Nuclear war will bring the peace to the world that's the plan

[Mrbuck]

2 sides will use limited nuclear weapons but the outcome will be so devastated and even for envoirement that world will understood they can't continue anymore.

But to make others to understood 2 countries or sides will use nukes and that will bring the peace it will shock the world will have a lot casualties
The good thing is that will be good example the world learn to appreciate peace.
Wich one it will be nobody knows for real.

[Karl_3000]

The Little Boy and the Fat Man that United States dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945 are still lessons for the world not to use nukes for war. Over 140,000 people died in Hiroshima while 74,000 died in Nagasaki before the year 1945 was over because of the bomb.

The nukes of today are many times stronger than the Little Boy and the Fat Man.

All nukes supposed to be destroyed.

[Mrbuck]

The Little Boy and the Fat Man that United States dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945 are still lessons for the world not to use nukes for war. Over 140,000 people died in Hiroshima while 74,000 died in Nagasaki before the year 1945 was over because of the bomb.

The nukes of today are many times stronger than the Little Boy and the Fat Man.

All nukes supposed to be destroyed.

People not seen this the new generation need to see their life times.
It will be "limited mode" but off course both sides will have nuclears and will destroy each other while world watch it on the news.

[decodx]

People not seen this the new generation need to see their life times.

So you think that we should have a nuclear war every 50 years or so, so that every new generation should see it in their lifetime in order to have peace on earth after that? Isn't that a bit stupid?

It will be "limited mode" but off course both sides will have nuclears and will destroy each other while world watch it on the news.

There are 9 countries in the world known to possess nuclear weapons, controlling an estimated global total of approximately 12,200 nuclear warheads - with a combined yield of 1,500 to 2,000 megatons (Mt) of TNT equivalent. That's roughly 100,000 to 130,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs.

Thinking that a nuclear war will bring "peace" through some controlled, spectator-friendly "limited mode" is delusional.

[liasbaa]

2 sides will use limited nuclear weapons but the outcome will be so devastated and even for envoirement that world will understood they can't continue anymore.

But to make others to understood 2 countries or sides will use nukes and that will bring the peace it will shock the world will have a lot casualties
The good thing is that will be good example the world learn to appreciate peace.
Wich one it will be nobody knows for real.

It is surprising that in today's world, those who talk about peace the most are the ones who are creating unrest in the world. They think that God has given them the power to establish peace in the world through war, but they are killing innocent women and children.

Some people campaign considering nuclear weapons as a symbol of peace, but they are discouraging comparatively weak countries from developing nuclear weapons and are creating unrest in the world by using force.

The future is going to be more frightening because the main driving force of power is becoming the number of nuclear bombs a country has and how powerful they are. How much cruelty is going to be witnessed by the rulers of the world who believe that God has given them the responsibility.

[Smack That Ace]

The Little Boy and the Fat Man that United States dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945 are still lessons for the world not to use nukes for war. Over 140,000 people died in Hiroshima while 74,000 died in Nagasaki before the year 1945 was over because of the bomb.

The nukes of today are many times stronger than the Little Boy and the Fat Man.

All nukes supposed to be destroyed.

People not seen this the new generation need to see their life times.
It will be "limited mode" but off course both sides will have nuclears and will destroy each other while world watch it on the news.

Keep in mind that these are only estimate, not absolutely exact figure. The death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been much higher if every casualty had been properly recorded.

Little boy and Fat man had yields of around 15 and 21 kilotons, respectively. Meanwhile, modern nuclear warheads have been significantly upgraded and can have yields of up to 100-800 kilotons.

There are currently 9 countries believed to possess around 12,187 nuclear warheads. With that many nuclear weapons in existence, I don't think the earth could come through intact if any conflict escalated to the point of nuclear weapons being used.
https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/

[Hewlet]

2 sides will use limited nuclear weapons but the outcome will be so devastated and even for envoirement that world will understood they can't continue anymore.

