Mutually assured destruction sounds bad, unless you think about it. It assures two nuclear powers will never go to war with each other, since victory is impossible. The reason the cold war became the cold war and not world war III is because of nuclear weapons. without fear of destruction either the US or the USSR would have started a massive war to destroy the other superpower. This conflict may very well have resulted in way more casualties then WWII. Even if you believe those times are truly behind us, and still want to get rid of nukes, you'd run into a huge practical problem. How do you assure every nation sticks to the rules? We've already seen a nation which completely ignores international agreements about nuclear weapons in the form of North Korea. If North Korea manages to build reliable ICBM's, whilst the nuclear superpowers of the world destroy their nuclear arsenal, there'd be nothing stopping them from invading South Korea and threathening nuclear retaliation to anyone who might intervene. If a major Nuclear power like China or Russia secretly keeps a hidden stockpile of nuclear weaponry in spite of whatever agreements you sign, they might very well pursue more aggresive foreign policy since there's no fear of retaliation. Also please stop pondering to the younger generations by making them seem wiser and more knowledgeable then they actually are. It ads nothing of value to your talks.
except terroist and not typically a nation and can't be (punished) nuked like you might do Russia, for all there crimes a group of inderviduelas squatting in a country can't be sanctioned in the same way a leader or country can.
Mutually assured destruction doesn't often work against terrorist organisations no. And we do have to seriously protect our nuclear weapons from terrorists yes. However, nuclear weapon instalations are some of the best guarded places in the world and are often completely hidden. Terrorists stealing nukes would be horrific, but very unlikely. As for terrorists developing nukes, nuclear non-proliferation wouldn't decrease the likeliness of this happening.
One major problem is with potential malfunctions. MAD almost destroyed more than could be counted, if it were not for Lieutenant General Stanislav Petrov on Sep 26, 1983, who by his inaction - despite everything he was told via his machinery, prevented a full-scale nuclear war. This is only one problem amongst many, including deference of emotion until it either dies down, or reaches a breaking point.
MAD is not the paradigm the US is shooting fro anymore, it's nuclear supremacy - ie: the ability to survive a nuclear counterstrike without the enemy surviving our initial strike.
out of 196 people in a room, 8 tough guys(who usually bully others because they are strong) hold bombs that can kill everyone. And the biggest guy(who hold the bomb in one hand, and a LOT of guns in the other) say "we don't need more bombs!"
not exactly true. While some of the nuclear states are historically the biggest guys in the room, some of them are not (such as North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa (previously) and Israel). We truly don't need more bombs
M.A.D is poossibly the most backwards thinking philosiphy i've ever heard, a waste of tax payers' money which could be put into other more useful deterants such as NATO.
I appreciate how humble she is.. I'm from Pakistan 🇵🇰, one of 9 nuclear power countries and now I'm worried how close I'm to the nuclear weapons. And how many of those weapons might be angled toward me. 😢😢 May God help us get rid of these. AMEN
One can argue nuclear weapon saved billions of people from world war 3.Iraq and Afghanistan gets invaded without a second thought, but once you own nuclear weapon you can enjoy relative peace and is able to grow.
Channels like Folding Ideas have the right idea. Dan hides the visibility of votes on his videos; viewers can still cast their thumbs ups and downs, but only he can see them. Even better, he also leaves the comments open, so you get dumbasses complaining that their opinions are being censored... on a comment section that could easily be turned off.
Better idea: Your vote is worth as much of the video as you've watched. If you watched 1% of the video, you only get .01 of a vote. If you watched 50% of a video, you get half a vote. If you watched the whole thing, you get a whole vote.
"Nuclear bombs are bad m'kay" - this lady. The age of nuclear deterrence has brought about the longest area of sustained peace civilization has ever recorded. Nuclear was is terrible, but the world has bad people in cultures that hate and want to commit genocide. Deterrence is the only solution to our current problems. "The Dark Forest" by Liu Cixin, explains this problem very well. It's the sequel to "The Three Body Problem" and an extremely good book.
"longest sustained peace"... hmmm... so what would you call the cuban missile crisis of the 1960s? A hiccup that could've potentially destroyed the planet?
She addressed that issues. Maybe you should listen to the vid first? Accidents, the stuff built 30, 40, 50 years ago is accident prone (she give examples). How about Trident leeks? It literally just happened (figuratively speaking). She didn't mentioned one incident: 1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident. Its mental how close we got to end of line for humans and rise of cockroaches. Maintenance it costs fucking tons of money to keep this stuff from exploding, its throwing money away. And she agreed that having nukes as deterrent is acceptable, but not in numbers that US or Russia have. I forget exact number but few hundred "standard size" nukes will cause nuclear winter that will wipe most of humanity. What do we need 15,000 of them for? Also a parting quote The most dangerous idea I have come across recently is the idea that we understand plutonium. Plutonium is the most complex element in the periodic table. It has six different crystal phases between room temperature and its melting point. It can catch fire spontaneously in the presence of water vapor and if you inhale minuscule amounts you will die of lung cancer. It is the principle element in the "pits" that are the explosive cores of nuclear weapons. In these pits it is alloyed with gallium. No one knows why this works and no one can be sure how stable this alloy is. These pits, in the thousands, are now decades old. What is dangerous is the idea that they have retained their integrity and can be safely stored into the indefinite future. Jeremy Bernstein Professor Emeritus, Stevens Institute of Technology;
+gottimw When you think of Russia(or any country with nukes)as an enemy whats the first thing you think of? That is right! Nukes. When you're given the number of how many they have whats the feeling you have? Fear. Those 15,000 across the globe is to cause fear and its working. We're living on a tipping point of peace and global annihilation. Until humanity decides that nukes aren't the best way to preserve itself and comes up with an alternate solution nukes will continue to be the best option. Does anyone think its the best? of course not, but when there are no better options you're left with children's dreams that are nothing more then fairy tales to make you consider the future might be all sunshine and rainbows with nukes disarmed but never really ever talk about what happens after that.
