Hacker News Reader

Comment by swlabr | Hacker News Reader

Right, there are absolutely no wars going on right now.

There has been no large scale war between major powers since WWII, let alone between the world's leading superpowers.

I guess the scale of the war and whether it deserves the moniker of a World War depends on your geo-political perspective. Both U.S. and Russia, are involved in military operations all over the world, and it's a little silly to call that a "desirable state of affairs" just because they're not fighting each other.

Make no mistake, I'm not carrying water for Teller in this thread or defending Jane Fonda. I do think Teller was sort of a nutcase, and Fonda was definitely a traitor. Frankly we're all lucky to be alive after some of the crap that was done in the name of "strategic defense," and it's indeed tragic that countless victims of the superpowers' proxy wars can't say the same.

But deterring a third world war is not one of those things that's subject to moral relativism. You seriously need to spend some time talking with WWII vets, while we still have them with us.

We are currently living in the most peaceful time in human history. That's an objective fact based on annual deaths from warfare, not a subjective opinion or perspective.

Mostly peace is to peace what an electric chair is to a chair.

What are you, a bumper sticker?

We're seeing the lowest level of conflict in history and you're still unimpressed? Does it kill you that much to admit that MAD is working?

I think the difference is general mobilization vs a low intensity conflict.

Proxy-wars are arguable large scale wars between super powers.

I think a war is only large scale if it uses a significant portion of the participant's manufacturing abilities. There are no such wars currently.

I don't know why you were downvoted. There have been major wars in the past 25 years, the worst probably being the civil war in Congo. (5 million deaths)[1] Let us not even mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Liberia, Sierra Leone and presently, Yemen. But in some sense, if two G-7 countries are not fighting each other in their own soil, the war does not "matter". More and more you think, you realize that George Orwell was a prescient genius when he predicted low-level proxy conflicts in faraway regions as a way great powers will seek to maintain patriotic fervour.

It is true that nuclear weaponry might have avoided many direct wars between the nuclear powers, but it has not been an absolute guarantee. There has been a war directly involving nuclear powers - the Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan. [2] Again, among present troubles, Ukraine and Russia both have nuclear weaponry, I suppose.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

I don't know why you were downvoted.

S/he is being downvoted for being deliberately obtuse, if not outright trolling.

But in some sense, if two G-7 countries are not fighting each other in their own soil, the war does not "matter".

The G-7 countries (along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council) are the ones who, when they go to war with each other, are EVERYBODY's problem. Every other kind of war is a local issue. It sounds heartless, but nobody in country U gives a hoot about 5 million deaths in an obscure civil war in country C. But if countries R and G get into it, the entire world sits up and takes notice, and for good historical reasons.

Again, among present troubles, Ukraine and Russia both have nuclear weaponry, I suppose.

One of the more awkward aspects of the Ukraine conflict is that Ukraine gave up their nukes willingly after the dissolution of the USSR, based on the promise that they would remain unmolested. So much for Russian promises.

Unfortunately, as long as dictators like Putin are around, we can't afford the risks of unilateral nuclear disarmament. Without MAD, we are all Ukrainians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com