As I recently said on another board/post, I don't think we've ever really had that ability. To render ourselves and most other large land animals extinct, sure; but compare our arsenals' peak yield to, say, one good sized volcano. The planet is still much, much bigger than us.
Actually, the only winning move is to convince the other side not to play.
One of the most useful things ever to come from nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapon testing) is the persuasion of potential enemies that outright warfare between nuclear powers is so costly as to be "unwinnable". This had/has direct effects like a greater willingness to use diplomatic means to solve problems as well as an indirect "buffering" effect where these same people exert pressure on their partners to avoid direct warfare as well.
The assumption being, of course, that these other people 1) prefer living to death (not so true for some particular religious groups), 2) know you have the means to put bombs on their loved ones (this is where the nuclear tests come from), and 3) are certain you will use them in desperate situations.
As a plan/solution/strategy, though, it doesn't scale well: as you add more players, the odds go up that one of them will be unstable or short-sighted enough to fire theirs off to (try to) achieve their goals.
Taken to the extreme, like the situation before the apocalypse in the latest edition of Gamma World, imagine if every Something Awful goon, /b/tard, USEnet kook and Facebooker had the Bomb (or its kinetic, memetic, biological, or nanotech equivalent).
That's where my three points come in and my overall premise that it's not about not playing the game, it's about making the other guy not want to play.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori and
no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2010 04:01 (UTC)no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2010 16:04 (UTC)no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2010 04:15 (UTC)no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2010 09:15 (UTC)What would be neat is to have another with the countries currently at war flashing too...
The only winning move is not to play.
Date: 22 Jun 2010 11:46 (UTC)Re: The only winning move is not to play.
Date: 22 Jun 2010 14:53 (UTC)Re: The only winning move is not to play.
Date: 22 Jun 2010 18:24 (UTC)One of the most useful things ever to come from nuclear weapons (and nuclear weapon testing) is the persuasion of potential enemies that outright warfare between nuclear powers is so costly as to be "unwinnable". This had/has direct effects like a greater willingness to use diplomatic means to solve problems as well as an indirect "buffering" effect where these same people exert pressure on their partners to avoid direct warfare as well.
The assumption being, of course, that these other people 1) prefer living to death (not so true for some particular religious groups), 2) know you have the means to put bombs on their loved ones (this is where the nuclear tests come from), and 3) are certain you will use them in desperate situations.
Re: The only winning move is not to play.
Date: 22 Jun 2010 18:50 (UTC)Taken to the extreme, like the situation before the apocalypse in the latest edition of Gamma World, imagine if every Something Awful goon, /b/tard, USEnet kook and Facebooker had the Bomb (or its kinetic, memetic, biological, or nanotech equivalent).
Re: The only winning move is not to play.
Date: 23 Jun 2010 08:56 (UTC)That's where my three points come in and my overall premise that it's not about not playing the game, it's about making the other guy not want to play.
no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2010 17:12 (UTC)It looks as though the flashes have slowed a bit from their high point in the 60's.
no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2010 18:17 (UTC)no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2010 21:00 (UTC)Why does this sound like a broken form of Irish stand down? Whoa!