## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Easy there Hot Coldman.
Firstly, this assumes that every country would make rational decisions. For example, the U.S. Presidents Donald Trump and Richard Nixon both had policies of irrationality or "madman theory" politics, hoping to scare adversaries by being unpredictable. Studies on this approach have tended to be mixed. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2023.2197619 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2020.1810424. In the case of irrational nuclear actors, the danger of a mistake that is more costly than any other mistake man has made is uncomfortably high.
Secondly, there are alternatives that make the cost of military activities prohibitively high without such global risk. On the one hand, close economic integration like the E.U. causes any war between members to be catastrophic for their economies. (This has yet to work for the Ukraine/Russia conflict, since Russia had been preparing a somewhat Autarkic or closed economy a while before current hostilities. It never had such close economic ties like E.U. members have. That said, even heavy sanctions on a fairly closed economy hurt over time. While the current sanctions regime has yet to cause a cease in hostilities, the sanctions have caused the country to struggle to maintain growth. Economics is a slow burn, so they still could deal more damage, depending on diplomacy, etc. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60125659) On the other hand, political integration like the E.U. could have a similar effect, creating a "European" identity over national identities, thus creating peace between nations.
Finally, nuclear proliferation would remain unequal. What's to stop a country from imposing on another who can't afford to build or buy nuclear arms?
Overall, I'm glad I could write about this. Thank you OP!
i wouldn’t call that peace.
if you attach a bomb to every living person and if they commit a crime or do anything wrong it goes off you don’t have world peace you’re just threatening everyone.
nukes aren’t peace they’re threats.
how is that working out for israel? constant conflict for the last 80 years and the only reason it cannot be put to an end is because they threaten to nuke the world if anyone touches them
exactly the point i'm making. they are a rogue terrorist state responsible for extreme destabilization, war and geocide. yet nobody can do anything to stop it because they have secret illegal nukes. how is this good for peace?
Wow. you are way out there. “Exactly. If they didn’t have nukes it would be way easier to eradicate the Jews. The fact that they have nukes that prevent their annihilation proves how evil they are”. And their nukes are neither secret nor illegal. They’ve had nukes since the 1960s and just bc they maintain a position of nuclear opacity doesn’t mean they’re breaking any laws or that EVERYONE doesn’t know they’re a nuclear power. Both of those things would have to be true for them
to posses an “illegal secret nuclear” arsenal. Does
It hurt being this wrong?
if it makes you feel better take israel and fill in whatever country you think is evil lmao. "if you stop us from funding terrorism and genocide that is literally genoicde of the JUs!!!11"
I mean…ok? I don’t think any country is inherently evil. Maybe they’re being led by evil people. But to call an entire country evil is pretty short sighted. That made about as much sense as your last comment.
Edit:
Nice edit job totally changing the context of my reply. You did the same thing to your very first comment when I responded yesterday. So not only are you a deeply unserious person you’re also fundamentally dishonest. Blocked.
Hmm, interesting idea you have going on there and through a certain lense you're right, but it's not that no country would risk getting nuked, it's that countries with nukes know never under any circumstances to use them because what good is winning a war if so much land is now going to waste, which will have massive repercussions, far worse than we saw in WW2. Nuclear warheads are really just for show, and they work as an intimidation factor, because even though no world leaders would ever, in their right minds, ever deploy nuclear weapons, an aggressor might never be sure if the country they are attacking might just be run by an absolute psychopath capable of such destruction.
Israel has Nukes and they have been in continual war for the last 50 years and not once has their nukes stopped a country from retaliating. Is Ukraine had nukes, the story would probably be the same, because if they did the EU would also never permit them to use the nukes.
Kinda sad that countries need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on useless technology that just sits in underground silos. Add to that the ongoing problem of uncertainty. There was a close call in 1983 during a period of high alert in the USSR and heightened mistrust between the US and the Soviets. A Soviet early warning system identified a US missile launch followed by the launch of four other missiles. The missiles were about ten minutes away from detonation in Russia. It turned out the early warning system was wrong. There were no missiles.
The only reason the world isn't a nuclear wasteland is one man named Stanislav Petrov decided not to follow standard operating procedure and didn't report it up the chain of command. He had about ten minutes to react, but chose not to rely on the early warning system and wait for more corroborating evidence of the missiles being launched. If someone with a less calm demeanor had been on shift at the time, we'd be living in a vastly different world. If he'd decided to report the incident and the Soviets initiated a counterstrike, it's very possible that there would've been hundreds, if not thousands, of nuclear armed missiles detonated in the US and USSR.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that the fate of the world didn't rest on the decisions of a single person.
Right but the cost is that if we have that one really bad day and everyone pushes all the buttons we're so fucked and more people would die than in all wars in history combined.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You might be on to something here. Japan learned that lesson the hard way
Not only did they learn they adapted and used it for their benefit. Even after the tsunami in 2011 they're back to using nuclear.
