Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "The Serious Problem with Nuclear Deterrence" video.

What's interesting is that so far there have been few instances of biological or chemical warfare (was used in ww1) used in modern wars because both sides agreed that using them would lead to more deaths and harm, even the nazi's did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield during ww2, so there is some hope that nuclear weapons won't be used in the case of a global/industrial conflict, however small countries that don't have the conventional weapons to defend themselves with might become desperate enough to use them on a much larger foe, then there is the subject of more advanced technology making nuclear weapons useless, thus making war more likely. There really is no getting around MAD, either it breaks down and you have war or it continues and you risk nuclear war by smaller states but at some point it will break down and you can't unopen pandora's box, the only possible solution I can think of is most of the world coming under one world government and just not allowing anyone else to ever develop nuclear weapons, though then you will get other problems and the potential of nukes being used on smaller states that want to rebel or try to develop/use them anyways, such a state ironically can only come about after something like ww3, defeating the goal in the first place. Very tricky... Perhaps we are all doomed?... Probably not.
43
@Brandon-sr2bl Russia is not really a threat to the USA, China is, regardless on if they have nukes or not, Russia can only really threaten Ukraine or eastern Europe China wants Taiwan and controle the part of the seas where most trade in the world flows, that's a big no no for the USA and the rest of Asia too btw.
19
Having the minimal amount of nuclear weapons still gives some deterence.
5
You have to respond in some way, you could use nukes or you could just invade and destroy the regime but if they can use nukes and you can't that's a big loss but you can't do nothing that's even worse.
5
Well it could have been worse like the Germans, the communists or god forbid the French!
2
Sounds like something Christopher Hitchens would have said about Iran I believe, could be wrong though.
2
Ohhhh don't worry traitor Milley is going to get his due in time, there is just no way he can get away with doing something like that, soldiers have been given 15 years for less, however the Biden admin and people on the top don't seem very competent, at worst he might be forced to resign but I think he deserves to go to jail for a very long time, it's insane why he's not in jail already but that's the current world for yah and the USA.
1
Pretty much
1
@Vanyali not on the battlefield which was the topic at hand. im still right.
1
@daniellenz6347 not that im aware of, probably other forms of chemical agents used or reaction indirectly on battle, no one used chemical weapons on the same scale as in ww1 and quite limited in ww2, though I could be wrong.
1
@florinivan6907 yeah that´s true though I would argue because they were the first to be weaponzed made them dominate and better than the alternative, in the future that might change if someone finds a way to defeat ICBM´s for a cheap cost, then governments will try and experiment with new forms of warfare, I think automated warfare is going to be the next step, with those you could still conduct war even with nuclear attacks but for now nuclear weapons will dominate the war question.
1
@snipdeath that's an incendiary weapon, it uses a chemical reaction to produce fire, likewise guns use a chemical reaction to propel a bullet forward, both aren't chemical weapons. In order for a weapon to be classified as a chemical weapon the weapon has to use it's chemicals directly on the target, agent Orange used in the Vietnam war was a chemical weapon, so is Sarin Gas. You could argue white phosorus is a chemical weapon since it's reaction causes chemical burns instead of regular burns like an incendiary weapon would.
1
@castor3020 I don´t think that´s accurate, they aren´t meant specifically for civilians and doing so is a big no-no in internationa relations, more likely that rebel groups and terrorists groups would use them for maximum terror. Iraq under sadam did use chemical weapons on civilians though im not sure if that was always for terror reasons or if there was some rebel group nearby and them deciding to just gas the whole village instead of going home by home to get who might be a spy or terrorist cel. have to look into this but during the Iraq-Iran war were chemical weapons used? it was a very ww1 style series of battles and Sadam had a huge stockpille of chemical weapons so seems likely he used them.
1
@frankrenda2519 you mean destroy it´s major cities, the USA as a whole probably survive but the deathtoll would be insane, any nation with nukes is a huge threat to everyone, it´s strange that people don´t really understand that.
1
@N/A they want Taiwan and Taiwan is important for the USA, also Japan, south korea, vietnam, China is a threat in the region and is a totalitarian government, they are the biggest threat to the USA, no-one else comes close.
1
Nuclear winter is actually not very likely, it was a prediction made during the cold war to try and convince both sides not to use them, it worked to a degree and both sides agreed to reduce their stockpilles so that a nuclear war would result not in 2 billion deaths but "only" 800 million or less deaths. But yeah ironically a nuclear war would probably set humanity back a 100 years and be more of a blessing for nature than us continuing to expand as we do, it's not like we can stop, we are animals after all but it be great if we were more responsable.
1
Psychopaths are actually quite logical and rational, it's the religieus or ideologically minded people who think they can do no wrong that pose a real threat.
1
Chemical weapons and biological weapons seem to have been pretty well banned though that could also be because nukes are just better so why bother with the others?
1
@angrydragon4574 don't think that's accurate, they only had some heavy water plants but weren't very close to getting a nuclear weapon.
1