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

[Oluwa-btc]

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.

Yeah! I believe so too. You build the nuclear weapon and nobody will have to tell you bullshit. They can only use proxies to fight them,otherwise,  a direct combat could see exchange of nuclear arsenals.

No they won't!
But the people in Venezuela are cowards. Where is the bravery during the time of Nuno Chavez? The new planted leader has restored connections with isreali regime and the people in Venezuela are still mute. I have never been this ashamed of a great people with fighting spirit. I can agree, until you build the nukes, you're seen as inferior and weak. It is enough reason why Africa needs to unite and have her own nuclear warheads.

Nuclear weapons will kill billions of people though and not peace. The rich will hide in bonkers underground but the poor and average should wouldn't

[Opiate32]

Nuclear war can never bring peace to this world as far as I am concerned. It can only create a situation whereby countries continue to get afraid to attack each other but that is different from solving the reason behind a conflict.

If peace depends on both countries knowing that a war will destroy them, then  the peace is being maintained by fear rather than trust or cooperation. We need to know that one mistake or misunderstanding or de ion made my a reckless leader could lead that fear into a real war.

For me the absence of war is what gives peace because there is a difference between having peace and just being afraid of what will happen if the fighting starts

[BALIK]

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.

Our world has never been truly fair, and it has always been a place where the strong bully the weak. This has been happening for thousands of years, not only between humans but also in nature and between different species. So it's hard to find a solution that can create a fair balance for everyone.

I think instead of countries constantly engaging in an arms race or turning to economic warfare, building a multipolar world could be a better way forward. When power is spread among multiple major power and smaller countries have the freedom to choose sides, it becomes harder for any single country to impose its will on the rest of the world.

That's why I don't expect China to replace the US. Instead, I hope China could help create a multipolar world.

[Swordsoffreedom]

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

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and before the war, it had never intended to acquire them either. All rumors about them possessing nuclear weapons are merely baseless allegations and a pretext for the US to invade them.

If they had possessed nuclear weapons like North Korea, I don't think the US would ever have dared to attack the country.

Indeed, having too many countries possess these destructive weapons is a threat to the whole world. But when major powers keep abusing their power and bullying smaller countries, perhap I also support the idea that other countries should possess nuclear weapons. That may be the best way to restrain the aggression of major power and restore the global balance of power.

[Oluwa-btc]

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and before the war, it had never intended to acquire them either. All rumors about them possessing nuclear weapons are merely baseless allegations and a pretext for the US to invade them.

If they had possessed nuclear weapons like North Korea, I don't think the US would ever have dared to attack the country.

Indeed, having too many countries possess these destructive weapons is a threat to the whole world. But when major powers keep abusing their power and bullying smaller countries, perhap I also support the idea that other countries should possess nuclear weapons. That may be the best way to restrain the aggression of major power and restore the global balance of power.

This is fact and according to the nuclear weapon inspections, they never had such plans until the last Supreme leader was killed by the joint airstrike of the isreali and American regime. I believe it is wise because, you can not kill my father, mother, brothers and friends and not expect me to be as ruthless as my enemy attempting to end me likewise. It should be the right decision if they think that way.

Lol, the nuclear weapon they have right now is the control over the strait of hormuz and they have decided to be in control for a very long time. It is somehow because Saudi Arabia can chase nuclear ambitions, Pakistan can have nuclear weapons but not Iran? This has got to be some laughable shit. Embarrasing!

[Smack That Ace]

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

I think OP and all of us are familiar with this famous quote from Albert Einstein. Clearly, he was referring to nuclear weapons, which the US dropped on two Japanese cities and killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Not to mention, nuclear weapons today are far more powerful and terrifying than they were back then, and a nuclear war today would be nothing like what the world witnessed in 1945. Therefore, using nuclear weapons to force countries to appreciate peace is an extremely dangerous gamble and simply not worth the tradeoff.

OP, what happen if it gets out of control? There may be no one left to learn that lesson. So in my opinion, it's a terrible idea.

[$crypto$]

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

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and before the war, it had never intended to acquire them either. All rumors about them possessing nuclear weapons are merely baseless allegations and a pretext for the US to invade them.

If they had possessed nuclear weapons like North Korea, I don't think the US would ever have dared to attack the country.