Answer to opening question: San Francisco is about 13km wide. To demolish this would require a 3Mt weapon. By "weapons grade nuclear material", I assume you're referring to fissile materials. But as no pure fission weapon can produce such damage, we'll have to use Lithium deuteride fusion fuel. The answer is 74.44kg, or 90.78 Liters, about the size of the suitcase. 1L (latte) of uranium or plutonium would generate about 4% of the energy needed to level San Francisco. Modern weapons are not hundreds of times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. The biggest weapon the US has is 52 times more powerful than that dropped on Nagasaki. Most are 5-25 times more powerful. The use of tens of weapons would not lead to the end of all life on the planet. We've already detonated over 2000 weapons, and we're not dead. Just under 15,000 in global stockpiles. If you're going to share info, make sure it's accurate please. "Will we further reduce stockpiles, or modernise them?" Both.
@@leehudson5925 It's mildly annoying when people try to speak authoritatively on subjects they know little about, even worse when they're given a professional payed platform on which to do so.
@@Evan_Bell I think all the people that are talking about Nuclear Winter are reffering to the fact that we will detonate 100 to 200 bombs at once. That would also depend on the targets, weather conditions, power of the bombs ( think about a 50-100Mt bomb like the Tsar bomb, which we could argue would not be quite feasible on ICBMs and I don't think bombs that powerfull still exist, at leas as far as we know it), etc. The point is... it is possible, but improbable. My problem with nuclear weapons is that we are putting all their power in the hands of leaders that we hope are not batshit crazy(and also, human error). At this point in time, I don't feel safe at all knowing that Putin and the fat pokemon of North Korea have all those nukes. I do think nuclear deterrence works... for now. I just don't think it will work forever, and at that point, it will be too late. But I guess time will tell.
@@icegirld The proponents of Nuclear Winter suggest that firestorms will result from attacks on current targets. There's doubt about this. Regarding weapon yield, Russia may have 20 25MT warheads for the R-36 M2 Mod 6. China probably has 10 5MT warheads for the DF-5A. The US has B83 1.2MT gravity bombs.
Obviously nuclear weapons are horrendous weapons of war that should never be used, but in the real world nuclear weapons are essential to a military's strength. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is not an outdated ideology, it makes our enemies think twice before attacking.
(I know this is old comment but i'm just gonna comment on your comment) It also the one that had prevent the next World War, i'm pretty sure that country who said that it will attack other country with nuclear bomb are just bluffing because no one want MAD, nuclear weapons are the thing that keep the world from going into another World War until now
The choice of if this earth is to be a battleground in which all life is non existent should not be in the hands of a few select people’s sure it can sometimes stop war but is it really worth the risk
I’d it’s all about making the enemy think twice before attacking, then we haven’t learned anything. The goal is to learn that going to war is wrong, and not that going to war is dangerous. If a small mistake or misunderstanding between two countries may mean the end of the world then that’s just unbelievably absurd and unethical. These days we see how the deterrence argument is a load of goop. Putin slaughters Ukraine while the rest of the world can do nothing. Without nukes, Russia’s army would be plowed through like a knife in butter, by the west.
It is disturbing that we are so foolish. We need ways to live life to the fullest without destroying our earth. No more nuclear weapons... no more digging out coal, or oil, or fracking, etc. I despise the hate and fear that rules the world
rufus pope well when after 1945 did a major first world country went to war with another one ? Yeah thats right none and that because of the MAD strategy :Mutually Assured Destruction in other words if one country attacks we would all be dead. It worked for quite al long time now it even got a name the big peace
flowerbunny 300 look into democratic peace theory. All nuclear weapons do is assure that when war inevitably does break out it will lead to the extinction of a large part of the human race
Basic game theory, if each country reduces weapons they eventually reach a point where they can win a nuclear war or where the destruction isn't total. That was the concept of M.A.D, less weapons=more chance one side will nuke the other. The reason we have not had a nuclear war is precisely why we have so many weapons, nobody can win so nobody launched. It's pandoras box, you can't put them back in some rogue country will develop them if you have gotten rid of yours.
Why are so many posters here feeling so threatened by somebody simply questioning the need for additional nukes? It's not as if we don't have more than enough.
The biggest benefit that nuclear weapons brought to the table is its ability to be the one of the most effective deterrents to large scale war ever. The question she didn't ask is how to keep this benefit while reducing the risk associated with the weapons.
The deterrence argument is a load of goop. The idea that mutually assured destruction prevents wars is inherently flawed. If both sides fear annihilation, then there is no reason to have these weapons in the first place. If attacking another nation while the rest of the world wants to mind its own business, means the end of human life, then one attacking nation has effectively doomed all of humanity. Unbelievably unethical. These days we clearly see that deterrents doesn’t work at all, and that nuclear weapons are tools of tyranny and fear. Putin can trample Ukraine while the rest of the world can do nothing but watch in horror.
Might have something to do with the stupid topics they bring to the table, like the recent "How online abuse of women has spiraled out of control". As if men don't suffer from online abuse.
No country will destroy its own nuclear weapons for fear that the other countries might not. Who can blame them for that either? If you had the chance as a leader to be the one country left with nuclear weapons everyone would take it because it gives you the ultimate upper-hand. Since no one countries leaders can trust other leaders with that much potential power nobody will destroy their own nuclear weapons.
well, they are here now and it's virtually impossible to dispose of when the MAD-system is in place. The only way i see a global abolishment of nuclear weapons is if we had one massive world government and no more nation-state interests to defend.