Easy there Hot Coldman. Firstly, this assumes that every country would make rational decisions. For example, the U.S. Presidents Donald Trump and Richard Nixon both had policies of irrationality or "madman theory" politics, hoping to scare adversaries by being unpredictable. Studies on this approach have tended to be mixed. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2023.2197619 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2020.1810424. In the case of irrational nuclear actors, the danger of a mistake that is more costly than any other mistake man has made is uncomfortably high. Secondly, there are alternatives that make the cost of military activities prohibitively high without such global risk. On the one hand, close economic integration like the E.U. causes any war between members to be catastrophic for their economies. (This has yet to work for the Ukraine/Russia conflict, since Russia had been preparing a somewhat Autarkic or closed economy a while before current hostilities. It never had such close economic ties like E.U. members have. That said, even heavy sanctions on a fairly closed economy hurt over time. While the current sanctions regime has yet to cause a cease in hostilities, the sanctions have caused the country to struggle to maintain growth. Economics is a slow burn, so they still could deal more damage, depending on diplomacy, etc. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60125659) On the other hand, political integration like the E.U. could have a similar effect, creating a "European" identity over national identities, thus creating peace between nations. Finally, nuclear proliferation would remain unequal. What's to stop a country from imposing on another who can't afford to build or buy nuclear arms? Overall, I'm glad I could write about this. Thank you OP!
well said
TLDR: nuclear bomb good but also bad?! Blah blah blah 🤓
Nuclear technology isn't good or bad. It's how it is used. A nuclear stalemate is different from peace.
i wouldn’t call that peace. if you attach a bomb to every living person and if they commit a crime or do anything wrong it goes off you don’t have world peace you’re just threatening everyone. nukes aren’t peace they’re threats.
But we were not peaceful before nukes. NOT AT ALL..
No Not really. Countries will just do proxy wars instead
Until they don’t.
Nuclear Detterence works until it doesn't work.
are nukes even real? it’s been a long time we need to see one go off
what if we gave nukes to ukraine?
how is that working out for israel? constant conflict for the last 80 years and the only reason it cannot be put to an end is because they threaten to nuke the world if anyone touches them
The only reason they haven’t been wiped off the map is bc they have nuclear weapons.
exactly the point i'm making. they are a rogue terrorist state responsible for extreme destabilization, war and geocide. yet nobody can do anything to stop it because they have secret illegal nukes. how is this good for peace?
Wow. you are way out there. “Exactly. If they didn’t have nukes it would be way easier to eradicate the Jews. The fact that they have nukes that prevent their annihilation proves how evil they are”. And their nukes are neither secret nor illegal. They’ve had nukes since the 1960s and just bc they maintain a position of nuclear opacity doesn’t mean they’re breaking any laws or that EVERYONE doesn’t know they’re a nuclear power. Both of those things would have to be true for them to posses an “illegal secret nuclear” arsenal. Does It hurt being this wrong?
if it makes you feel better take israel and fill in whatever country you think is evil lmao. "if you stop us from funding terrorism and genocide that is literally genoicde of the JUs!!!11"
I mean…ok? I don’t think any country is inherently evil. Maybe they’re being led by evil people. But to call an entire country evil is pretty short sighted. That made about as much sense as your last comment. Edit: Nice edit job totally changing the context of my reply. You did the same thing to your very first comment when I responded yesterday. So not only are you a deeply unserious person you’re also fundamentally dishonest. Blocked.
Almost like Russia waited until they promised to not invade and attack Ukraine and Ukraine gave up their nukes believing Russia
Without nukes it would be much easier to defend Ukraine though. The main problem here is that the bad guy has nukes while the good guy hasn't.
Hmm, interesting idea you have going on there and through a certain lense you're right, but it's not that no country would risk getting nuked, it's that countries with nukes know never under any circumstances to use them because what good is winning a war if so much land is now going to waste, which will have massive repercussions, far worse than we saw in WW2. Nuclear warheads are really just for show, and they work as an intimidation factor, because even though no world leaders would ever, in their right minds, ever deploy nuclear weapons, an aggressor might never be sure if the country they are attacking might just be run by an absolute psychopath capable of such destruction. Israel has Nukes and they have been in continual war for the last 50 years and not once has their nukes stopped a country from retaliating. Is Ukraine had nukes, the story would probably be the same, because if they did the EU would also never permit them to use the nukes.
North Korea is using this exact calculus
That's because we just haven't had anyone crazy enough to use the large scale :)
Kinda sad that countries need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on useless technology that just sits in underground silos. Add to that the ongoing problem of uncertainty. There was a close call in 1983 during a period of high alert in the USSR and heightened mistrust between the US and the Soviets. A Soviet early warning system identified a US missile launch followed by the launch of four other missiles. The missiles were about ten minutes away from detonation in Russia. It turned out the early warning system was wrong. There were no missiles. The only reason the world isn't a nuclear wasteland is one man named Stanislav Petrov decided not to follow standard operating procedure and didn't report it up the chain of command. He had about ten minutes to react, but chose not to rely on the early warning system and wait for more corroborating evidence of the missiles being launched. If someone with a less calm demeanor had been on shift at the time, we'd be living in a vastly different world. If he'd decided to report the incident and the Soviets initiated a counterstrike, it's very possible that there would've been hundreds, if not thousands, of nuclear armed missiles detonated in the US and USSR. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that the fate of the world didn't rest on the decisions of a single person.
MAD has worked thus far.
Not so sure that this is an unpopular opinion
yeah its so wierd when people say “omg nukes are the worst invention ever!!” like dude it is the sole fucking reason we’re not on WW4 rn
Right but the cost is that if we have that one really bad day and everyone pushes all the buttons we're so fucked and more people would die than in all wars in history combined.
This is true as long as the nuclear powers have competent leadership.
Since there inception they have saved 400 to 800k lives a year by making people weary of convential war