Indeed, articles often exaggerate the news about Iran having nuclear weapons, this could be from the view of observers that Iran has many ballistic missiles capable of attacking the US some time ago and the conclusion to it is that Iran has nuclear weapons.

It makes sense, too, that the U.S. would not strike at a country where it is nuclear-ready.

I have found his article which I think is valid, where Iran has confirmed that it will not develop nuclear weapons after the recent MOU agreement.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Indeed, articles often exaggerate the news about Iran having nuclear weapons, this could be from the view of observers that Iran has many ballistic missiles capable of attacking the US some time ago and the conclusion to it is that Iran has nuclear weapons.

It makes sense, too, that the U.S. would not strike at a country where it is nuclear-ready.

I have found his article which I think is valid, where Iran has confirmed that it will not develop nuclear weapons after the recent MOU agreement.

That's not simply exaggeration but a deliberate exaggeration by Western media to justify their invasion of Iran.

Also, having ballistic missiles does not mean possessing nuclear weapon. These are two completely different types of weapon, and anyone who conflates the two clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. And by the way, Iran does not have ballistic missiles capable of striking the US.

The geographical distance between the two countries is around 10000-12000 km, while report say the Khorramshahr-4 ballistic missile has a range of only around 4000 km. Once again, if Iran had a weapon capable of striking US territory, they would have probably used it to retaliate, and the US would never have dared to attack them.

https://theconversation.com/how-far-can-irans-ballistic-missiles-reach-a-defense-expert-explains-how-the-missiles-work-and-what-iran-can-and-cant-hit-279072

[9ja Amaka]

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.

The best form of peacekeeping is not by violence. Peace requires less violence. This is not the time to wish the two sides in conflict to learn from their mistakes. This is the nuclear weapon we are talking about. There won't be a time for them to learn through nuclear war because everyone will be dead. History holds enough lessons for us to avoid thinking of nuclear weapons as the solution for peace. Countries opportune to have access to nuclear weapons mostly use them to scare their oppositions but with no plan to use them.

[MusaPk]

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and before the war, it had never intended to acquire them either. All rumors about them possessing nuclear weapons are merely baseless allegations and a pretext for the US to invade them.

If they had possessed nuclear weapons like North Korea, I don't think the US would ever have dared to attack the country.

Indeed, having too many countries possess these destructive weapons is a threat to the whole world. But when major powers keep abusing their power and bullying smaller countries, perhap I also support the idea that other countries should possess nuclear weapons. That may be the best way to restrain the aggression of major power and restore the global balance of power.

If we look at history then it becomes very clear that only weak got attacked and those have necessary self-defence power remain safe from external invasion. Iran survives only because they have the capability to defend themselves.

How can someone think that Nuclear war can bring peace in this world or that can be helpful in anyway. Nuclear weapon are destructive for mankind not only once but that side effects that weapons leave for coming generations for many many years. And those who are saying about that this generation should see what Nuclear war is and how it works this thought is really childish. 

[JeromeTash]

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.

Last time I remember, the US used nukes against Japan, and this hasn't brought any peace at all, has it? Instead, what we are seeing is the continued harassment by the US towards other countries they know do not have nukes.

The funny thing is that they won't try attacking countries they know are armed with nukes such as North Korea or China. I think every country needs to have nukes. That way peace shall prevail in a world where one country will not be intimidating others just because it thinks they are defenceless.

[Vod]

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.

So which country do you think will take a nuke and decide not to retaliate due to environmental concerns for their attacker?

If we look at history then it becomes very clear that only weak got attacked and those have necessary self-defence power remain safe from external invasion. Iran survives only because they have the capability to defend themselves.

I disagree.   Iran did not and could not defend themselves against the US.  The US stopped attacking because Trump finally found out ammunition was limited.   On the opposite side - North Korea could not defend against the US either.   They are not attacked because they have nuclear weapons.  The best way to defend any country is stay neutral - don't brag your god can beat up their god.

But we can hope -- and try to stop just when the nuclear winter balances with global warming.   

[DanWalker]

I think every country needs to have nukes. That way peace shall prevail in a world where one country will not be intimidating others just because it thinks they are defenceless.

I like the idea of power and military capabilities being more evenly distributed among countries. That would create a balance of power and make it harder for any country to easily bully other.