She starts the video citing all these statistics that are irrelevant if you aren't a scientist but are designed to drum up fear and support- like when she talks about the amount of material needed fitting into a latte etc. Its fearmongering. Which I hate, because there are plenty of legitimate fears to be had. The only point I agree with is when she talks about the cost. It is an expensive project. But we are talking about tools which could destroy humanity, so since we need nuclear weapons- they have had an overall incredibly positive impact on the world (since WW2 there have been zero wars between nuclear capable countries)- I think its best we keep them in ship shape. The reason we have more nukes then we need to destroy the enemy is because delivering them to their targets is no guarnetee, especially now that we can't be certain what anti-nuclear weaponry the enemy has. Imagine if China developed a technology capable of shooting down nukes, then a crazed and corrupt leader within their party pulled the trigger on us, and we go to retaliate and fail. Thats game over.
it's impossible to "get rid" of nukes. that would leave the first people to get rid of them vulnerable, and assume that all of them were actually disposed of.
wtf. 10s of nukes could NOT wipe out life on Earth. Nuclear weapons are a blessing to modern politics. Without the threat of these weapons, conflict would escalate drastically. If nuclear weapons didn't terrify the participants of the Cold War, we would've had WWIII, which I hope we can all agree wouldn't be good.
She's evidently never heard of MAD mutually assured destruction. This is why the US and Russia have never fought a conventional war causing 10's of millions of deaths. Today we fight small proxy wars, don't get me wrong all war is terrible. But this woman is clueless and clearly hasn't thought out the issue! People will always fight over resources and religion.
Did you even watch the video? She literally mentions MAD. It's a flawed doctrine that doesn't make sense at all and essentially amounts to all nuke-wielding nations giving their best poker face and hoping none of the others call their bluff. Utterly foolish.
It did. You anime guys literally think that diplomacy and geopolitics is like a cake walk. The world is infact more peaceful after Nukes came in the picture.
Peace requires participation. As the older generation passes new thinking rises from the then threats which are extinguished. The definition of a threat as well as peace changes. So I agree our programs for protection and peace should follow suit.
MAD makes sense, but as the ghost of Cold War perishes, the threat of possibility in dysfunctional missile, or taking over of these assets to dubious actors make more sense.
Galmar Stone-Fist Last week there was a talk avout Mars by a woman with more than 1k likes (less than 100 dislikes). It's more a 'look, a silly titled talk, downvote'
her name is Erika Gregory, wait whats that?? ERIKA.....ERIK....ERI.....ER.....E...........E AS IN FEMINISM I KNEW IT, TIME TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH BOYZZ AAAAAAAA
Nuclear weapons are space weapons. We need them. The problem isn't in the weapons themselves, but in the fact that humanity is divided and this incredibly powerfull tool is pointed at ourselves.
@@Evan_Bell Ignore that, it was 4 years ago. I still think nuclear technology is important for humanity as a whole, but I think I have a little bit more nuanced point of view on the nuclear weapons specifically. Not ready to talk about it.
To all those who say it is obvious what she says: Of course it's obvious but still there are way too few people acting according to it and she just wants to put emphasis on this.
@@Jen-jd3ci not denying that, but the nukes should be reduced because it only harbours fear on the minds of the people living inside the country and nearby nations instead of a sense of security. Moreover, a chance of a spillover effect also stays.
But doesn't having nuclear weapons give nation's a sort of a balance? Every country with nuclear weapons has to think multiple times before they say "let's have war".
Until a depressive cabal of powerful people decide in their fucked up ideology and world view to end the world just by launching one nuke at an adversary. In preventing a war that can kill millions, we're putting more risk of a war that will kill billions or even trillions with no clear winner. It puts sane people into a sense of carefulness but people who aren't sane but are also in power because of their lack of sanity or their control/manipulation of politics and society don't have the same tendency, especially if the end of mankind is their mission (there are already alot of whackjobs in this comment section who believe that, what more behind the curtains of public life?). It's better for an insane leader to launch a war that will kill millions rather than a war that can kill fucking everyone, is it not? Think! What point is there to lowering the risk of a war of massive death and destruction when you heighten the risk of a war of apocalyptic death and extinction of human civilization? Think!
yea, but like, i mean America alone has like 7k nuke, to put that into perspective, that like 35 per country. That's the us alone btw, then plus Russia has like 8k, sooo yea, it ended ww2 but then again it started the cold war-- which was a very very very close to starting an all out nuke war... but then down to the point... yes nukes ended ww2 but, wtf do we need 7k of them?
People in America need to stop saying such things like »We dropped« or »We invade«. Speak truth to power. Start to call politics by name if they trample on human rights and break against international laws. It's also badly needed to occupy pentagon and the Supreme Court.
"Instantly." Isn't quite the right wording. But what was said about the amount of nukes being detonated. If a nuclear war was to happen with tens to hundreds of nukes will wipe out near to all life on earth. And if somehow they survive the detonation and following destruction. The nuclear winter would finish off the remaining human and animal and possible even plant life.
and if you scroll down the comments section, you get tangible evidence of what happens when you raise a generation of dude bros on call of duty and memes. we're honestly fucked. may none of the people in the comments section ever be in any real position of power.
Im sorry but i hate when people say it would be the end of "ALL" life on earth. Its simply not true animal's plants resistant/adaptive to radiation would remain.
She is disproving her own points, and I don't know what kind of utopia she believes she lives in. Modernization of nuclear weapons would be designed to keep accidents from happening, like those she talked about, even if they costed a trillion dollars. The F-35 Program alone costed that much, and she isin't complaning about that which gives no major beneifts to the country, unlike Nuclear Weapon modernization. And she forgot to mention the largest problem, which is expecting countires like North Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, India, Russia and China to willingly disarm their nuclear weapons, which will never happen. When she talks about terrorists, how would removing our current nuclear programs, which would take years of slow degredation, stop terrorists from getting nuclear weapons, instead of updating out nuclear programs to be safer and more secure.
This was out of left field. But, it is clearly highly relevant.That tends to suggest our focus was elsewhere. Yes, the "button", as we call it, was something that I have been thinking about in the current political climate, but the details were not there. I hope we get some validation for this perspective or whatever would be regarded as most correct.
Sorry, but I'm not going to bother watching a talk on nuclear weapons by a person whose degree is in drama. Would be interested to see someone more qualified talk on the subject.
I totally agree, we shouldn't spend hundreds of billions, or even a trillion, to modernise nuclear weapons to last through the 21st century, we should just use them now! #blowthebombs (not a real hashtag)
I get the hate against TED. They are an easy target, they dare to expose opinions. It's so simple to hit on them. And childish. This is not the internet I want.