In your opinion this is going to bring peace to the earth? at what cost? the death of thousand and that the fact that if such happens such region risk becoming an inhabitable region? there is nothing good about the existence of nuclear weapon and there no how it usage will leave anything good in the world ever after. we can only wish chaos does not get to the extent that the only available solution is to make an attempt to use a nuclear weapon. we can not go back to another fresh horific disaster like we had the last time the nuclear weapon was being used.

[Mrbuck]

2 sides will use limited nuclear weapons but the outcome will be so devastated and even for envoirement that world will understood they can't continue anymore.

In your opinion this is going to bring peace to the earth? at what cost? the death of thousand and that the fact that if such happens such region risk becoming an inhabitable region? there is nothing good about the existence of nuclear weapon and there no how it usage will leave anything good in the world ever after. we can only wish chaos does not get to the extent that the only available solution is to make an attempt to use a nuclear weapon. we can not go back to another fresh horific disaster like we had the last time the nuclear weapon was being used.

Smart ones will learn other mistakes like was - / japan usa war*
Fools woun't learn even from own mistakes.

Well if we see horrible example then we understood its bad , tought who it could be ? Well, some say somewhere in pacific ocean regions.
Also using that will trigger ocean level and untfortunately water flooding over coastal regions.

2 sides will use limited nuclear weapons but the outcome will be so devastated and even for envoirement that world will understood they can't continue anymore.

But to make others to understood 2 countries or sides will use nukes and that will bring the peace it will shock the world will have a lot casualties
The good thing is that will be good example the world learn to appreciate peace.
Wich one it will be nobody knows for real.

It is surprising that in today's world, those who talk about peace the most are the ones who are creating unrest in the world. They think that God has given them the power to establish peace in the world through war, but they are killing innocent women and children.

Some people campaign considering nuclear weapons as a symbol of peace, but they are discouraging comparatively weak countries from developing nuclear weapons and are creating unrest in the world by using force.

The future is going to be more frightening because the main driving force of power is becoming the number of nuclear bombs a country has and how powerful they are. How much cruelty is going to be witnessed by the rulers of the world who believe that God has given them the responsibility.

Remember trump said a lot about peace, but now?
In reality when there is wars then very unlikely leaders or even country officials attacked, we are use to that mostly are kids elders and very innocent people.


[moderator's note: multiple posts have been merged]

[Dunamisx]

Everyone is trying to build on nuclear weapon to serve as a protection for them against any other country invading them or posting a threat to them, but to even have the capacity of building in nuclear weapon is not something easier to achieve like that, another thing to consider is that any country that has this nuclear weapon will also serve as a trait to other countries because they may try to use such against each other, even though there are laws that are holding down every country under this threat of building a nuclear weapon not to use it against any other.

[Agbamoni]

2 sides will use limited nuclear weapons but the outcome will be so devastated and even for envoirement that world will understood they can't continue anymore.

You really think thousands of deaths will bring about peace? How has this ever been a solution?

Look at history, millions have died because of war, yet we see war keep happening every decade. Violence is not a solution to violence.

For peace to reign, we need to put an end to conflict, religion, racism, favoritism, tribalism, end clasism. If it doesn't bring peace, let the world end.

[gracreavix]

We should stop and think about world peace after a nuclear strike. Are you kidding me? The one that they dropped as Hiroshima, was there peace afterwards? Government does not step down from a fight just because it has casualties? Hmm. Government will always do what is his own interest and going peacefully is not enough for them. Even after the first nuclear strike, who will want to step done from being the leader after bombing themselves

[Stalker22]

People not seen this the new generation need to see their life times.

So you are saying there were no wars after WW2?  Have you ever heard of the Korean War?  Or maybe Vietnam?  What about Iran-Iraq?  Afghanistan? ...
The point is, people have seen in their lifetimes what nuclear weapons can do, but that does not mean wars will stop and bring "peace to the world."

