Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "How India Got the Bomb" video.

@FranzBieberkopf Disagree on the first point as well. We've already seen war between nuclear armed states - India and Pakistan fought despite both having nukes. Meanwhile nukes nearly plunged the world into armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis despite no active war between the powers involved at the time.
12
This is a frequently repeated assumption, without basis. As a matter of fact India is also proof against a related claim that's made wrt nuclear weapons - that they prevent wars between nuclear armed states. That has already happened. Pakistan and India have already fought a war after both had nuclear weapons. The nukes did nothing. Secondly don't underestimate the destructive potential of conventional weapons. The Rwandan genocide, for instance, saw a million people die from machetes and small arms.
3
@eddiehimself No I think they didn't do it cos it'd be an unwinnable war that would see millions die, nukes or no nukes. Nations aren't generally keen to start massive wars that they're not confident they can win funnily enough. Your cynical thesis has literally already failed before. What prevents war isn't just nuclear parity, but parity in general. Which explains why they only ever went to war with far weaker nations. The only one projecting here is you. Ironically the people who keep claiming that nukes save lives are also the people who put their foot down and insist no one else get to have them. If you like nukes so much, stop trying to prevent more nations having them.
1
@eddiehimself "its nuclear arsenal does not pose an existential threat to India" - lmao! Do you even know what nukes are?! Sure, let's just write off millions of deaths just cos India has more people. Nukes don't work as an 'existential threat' to any of the superpowers either then, since even in a full scale exchange they'll still have survivors. You haven't proven your rule to begin with, to begin speaking of any exceptions to it.
1
@eddiehimself In addition to which your vaunted 'most powerful nations' aren't some magical different breed of state. If the theory is so good at preventing war, then you shouldn't be against other nations having them. Yet hypocritically they are. And why stop at nukes? Let's maintain stockpiles of biological weapons too! It's called 'MAD', so let's go full-on mad at it.
1
@eddiehimself Also note that America has already undermined the very basis for the MAD doctrine when it exited the ABMT (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) in 2002. So not even the nation that's supposed to be held back by the MAD doctrine has held to it. When even the nation that created the concept of MAD doesn't believe in its value anymore, that shows that it's all hogwash.
1
@hari4406 "Pakistan caused issues that led to war. India was only defending itself." - I did not dispute the causes of the war. I just pointed that a war still happened despite both parties being nuclear states. According to nuclear evangelists nukes would ensure that neither side does that.
1
@hari4406 By your own admission, the US isn't really respecting MAD by advancing closer to Russia, without letting Russia do the same. In addition, as pointed out above, their exit from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty also shows they won't let MAD stand Besides that I don't see where this idea that nukes somehow only work for superpowers comes from. As if less powerful nations are somehow more suicidal or something. The money spent on wars is irrelevant to the issue of nukes being a major danger that's supposed to, in theory, hold nations back. Hell the 'cheapest' war would be a nuclear attack with no prior fighting. The only 'cost' is the missiles themselves, none of your other arsenal was even deployed. And the result would be devastating, for both sides in case the enemy has nukes too. So idk why u say the money spent on war matters. It just sounds like an excuse thrown out to dismiss the fact that the MAD doctrine has already failed before.
1