• 60sRefugee@spacey.space
    1·
    2 months ago

    @mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org 1/2: They tried to find an exit; but none logically existed. Ban nuclear weapons? Then we’re back to June 1945, when total strategic (conventional) war complete with burning down cities prompted the development of nukes in the first place. International control? The USA proposed it, the Soviet Union vetoed it (while secretly working to develop their own nukes). Mutual disarmament? The first side to cheat wins.

    • Matt Blaze@federate.socialOP
      1·
      2 months ago

      @60sRefugee@spacey.space @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org Yeah, Nuclear fetishists love to declare that there’s no alternative, simply nothing we can do. Much like the way there’s no solution to health care or gun violence.

      • Dr. Eric J. Fielding, PhD@mastodon.social
        1·
        2 months ago

        @mattblaze@federate.social @60sRefugee@spacey.space @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org One hope is that the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union might not work today, but the Russian rockets are still mostly reliable. A few leaks from the International Space Station, but not many serious malfunctions.

      • 60sRefugee@spacey.space
        1·
        2 months ago

        @mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org If you’re in favor of unilateral surrender to others who DON’T give up their nukes, please say so.

        • Matt Blaze@federate.socialOP
          1·
          2 months ago

          @60sRefugee @CStamp @nyrath @simplenomad No. But unlike you, apparently, I think the current situation is unacceptably dangerous and inherently unstable, and that working to find ways to dismantle a system in which the entire world can be blown up in less than the time it takes to get a pizza delivered should be considered an urgent international priority.

          This is actually a pretty mainstream view. In fact, while the world is still quite dangerous, various treaties have made it safer.

          • 60sRefugee@spacey.space
            1·
            2 months ago

            @mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org Find “ways”. People have tried for 75 years. And no it wasn’t because people were evil, insane warmongers that it hasn’t happened. People were scared shitless about the possibility of nuclear war practically from the day after the Japanese bombings.

            • Matt Blaze@federate.socialOP
              1·
              2 months ago

              @60sRefugee@spacey.space @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org The difference between people like you and people like me is that you seem eager to give up.

              Not me. I think nuclear war is fundamentally evil, and that there is room to continue to make it much less likely, if we have the will.

              • 60sRefugee@spacey.space
                1·
                2 months ago

                @mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org Give up? More like have no idea how to start. If you have a concrete suggestion beyond “do something” I’m all ears.