It will be "limited mode" but off course both sides will have nuclears and will destroy each other while world watch it on the news.

You know nothing.

[KingsDen]

Everyone is trying to build on nuclear weapon to serve as a protection for them against any other country invading them or posting a threat to them, but to even have the capacity of building in nuclear weapon is not something easier to achieve like that, another thing to consider is that any country that has this nuclear weapon will also serve as a trait to other countries because they may try to use such against each other, even though there are laws that are holding down every country under this threat of building a nuclear weapon not to use it against any other.

This peace could be achieved when many countries have the nuclear weapons. Since the Kim of North Korea has, or is suspected to have it, don't you see how it's difficult to invade him or intimidate his country?

If Venezuela has a nuclear weapon, do you think her president would have been abducted?
Possession of nuclear weapon serves as checks and balances between these powerful countries. If you ask me, that's the importance of having a powerful weapon that you cannot use.

[BALIK]

This peace could be achieved when many countries have the nuclear weapons. Since the Kim of North Korea has, or is suspected to have it, don't you see how it's difficult to invade him or intimidate his country?

If Venezuela has a nuclear weapon, do you think her president would have been abducted?
Possession of nuclear weapon serves as checks and balances between these powerful countries. If you ask me, that's the importance of having a powerful weapon that you cannot use.

I partly agree that a country possessing nuclear weapon can provide deterrence and reduce the risk of being invaded by other countries.

However, things could get much worse if more and more countries started acquiring them. It would create an arms race, and that is certainly not good for world peace. All it takes is one miscalculation or one moment of losing control by a single country. The consequence could drag the whole world into a nuclear war, which could mean the end of the Earth.

Having too many countries possess nuclear weapons would create more risk and harm than benefit for humanity.

[KingsDen]

This peace could be achieved when many countries have the nuclear weapons. Since the Kim of North Korea has, or is suspected to have it, don't you see how it's difficult to invade him or intimidate his country?

If Venezuela has a nuclear weapon, do you think her president would have been abducted?
Possession of nuclear weapon serves as checks and balances between these powerful countries. If you ask me, that's the importance of having a powerful weapon that you cannot use.

I partly agree that a country possessing nuclear weapon can provide deterrence and reduce the risk of being invaded by other countries.

However, things could get much worse if more and more countries started acquiring them. It would create an arms race, and that is certainly not good for world peace. All it takes is one miscalculation or one moment of losing control by a single country. The consequence could drag the whole world into a nuclear war, which could mean the end of the Earth.

Having too many countries possess nuclear weapons would create more risk and harm than benefit for humanity.

That's true, I understand from your angle of reasoning. If too many countries power possess the nuclear weapon, it could likely fall into the hand of a fragile country and one single mistake will cause a lot of disaster. But in the same vein, if it remains in the hand of a few countries, they will continue to intimidate and threaten others.
The best approach could be a powerful check and balance. In order words, instead of thinking about the military and weapons war, countries should start thinking about the economic war which I think China is somehow leading at this time.

But then, be it economical war or military, the less powerful countries will still suffer it. The best thing to do is for countries to improve and strengthen their economy and defence.

[LTU_btc]

So you are saying there were no wars after WW2?  Have you ever heard of the Korean War?  Or maybe Vietnam?  What about Iran-Iraq?  Afghanistan? ...
The point is, people have seen in their lifetimes what nuclear weapons can do, but that does not mean wars will stop and bring "peace to the world."

Yeap, there probably were no period after WWII when world was peaceful and there were no ongoing conflicts. So, nuclear weapons don't bring peace. On the other hand, it works as prevention, because who would attack country which has nuclear weapon.

Also, nuclear wepon not neccessarily means to tal destruction and and of the world .There is things like tactical nuclear wepons which can be used for more localized strikes.

[MusaPk]

The Little Boy and the Fat Man that United States dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945 are still lessons for the world not to use nukes for war. Over 140,000 people died in Hiroshima while 74,000 died in Nagasaki before the year 1945 was over because of the bomb.