Anyone else here to continue the thumbs down war on TED? This project used to have such promise. If only feminists where less radical and more nuanced in the way they talk, it wouldn't matter what opinions they were expressing, it would just be more palatable. That is the point, right? Changing minds?
blackczer123 This video has nothing to do with feminism (watch Ashley Judd's video a couple Videos back), however, other videos on Ted's TH-cam channel have disabled comments and ratings. If the comments where truly terrible and abusive, they should leave them up to prove their point, however, disabling the ratings seems merely to hide the reasonable blow-back from bad ideas.
Cognitive Dissonance Though i have nothing against feminism except the extreme ones. I hate these stupid bandwagon that people have been on lately. You guys watch video on stupid people and paint the whole group as evil. Regardless i hate that Tedd disabled the comment section. It was in poor taste. Plus the women speak was overreacting but Not because of cyber attack because that is a serious issue but because she think only females experience such treatment. More over Tedd only disabled the comments to one video. Not more
No need for nuclear weapons, vacuum bombs are better. Same boom, and all you have left, are the inside out remains of humans, that can be used to fertilize newly acquired lands. And as added bonus, everything is flattened for new real estate development. Did I mention, no radioactive fallout? Win/ win!
@Dominant Domination Then you can pretend you don't have a voice, while we who live in countries that have a strong military and government, can pretend that we do. We all cogs and gears that turn this @$$ f@cking machine.
This talk should be called "The world doesn't want more Nuclear weapons" and I would agree with you....but we might need them. I believe that it is the fact that we have nuclear weapons which is a reason why there has not been another world war. Perhaps the numbers can be reduced but I don't want you to realise that you got it wrong as our world is plunged into another world war. I would much rather have them and be proven wrong in not needing them. So to modernise them may be a good idea. If the Islamic states get them (I know Pakistan has them) then we definitely need them. We don't run our culture on an ancient book that promotes genocide. I do not believe that you can educate wars away... that seems to me to be nieve. If we get to 2045 without a world war then never in the field of human history will there have been a time like it and shows that it works
There is no need 2 upgrade our nuclear weapons, we should just let them get old and falling apart. She brings up the past accidents as a reason not 2 upgrade. Makes perfect senses as everyone knows itmes only grow more stable with age.
I disliked this because this woman is not making a justified argument, which is a bad thing to do when you're talking about such a serious issue. On top of that, the video title isn't technically correct, she is talking about maintaining the quality of the weapons not obtaining more, which is another reason I'm disliking it. I'm saying this so you can take one more off your tally of "people who disliked the video just because they've been influenced by Trump". Although I'm sure there are a few.
LOL, the middle East. Yes, countries in the Middle East have nuclear weapons but who has the most? Hmmm? Hard question, isn't it? The USA,Russia, China, England, France etc. It's not only the middle East fault that there are still Nuclear Weapons, they are a factor though. If all countries would disarm their nuclear arsenal together, it would solve the problem.
The 'T' in TED stands for Technology (and the danger it can present as well). Are you sure you aren't enraged by her second X chromosome, whereas you only have one?
wtf. whats up with the Like/dislike ratio. I would think that this issue and topic is one without such drastic viewpoints. 1/3rd of the votes are dislikes. Why? I dont see why we would need nuclear weapons, we have so MANY different weapons and ways to defend ourselves. Why do people think we need a weapon so powerful that it could not only kill the people around the detonation, but continue to create a toxic area on and arround the detonation area.
Read more about how nuclear weapons actually work to prevent big countries to go to war on smaller countries and each other. Google Mutual Assured Destruction. A scary word, yes, but you need to know it.
Mutually assured destruction sounds bad, unless you think about it. It assures two nuclear powers will never go to war with each other, since victory is impossible. The reason the cold war became the cold war and not world war III is because of nuclear weapons. without fear of destruction either the US or the USSR would have started a massive war to destroy the other superpower. This conflict may very well have resulted in way more casualties then WWII. Even if you believe those times are truly behind us, and still want to get rid of nukes, you'd run into a huge practical problem. How do you assure every nation sticks to the rules? We've already seen a nation which completely ignores international agreements about nuclear weapons in the form of North Korea. If North Korea manages to build reliable ICBM's, whilst the nuclear superpowers of the world destroy their nuclear arsenal, there'd be nothing stopping them from invading South Korea and threathening nuclear retaliation to anyone who might intervene.
If a major Nuclear power like China or Russia secretly keeps a hidden stockpile of nuclear weaponry in spite of whatever agreements you sign, they might very well pursue more aggresive foreign policy since there's no fear of retaliation.
Also please stop pondering to the younger generations by making them seem wiser and more knowledgeable then they actually are. It ads nothing of value to your talks.
except terroist and not typically a nation and can't be (punished) nuked like you might do Russia, for all there crimes a group of inderviduelas squatting in a country can't be sanctioned in the same way a leader or country can.
Mutually assured destruction doesn't often work against terrorist organisations no.
And we do have to seriously protect our nuclear weapons from terrorists yes. However, nuclear weapon instalations are some of the best guarded places in the world and are often completely hidden. Terrorists stealing nukes would be horrific, but very unlikely. As for terrorists developing nukes, nuclear non-proliferation wouldn't decrease the likeliness of this happening.
Nico Bruin There was that one time they left some in a parking lot.
One major problem is with potential malfunctions. MAD almost destroyed more than could be counted, if it were not for Lieutenant General Stanislav Petrov on Sep 26, 1983, who by his inaction - despite everything he was told via his machinery, prevented a full-scale nuclear war.
This is only one problem amongst many, including deference of emotion until it either dies down, or reaches a breaking point.
