism.

Eventual transhumanism both without and within via technology and education is the only potential hope for the future of humanity besides stopping reproduction, IMO.

And I'm pretty sure we'll make ourselves extinct long before that level. Although there are respected intellectuals like Steven Pinker who do hold the opinion that things are actually getting better rather than worse and less violent rather than more violent.

I don't believe it myself, I think he's just interpreting the results of statistics in particular ways that he likes to call "better". In some cases things have clearly improved (medicine is a lot better nowadays), but there's certainly not less violence in every way. Even if there's less violence proportionally, overall there's more just because there's more people, and the more violent people and the more the world blows up population wise the more likely the world will blow up for realsies.

[Brian37]

Nuclear war won't become obsolete until greater means of mass destruction make it so.  War in general will not become obsolete unless and until we achieve a post-resource scarcity society and overcome human tribalism.

Eventual transhumanism both without and within via technology and education is the only potential hope for the future of humanity besides stopping reproduction, IMO.

And I'm pretty sure we'll make ourselves extinct long before that level. Although there are respected intellectuals like Steven Pinker who do hold the opinion that things are actually getting better rather than worse and less violent rather than more violent.

I don't believe it myself, I think he's just interpreting the results of statistics in particular ways that he likes to call "better". In some cases things have clearly improved (medicine is a lot better nowadays), but there's certainly not less violence in every way. Even if there's less violence proportionally, overall there's more just because there's more people, and the more violent people and the more the world blows up population wise the more likely the world will blow up for realsies.

Right, violence is a ratio thing.  It is a utopia and unrealistic to stop 100% of all violence worldwide. I don't think any side should be seeking a perfect world or utopia. But it is very possible to make more humans aware of how small and connected we really are.

Humans can't help what the planet does or the sun does or the universe does. But we can extend our finite ride by understanding how we affect the only home we have.

Just like you cant control someone's home on the other side of the planet, you can be aware of your own house and those in your neighborhood. 

If your argument is that it is inevitable, my argument would be yes and no. Yes in the sense the planet and evolution long term don't give a shit 5 billion years from now. No in the context that we can't do anything at all. Yes we can, just like modern medicine has helped extend life. The more humans whom accept our finite ride and the fragility of our existence, the more we CAN extend our finite ride.

This point in history, I don't delude myself. The current climate points to rushing the end. But we've seen that before, with WW2 and the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK and Reagan avoided nuclear war. We have nothing left but to try.

[AFTT47]

Honestly, I think the presence of nuclear weapons stabilized the world in the 20th century because it made all-out war between the US-led West and the USSR-led East obsolete. Even Khrushchev understood this. Without nukes, WWIII would have been inevitable IMO.

The problem today is with 3rd-world countries having access to them.

[Brian37]

Honestly, I think the presence of nuclear weapons stabilized the world in the 20th century because it made all-out war between the US-led West and the USSR-led East obsolete. Even Khrushchev understood this. Without nukes, WWIII would have been inevitable IMO.

The problem today is with 3rd-world countries having access to them.

I don't have a time machine but if I did and could destroy the invention, I would.

The "stabilization" you are CORRECT about, doesn't make it desirable or forever. It still takes humans to understand "mutual destruction'. It isn't just 3rd world countries at this point. 

I don't trust 45, I don't trust Putin, I don't trust Un, I don't trust the Imams of Iran, I don't trust Bibi. 

3rd world or not, friend or foe, it still depends on enough humans WORLDWIDE to always make the implications the priority. Again, nobody wins if everybody dies. <--- THAT is what "mutual destruction" means. 

Just like guns, it isn't the object or the technology, but HOW humans view those things. Once you accept it can kill you, not just your enemy, your perspective becomes far more constructive.