The nukes of today are many times stronger than the Little Boy and the Fat Man.

All nukes supposed to be destroyed.

Little Boy and Fat Man were used almost 80 years ago and today's nuclear weapons are way more powerful then them in terms of bringing destruction in this world. We have already seen strength of conventional weapons in many wars of recent times. The nuclear weapons not only kill and injur people but its results are also seen in generations that come after the nuclear blast. Its time for world to get united and say no to use of nuclear weapons to save the humanity and this world.

[$crypto$]

I partly agree that a country possessing nuclear weapon can provide deterrence and reduce the risk of being invaded by other countries.

However, things could get much worse if more and more countries started acquiring them. It would create an arms race, and that is certainly not good for world peace. All it takes is one miscalculation or one moment of losing control by a single country. The consequence could drag the whole world into a nuclear war, which could mean the end of the Earth.

Having too many countries possess nuclear weapons would create more risk and harm than benefit for humanity.

What if the US and Russia are in conflict, the two countries have nuclear weapons and have a very great military power, between the two countries too careless then it will change the world.

Small countries may be able to provide a deterrent effect other large countries will not submit to any country that is worried.

Iran also has nuclear weapons, North Korea is also the same according to some articles.

The worry is, it's really happening.

[Stalker22]

So you are saying there were no wars after WW2?  Have you ever heard of the Korean War?  Or maybe Vietnam?  What about Iran-Iraq?  Afghanistan? ...
The point is, people have seen in their lifetimes what nuclear weapons can do, but that does not mean wars will stop and bring "peace to the world."

Yeap, there probably were no period after WWII when world was peaceful and there were no ongoing conflicts. So, nuclear weapons don't bring peace. On the other hand, it works as prevention, because who would attack country which has nuclear weapon.

Also, nuclear wepon not neccessarily means to tal destruction and and of the world .There is things like tactical nuclear wepons which can be used for more localized strikes.

True, but I do not see a scenario in which one side would use tactical nuclear weapons without the other side at least trying to retaliate.  That has always been the core problem with the idea of "tactical" nukes.

In the fictional scenario the OP presented, he assumed both sides possessed nuclear weapons, which actually makes a "controlled" tactical strike even less realistic.  The moment the second country detects a nuclear detonation, they are not going to wait around to analyze whether it was "tactical" or "strategic."  Their launch-under-attack doctrine triggers immediately.  There is simply no game theory model where a localized nuclear strike stays localized.  Retaliation is guaranteed, and escalation is imminent.

Iran also has nuclear weapons, North Korea is also the same according to some articles.

North Korea definitely has them - they run multiple underground nuclear tests since 2006 and have roughly 60 (estimated) assembled warheads ready to go.  Iran is a bit of a different story, though. They do not actually have assembled nuclear weapons yet, but they are considered a "threshold state."  That means they have the enriched uranium, technical capability, and facilities to build one pretty quickly if they decide to.  Do you honestly think Netanyahu or Trump would have even dreamed of striking Iran if intelligence handed them proof that nuclear warheads were already fueled and ready to go?

[Odusko]

2 sides will use limited nuclear weapons but the outcome will be so devastated and even for envoirement that world will understood they can't continue anymore.

But to make others to understood 2 countries or sides will use nukes and that will bring the peace it will shock the world will have a lot casualties
The good thing is that will be good example the world learn to appreciate peace.
Wich one it will be nobody knows for real.

The power struggle is needless when humans life's and environmental conditions is the receiving end of the game, Nuclear wether at a limited range between two countries will cause devastating results both in the longer time and shorter time duration, which is why escalated nuclear war is not advisable, take instance with the current Israel, America and Iran war even though it hasn't generated into nuclear weapons usage but it impacts on the global economy have greatly been felt.
This lead us to question what the need for war in the first place, when world leaders, countries can actually negotiate and find a balance of power grounds.