MAD is not the paradigm the US is shooting fro anymore, it's nuclear supremacy - ie: the ability to survive a nuclear counterstrike without the enemy surviving our initial strike.
out of 196 people in a room, 8 tough guys(who usually bully others because they are strong) hold bombs that can kill everyone. And the biggest guy(who hold the bomb in one hand, and a LOT of guns in the other) say "we don't need more bombs!"
not exactly true. While some of the nuclear states are historically the biggest guys in the room, some of them are not (such as North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa (previously) and Israel). We truly don't need more bombs
Next TED talk..."beware of fire, it can burn you."
she's promoting a movement... nuclear weapons are a serious threat, knowing it and not doing anything about it isn't enough
Trump should see this video, he wants a nuclear weapon race
M.A.D is poossibly the most backwards thinking philosiphy i've ever heard, a waste of tax payers' money which could be put into other more useful deterants such as NATO.
OriginalTharios ah you see I'm talking from the perspective of a citizen of the UK, whose nuclear arsenal is so minute it rly is a waste
I appreciate how humble she is.. I'm from Pakistan 🇵🇰, one of 9 nuclear power countries and now I'm worried how close I'm to the nuclear weapons. And how many of those weapons might be angled toward me. 😢😢 May God help us get rid of these. AMEN
One can argue nuclear weapon saved billions of people from world war 3.Iraq and Afghanistan gets invaded without a second thought, but once you own nuclear weapon you can enjoy relative peace and is able to grow.
Well that's subjective, because nonstate actors don't see it in that way.
TH-cam needs to change or remove the rating system. People are abusing it.
Channels like Folding Ideas have the right idea. Dan hides the visibility of votes on his videos; viewers can still cast their thumbs ups and downs, but only he can see them.
Even better, he also leaves the comments open, so you get dumbasses complaining that their opinions are being censored... on a comment section that could easily be turned off.
Louis C - no one is abusing it, they just find this message obvious
idea : you can't vote until you've watched a third of the video, most spammers would get tired and go outside for once
otto pub it does not matter, the system is not being over voted...
Better idea: Your vote is worth as much of the video as you've watched. If you watched 1% of the video, you only get .01 of a vote. If you watched 50% of a video, you get half a vote. If you watched the whole thing, you get a whole vote.
In other breaking news:
War is bad.
Fossil fuel resources are finite.
Cigarettes are bad for your health.
Professional athletes use steroids.
"Nuclear bombs are bad m'kay" - this lady. The age of nuclear deterrence has brought about the longest area of sustained peace civilization has ever recorded. Nuclear was is terrible, but the world has bad people in cultures that hate and want to commit genocide. Deterrence is the only solution to our current problems. "The Dark Forest" by Liu Cixin, explains this problem very well. It's the sequel to "The Three Body Problem" and an extremely good book.
Nuclear weapons are great, unless they are used.
"longest sustained peace"... hmmm... so what would you call the cuban missile crisis of the 1960s? A hiccup that could've potentially destroyed the planet?
She addressed that issues. Maybe you should listen to the vid first?
Accidents, the stuff built 30, 40, 50 years ago is accident prone (she give examples). How about Trident leeks? It literally just happened (figuratively speaking).
She didn't mentioned one incident: 1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident. Its mental how close we got to end of line for humans and rise of cockroaches.
Maintenance it costs fucking tons of money to keep this stuff from exploding, its throwing money away.
And she agreed that having nukes as deterrent is acceptable, but not in numbers that US or Russia have.
I forget exact number but few hundred "standard size" nukes will cause nuclear winter that will wipe most of humanity.
What do we need 15,000 of them for?
Also a parting quote
The most dangerous idea I have come across recently is the idea that we understand plutonium. Plutonium is the most complex element in the periodic table. It has six different crystal phases between room temperature and its melting point. It can catch fire spontaneously in the presence of water vapor and if you inhale minuscule amounts you will die of lung cancer. It is the principle element in the "pits" that are the explosive cores of nuclear weapons. In these pits it is alloyed with gallium. No one knows why this works and no one can be sure how stable this alloy is. These pits, in the thousands, are now decades old. What is dangerous is the idea that they have retained their integrity and can be safely stored into the indefinite future.
Jeremy Bernstein
Professor Emeritus, Stevens Institute of Technology;
+gottimw When you think of Russia(or any country with nukes)as an enemy whats the first thing you think of? That is right! Nukes. When you're given the number of how many they have whats the feeling you have? Fear. Those 15,000 across the globe is to cause fear and its working. We're living on a tipping point of peace and global annihilation.
Until humanity decides that nukes aren't the best way to preserve itself and comes up with an alternate solution nukes will continue to be the best option. Does anyone think its the best? of course not, but when there are no better options you're left with children's dreams that are nothing more then fairy tales to make you consider the future might be all sunshine and rainbows with nukes disarmed but never really ever talk about what happens after that.
I would agree. If it wasn't for the rise of compleet fucknuts in power
Answer to opening question: San Francisco is about 13km wide. To demolish this would require a 3Mt weapon. By "weapons grade nuclear material", I assume you're referring to fissile materials. But as no pure fission weapon can produce such damage, we'll have to use Lithium deuteride fusion fuel. The answer is 74.44kg, or 90.78 Liters, about the size of the suitcase.
1L (latte) of uranium or plutonium would generate about 4% of the energy needed to level San Francisco.
Modern weapons are not hundreds of times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. The biggest weapon the US has is 52 times more powerful than that dropped on Nagasaki. Most are 5-25 times more powerful.
The use of tens of weapons would not lead to the end of all life on the planet. We've already detonated over 2000 weapons, and we're not dead.
Just under 15,000 in global stockpiles.
If you're going to share info, make sure it's accurate please.
"Will we further reduce stockpiles, or modernise them?"
Both.
@Darth Prady What?
At least someone has some sense and can articulate a specific point rather than rambling.
@@leehudson5925 It's mildly annoying when people try to speak authoritatively on subjects they know little about, even worse when they're given a professional payed platform on which to do so.
@@Evan_Bell I think all the people that are talking about Nuclear Winter are reffering to the fact that we will detonate 100 to 200 bombs at once. That would also depend on the targets, weather conditions, power of the bombs ( think about a 50-100Mt bomb like the Tsar bomb, which we could argue would not be quite feasible on ICBMs and I don't think bombs that powerfull still exist, at leas as far as we know it), etc. The point is... it is possible, but improbable. My problem with nuclear weapons is that we are putting all their power in the hands of leaders that we hope are not batshit crazy(and also, human error). At this point in time, I don't feel safe at all knowing that Putin and the fat pokemon of North Korea have all those nukes. I do think nuclear deterrence works... for now. I just don't think it will work forever, and at that point, it will be too late. But I guess time will tell.
