{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/2/2017 11:07:44 AM
2
1) WWII didn't end with Japan.
2) The actual "benefits" of the nukes have been controversial and nobody has been able to say decisively whether they helped or not.
3) Even then, whether they helped or not is irrelevant. It opened the doorway a little wider for nuclear warfare. We've survived the last 70 contentious years since then with more than a few close calls, but I don't see this fragile peace holding up much longer.
English
-
1. It ended it for Japan 2. They were beneficial, mutually assured destruction has made the world cool off the rhetoric at least slightly 3. The peace is only as unstable when referring to North Korea, none of the other players with nuclear weapons would use them unless someone else had.
-
Edited by Samantha: 12/3/2017 10:07:39 AM1. Irrelevant. Lives were still being lost elsewhere. 2. How do you judge it beneficial? From a lives lost standpoint, there's no knowing that we would have lost more on both sides without using the nukes. If you want to argue that the destruction shocked the world into holding off, I'd agree in a vacuum, but the threat of nuclear warfare has been pretty much an undercurrent in any conflict since then, even if nobody ever explicitly threatened to use them. (not mentioning the Cuba Missile Crisis of course) 3. North Korea is the problem now but there have been other problems in the past. And your last sentence is exactly why nukes are so dangerous. Any loose cannon that doesn't hold his water very well is going to essentially signal a possible global conflict.