However, the idea of every country possessing nuclear weapons is a completely different matter. It could make the balance of power more equal, but once weapons of mass destruction become widespread, the risk also increase many time over.

Because if just one country lets things spiral out of control, the consequences could be catastrophic for everyone.

[Muba20]

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.

If two countries have to start a nuclear war on a certain scale to test their strength, then it can definitely have a serious negative impact on the human race. At present, no one cares about anyone, which is definitely not a good sign. If everyone wants to test their strength, then this world will never be stable. The earth will be uninhabitable for humans. A limited-scale nuclear attack can kill countless people and even have a serious impact on the environment that can bring harm to everyone. Therefore, there is certainly no logic in conducting such tests.

Many people in the world are predicting that something like this will happen. Those who are millionaires are already thinking about arranging doomsday bunkers. Such an attempt definitely means that a nuclear attack will happen again at some point. Governments must emphasize that such a situation does not happen in advance. If such a war occurs, it will have a negative impact on the earth.

[BADecker]

One important point regarding all this...

After the world governments have been turned upside down because of nukes, watch out who you follow. There will be people of power who are corrupt, but will not be recognized by the people as corrupt. The people will support them. Their leader will try to corrupt the whole world. My thought is that if you think I am talking about Trump, you haven't seen anything yet.

Here's a little Youtube video that shows where a great amount of corruption lives:

Are Cops the Enemy?

Another one that has been around for years:

TheTinyDot

[Berry2d]

After series of observations and investigations on how things are done,  I have never seen a place where more chaos can stand as the best way of resolving conflict of any kind, war i know is among the things that keeps unforgettable scar in the heart of those involved in it no matter how long it takes.
I experienced an incident in my place where a young man killed his brother's son and was later killed for that crime,  to them both parties have suffered same lost but still remembers that incident all days of there life.
The use of nuclear weapons will cause same damage to all involved but its effect can never be forgotten because war i know brings nothing good to those involved in it.

[BADecker]

After series of observations and investigations on how things are done,  I have never seen a place where more chaos can stand as the best way of resolving conflict of any kind, war i know is among the things that keeps unforgettable scar in the heart of those involved in it no matter how long it takes.
I experienced an incident in my place where a young man killed his brother's son and was later killed for that crime,  to them both parties have suffered same lost but still remembers that incident all days of there life.
The use of nuclear weapons will cause same damage to all involved but its effect can never be forgotten because war i know brings nothing good to those involved in it.

War comes about in free countries by people listening to lying authorities. The results of the Iran and Ukraine wars might turn out to be good. But it isn't because most people would argue in favor of war.

Look at travel vlogs of simple citizens coming out of Russia. Average people don't want war:
https://www.youtube.com/@lisa_the_russian/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@natasha-rostova

[Accardo]

Nuclear war can never bring peace to this world as far as I am concerned. It can only create a situation whereby countries continue to get afraid to attack each other but that is different from solving the reason behind a conflict.

With history being taught in higher institutions, it's so hard to build peace through mass killing of a people or civilization. Historians believe that Osama's 9/11 attack was inspired by the great Crusade that happened centuries ago, between Christians and Muslims. So, when the stories of war and killings is passed down to the younger generation, the pain grows back in them, and they'll begin to cultivate evil plans for the side that have murdered their ancestors.

[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.

The best form of peacekeeping is not by violence. Peace requires less violence. This is not the time to wish the two sides in conflict to learn from their mistakes. This is the nuclear weapon we are talking about. There won't be a time for them to learn through nuclear war because everyone will be dead. History holds enough lessons for us to avoid thinking of nuclear weapons as the solution for peace. Countries opportune to have access to nuclear weapons mostly use them to scare their oppositions but with no plan to use them.

Violence can bring about peace we have emphasis on negotiating peace which is the best deal for both parties involved in any kind of war, nuclear weapons and it usage is against humanity and the impacts last even generations to come that is why countries that have it are watched carefully in other not to use it for any reason and those developing nukes are sometimes stopped or highly regulated.
But the bigger question is if those nuclear weapons have other usage apart from being used for war, and if there is none other usage it means, developing them by countries should be halt like what the United States is doing to stop Iran nuclear development.