@@icegirld The proponents of Nuclear Winter suggest that firestorms will result from attacks on current targets. There's doubt about this.
Regarding weapon yield, Russia may have 20 25MT warheads for the R-36 M2 Mod 6. China probably has 10 5MT warheads for the DF-5A. The US has B83 1.2MT gravity bombs.
Thanks captain obvious, didn't know nukes were bad.
Jamal Johnson I think you missed the point of the video entirely if you think that this video's purpose is to show that nukes are bad.
I think you misstook this comment for being serious and not a couch alt-right troll
the conservative grandpa Who knows. These days up is down and down is up.
true. TH-cam is becoming 4chan
the conservative grandpa but nukes are bad
Obviously nuclear weapons are horrendous weapons of war that should never be used, but in the real world nuclear weapons are essential to a military's strength. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is not an outdated ideology, it makes our enemies think twice before attacking.
(I know this is old comment but i'm just gonna comment on your comment)
It also the one that had prevent the next World War, i'm pretty sure that country who said that it will attack other country with nuclear bomb are just bluffing because no one want MAD, nuclear weapons are the thing that keep the world from going into another World War until now
The choice of if this earth is to be a battleground in which all life is non existent should not be in the hands of a few select people’s sure it can sometimes stop war but is it really worth the risk
Even a small exchange of a few hundred nuclear weapons would have horrendous global effects.
I’d it’s all about making the enemy think twice before attacking, then we haven’t learned anything. The goal is to learn that going to war is wrong, and not that going to war is dangerous.
If a small mistake or misunderstanding between two countries may mean the end of the world then that’s just unbelievably absurd and unethical. These days we see how the deterrence argument is a load of goop. Putin slaughters Ukraine while the rest of the world can do nothing. Without nukes, Russia’s army would be plowed through like a knife in butter, by the west.
If you can make it then do so
never would have expected the like to dislike ratio would be like that on a ted video
yeah, it almost seems like an organized boycotting action from a certain, special kind of people...
lol! the sad attempt to use trump troll memes against them, try harder ...so sad
some people just want to watch the world burn
I take it you're new to YT-TED Talks.
I'm gonna dislike it cause it's a demagoguery.
It is disturbing that we are so foolish. We need ways to live life to the fullest without destroying our earth. No more nuclear weapons... no more digging out coal, or oil, or fracking, etc. I despise the hate and fear that rules the world
Oh shut up. I may be 7 years late, but nukes are for wiping out mankind when we destroy our earth too much.
Hard to see how people could honestly disagree with this, cue trump trolls i guess
i think most dislike because it´s just too obvious...
***** you really overestimate the intelligence of the people disliking this hahaha
rufus pope well when after 1945 did a major first world country went to war with another one ? Yeah thats right none and that because of the MAD strategy :Mutually Assured Destruction in other words if one country attacks we would all be dead. It worked for quite al long time now it even got a name the big peace
flowerbunny 300 look into democratic peace theory. All nuclear weapons do is assure that when war inevitably does break out it will lead to the extinction of a large part of the human race
Basic game theory, if each country reduces weapons they eventually reach a point where they can win a nuclear war or where the destruction isn't total. That was the concept of M.A.D, less weapons=more chance one side will nuke the other. The reason we have not had a nuclear war is precisely why we have so many weapons, nobody can win so nobody launched. It's pandoras box, you can't put them back in some rogue country will develop them if you have gotten rid of yours.
"For Jasmine a fall out shelter would be an app in the app store" ahahaha
there is a difference between what we think we know, and what military intelligence know.
Why are so many posters here feeling so threatened by somebody simply questioning the need for additional nukes? It's not as if we don't have more than enough.
The biggest benefit that nuclear weapons brought to the table is its ability to be the one of the most effective deterrents to large scale war ever. The question she didn't ask is how to keep this benefit while reducing the risk associated with the weapons.
Well she only had 15 minutes to talk not 2 hours.
also i think 15000 nukes is just overkill
if 200 can cause massive damage to the human race
imagine what 2000 or 4000 nukes can do
The deterrence argument is a load of goop. The idea that mutually assured destruction prevents wars is inherently flawed. If both sides fear annihilation, then there is no reason to have these weapons in the first place. If attacking another nation while the rest of the world wants to mind its own business, means the end of human life, then one attacking nation has effectively doomed all of humanity. Unbelievably unethical.
These days we clearly see that deterrents doesn’t work at all, and that nuclear weapons are tools of tyranny and fear. Putin can trample Ukraine while the rest of the world can do nothing but watch in horror.
It's possible to get rid of nukes. Just educate people about them and the fallacy of them.
Funny how a ted talk is more likely to get disliked if it's hosted by a women... even when the subject is nuclear weapons! smh
Funnier still is a muslim talking about women hosting anything.
take a break, too much thinking and you'll exhaust yourself
Might have something to do with the stupid topics they bring to the table, like the recent "How online abuse of women has spiraled out of control". As if men don't suffer from online abuse.
Nice! Just a touch of islamophobia to top your sexism!
talking about a specific issue doesn't dismiss the existence of another specific issue, maybe?
For whatever reason I read the title "The world needs more nuclear weapons". Silly me.
Zian Xelmeus me*
That's a talk i'd like to see.
Well we do need more. How else are we going to stave off the hostile invading fleet from Alpha Centauri?
No country will destroy its own nuclear weapons for fear that the other countries might not. Who can blame them for that either? If you had the chance as a leader to be the one country left with nuclear weapons everyone would take it because it gives you the ultimate upper-hand. Since no one countries leaders can trust other leaders with that much potential power nobody will destroy their own nuclear weapons.
