…Because countries are less willing to fight wars due to the possibility of escalating into a nuclear war.
This is a common thing I see repeated throughout the internet. I wonder what’s Lemmy’s opinion on this.
…Because countries are less willing to fight wars due to the possibility of escalating into a nuclear war.
This is a common thing I see repeated throughout the internet. I wonder what’s Lemmy’s opinion on this.
There’s no clear border-line that would trigger nuclear escalation. It’s kind of meaningless.
We saw many proxy wars between the US and UDSSR. We recently saw how putin used nuclear threats as a tool rather than genuine or with anything happening after.
We saw a long stretch of peace in Europe after WW2 - especially when compared to before. This is due to positive relations, strong democratic systems, and economic development.
More mobility and communication technology allowed for people and states to become closer. Efforts to connect and establish systems with mutual gain. Ultimately establishing the European Union, Shengen Raum, Euro currency. Supporting social and cultural exchange and connection.
Strong social systems like constitutions, parliaments, separate judicative and executive, market regulation, anti-corruption agencies. Establishing a social economy with strong worker rights and gains (which have been eroding more recently).
The European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) did a lot to initiate a strong western Europe economy. Economic success in combination with the aforementioned strong worker rights and representation meant gains and stability for the broad of society.
In other parts of the world we have seen many wars and proxy wars. During the cold war nuclear deterrents could well be argued to be the reason for investment in proxy wars, making them better funded resulting in more casualties or tragedies or extending them.
The nuclear deterrent may be a thing between nations with nuclear arsenal. It certainly didn’t prevent nations with nuclear arsenal from initiating wars. We have seen it most recently with Russia and Israel.
Would we see less wars if every nation had nuclear deterrents? How much would it increase risk of mishandling or accidents? How come we still wars but (mostly) no longer use chemical weapons and nerve agents?
Nuclear may be another case of capability so outrageous, so inhumane, that even countries in war evade them and wave war within it’s context, probing how far they can go without them and implementing war and conflicts despite them.