Yes...it'll take the population to strike to get government to listen.
well, they are here now and it's virtually impossible to dispose of when the MAD-system is in place. The only way i see a global abolishment of nuclear weapons is if we had one massive world government and no more nation-state interests to defend.
Her intetions are great! But that's about it.
She starts the video citing all these statistics that are irrelevant if you aren't a scientist but are designed to drum up fear and support- like when she talks about the amount of material needed fitting into a latte etc. Its fearmongering. Which I hate, because there are plenty of legitimate fears to be had.
The only point I agree with is when she talks about the cost. It is an expensive project. But we are talking about tools which could destroy humanity, so since we need nuclear weapons- they have had an overall incredibly positive impact on the world (since WW2 there have been zero wars between nuclear capable countries)- I think its best we keep them in ship shape.
The reason we have more nukes then we need to destroy the enemy is because delivering them to their targets is no guarnetee, especially now that we can't be certain what anti-nuclear weaponry the enemy has.
Imagine if China developed a technology capable of shooting down nukes, then a crazed and corrupt leader within their party pulled the trigger on us, and we go to retaliate and fail.
Thats game over.
it's impossible to "get rid" of nukes. that would leave the first people to get rid of them vulnerable, and assume that all of them were actually disposed of.
And even then, what's to stop anyone rebuilding them?
@@Evan_Bell humans would never uphold any understanding to get rid of nukes...
wtf. 10s of nukes could NOT wipe out life on Earth.
Nuclear weapons are a blessing to modern politics. Without the threat of these weapons, conflict would escalate drastically. If nuclear weapons didn't terrify the participants of the Cold War, we would've had WWIII, which I hope we can all agree wouldn't be good.
FriendlyNeighborhoodDerp true
But how are we going to get a nuclear wasteland without nukes?
thats the point, WE DONT WANT THAT
She's evidently never heard of MAD mutually assured destruction. This is why the US and Russia have never fought a conventional war causing 10's of millions of deaths. Today we fight small proxy wars, don't get me wrong all war is terrible. But this woman is clueless and clearly hasn't thought out the issue! People will always fight over resources and religion.
Did you even watch the video? She literally mentions MAD. It's a flawed doctrine that doesn't make sense at all and essentially amounts to all nuke-wielding nations giving their best poker face and hoping none of the others call their bluff. Utterly foolish.
It never even fucking needed them in the first place.
It did. You anime guys literally think that diplomacy and geopolitics is like a cake walk. The world is infact more peaceful after Nukes came in the picture.
@@Jen-jd3ci "anime guys" ?
Peace requires participation. As the older generation passes new thinking rises from the then threats which are extinguished. The definition of a threat as well as peace changes. So I agree our programs for protection and peace should follow suit.
Totally
Peace is hardly possible. if everything was free there would always be someone who takes advantage of it.
MAD makes sense, but as the ghost of Cold War perishes, the threat of possibility in dysfunctional missile, or taking over of these assets to dubious actors make more sense.
Look, a woman! Quickly, downvote the video!
it's just that the women are always talking about social issues
that being said, i havent watched this one yet
Galmar Stone-Fist Last week there was a talk avout Mars by a woman with more than 1k likes (less than 100 dislikes). It's more a 'look, a silly titled talk, downvote'
Why did you assume the speaker is a woman?
Galmar Stone-Fist Yes that was my immediate thought, no actually it wasn't.
her name is Erika Gregory, wait whats that?? ERIKA.....ERIK....ERI.....ER.....E...........E AS IN FEMINISM
I KNEW IT, TIME TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH BOYZZ AAAAAAAA
In the real world, yes you fucking do need nuclear weapons.
Remember when TED was actually a credible watch!?
Nuclear weapons are space weapons. We need them. The problem isn't in the weapons themselves, but in the fact that humanity is divided and this incredibly powerfull tool is pointed at ourselves.
Space weapons?
@@Evan_Bell Ignore that, it was 4 years ago. I still think nuclear technology is important for humanity as a whole, but I think I have a little bit more nuanced point of view on the nuclear weapons specifically. Not ready to talk about it.
@@isn0t42 Nuclear weapons are important to fight aliens
She's right. We've got a nice amount right now. They should be replaced when the technology improves but the amount is adequate.
WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TED TALKS I HAD RESPECT FOR YOU
To all those who say it is obvious what she says:
Of course it's obvious but still there are way too few people acting according to it
and she just wants to put emphasis on this.
GOOD
US and Russia doesnt need more nukeclear anymore.. because they had many nuke weapon
You can't take away something that keeps us safe.
And equally fearfully unsafe.
@@SubhamChowdhury97 not equally. Nukes have more pros than cons.
@@Jen-jd3ci not denying that, but the nukes should be reduced because it only harbours fear on the minds of the people living inside the country and nearby nations instead of a sense of security. Moreover, a chance of a spillover effect also stays.
it's quite simple but it's really important
But doesn't having nuclear weapons give nation's a sort of a balance? Every country with nuclear weapons has to think multiple times before they say "let's have war".
Until a depressive cabal of powerful people decide in their fucked up ideology and world view to end the world just by launching one nuke at an adversary. In preventing a war that can kill millions, we're putting more risk of a war that will kill billions or even trillions with no clear winner. It puts sane people into a sense of carefulness but people who aren't sane but are also in power because of their lack of sanity or their control/manipulation of politics and society don't have the same tendency, especially if the end of mankind is their mission (there are already alot of whackjobs in this comment section who believe that, what more behind the curtains of public life?). It's better for an insane leader to launch a war that will kill millions rather than a war that can kill fucking everyone, is it not? Think! What point is there to lowering the risk of a war of massive death and destruction when you heighten the risk of a war of apocalyptic death and extinction of human civilization? Think!
@@kioshi-4588 Finally someone who gets it!
She's not wrong. What the world does need is more nuclear energy.
Has humanity come to a point where they need a 15 min vid to explain why nukes are bad? Wow... just wow
Jamisco Mufisco nukes prevented WWIII. I don't see how that's bad.
yea, but like, i mean America alone has like 7k nuke, to put that into perspective, that like 35 per country. That's the us alone btw, then plus Russia has like 8k, sooo yea, it ended ww2 but then again it started the cold war-- which was a very very very close to starting an all out nuke war... but then down to the point... yes nukes ended ww2 but, wtf do we need 7k of them?
@@jamisco4432 The cold war was not started by nuke.
@@dickiewongtk looking back at this comment, I have come quite far. I now see what an ignorant statement it was. You guys are right
What about the threats from above?
People in America need to stop saying such things like »We dropped« or »We invade«.
Speak truth to power. Start to call politics by name if they trample on human rights and break against international laws.
It's also badly needed to occupy pentagon and the Supreme Court.
"Instantly." Isn't quite the right wording. But what was said about the amount of nukes being detonated. If a nuclear war was to happen with tens to hundreds of nukes will wipe out near to all life on earth. And if somehow they survive the detonation and following destruction. The nuclear winter would finish off the remaining human and animal and possible even plant life.
and if you scroll down the comments section, you get tangible evidence of what happens when you raise a generation of dude bros on call of duty and memes. we're honestly fucked. may none of the people in the comments section ever be in any real position of power.
Im sorry but i hate when people say it would be the end of "ALL" life on earth. Its simply not true animal's plants resistant/adaptive to radiation would remain.
She is disproving her own points, and I don't know what kind of utopia she believes she lives in. Modernization of nuclear weapons would be designed to keep accidents from happening, like those she talked about, even if they costed a trillion dollars. The F-35 Program alone costed that much, and she isin't complaning about that which gives no major beneifts to the country, unlike Nuclear Weapon modernization. And she forgot to mention the largest problem, which is expecting countires like North Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, India, Russia and China to willingly disarm their nuclear weapons, which will never happen. When she talks about terrorists, how would removing our current nuclear programs, which would take years of slow degredation, stop terrorists from getting nuclear weapons, instead of updating out nuclear programs to be safer and more secure.
You don't need more food...
Okay but are you going to be the one that takes Putin's missiles away from him
Well, they'll be here long after you're gone. They aren't going anywhere. "Peace" and your dream chase The definition of insanity.
this is a good talk.
Trump says "WRONG!".
why so many I thought we agree on this topic .
the begining of her talk was a bit misleading...
TED's comment section is clearly where trolls call home.
We need antimatter weapons.
We need to concentrate the sun’s ray beams
This was out of left field. But, it is clearly highly relevant.That tends to suggest our focus was elsewhere. Yes, the "button", as we call it, was something that I have been thinking about in the current political climate, but the details were not there. I hope we get some validation for this perspective or whatever would be regarded as most correct.
Wow, the publicum seems pretty dumb.. when she asked about the size of the nuke, they seemed clueless
Michael Gusevsky she was talking about an amount, and Im pretty sure she ment it as an actual question
Michael Gusevsky kay sry dude maybe I was wrong
Sorry, but I'm not going to bother watching a talk on nuclear weapons by a person whose degree is in drama. Would be interested to see someone more qualified talk on the subject.
I totally agree, we shouldn't spend hundreds of billions, or even a trillion, to modernise nuclear weapons to last through the 21st century, we should just use them now! #blowthebombs (not a real hashtag)
Society is fucked
Truman isn't showing up. Sorry.
That's not enough! We demand more asbestos!
More asbestos!
More asbestos!
I get the hate against TED. They are an easy target, they dare to expose opinions. It's so simple to hit on them. And childish.
This is not the internet I want.
Anyone else here to continue the thumbs down war on TED? This project used to have such promise. If only feminists where less radical and more nuanced in the way they talk, it wouldn't matter what opinions they were expressing, it would just be more palatable. That is the point, right? Changing minds?
What does this have to do with feminism?? And look there nothing really wrong with feminism.
blackczer123 This video has nothing to do with feminism (watch Ashley Judd's video a couple Videos back), however, other videos on Ted's TH-cam channel have disabled comments and ratings. If the comments where truly terrible and abusive, they should leave them up to prove their point, however, disabling the ratings seems merely to hide the reasonable blow-back from bad ideas.
Cognitive Dissonance Though i have nothing against feminism except the extreme ones. I hate these stupid bandwagon that people have been on lately. You guys watch video on stupid people and paint the whole group as evil.
Regardless i hate that Tedd disabled the comment section. It was in poor taste. Plus the women speak was overreacting but Not because of cyber attack because that is a serious issue but because she think only females experience such treatment.
More over Tedd only disabled the comments to one video. Not more
'Nuclear Holocaust' got me into tears 😂😂
It's an old expression.
It's a legitimate term.
No need for nuclear weapons, vacuum bombs are better. Same boom, and all you have left, are the inside out remains of humans, that can be used to fertilize newly acquired lands. And as added bonus, everything is flattened for new real estate development. Did I mention, no radioactive fallout? Win/ win!
@Dominant Domination We all voted bastards in, our opinions are not valid.
@Dominant Domination Then you can pretend you don't have a voice, while we who live in countries that have a strong military and government, can pretend that we do. We all cogs and gears that turn this @$$ f@cking machine.
Learn spirituality. It's the answer to war.
the title goes without saying.
yet, the world is producing more nuclear weapons (you kinda missed the point)
There's more likes than dislikes .. why is everyone freaking out that there are 300 dislikes there's like double the likes than dislikes
Really GENIUS INSIGHT HERE
Dear ted,
Next time, don't put a title on your video. Then people have to actually watch it before they comment and rate.
Why so many dislikes ?
Ukraine disagrees.
question is which Nation will start first nuclear disarment
All the ex-Soviet republics with exception of Russian republic renounced to their nuclear weapons when USSR dissolved in 1991.
143 or so nuclear reactors in United States. If planet nibru strikes we are all pretty much dead.
This talk should be called "The world doesn't want more Nuclear weapons" and I would agree with you....but we might need them. I believe that it is the fact that we have nuclear weapons which is a reason why there has not been another world war. Perhaps the numbers can be reduced but I don't want you to realise that you got it wrong as our world is plunged into another world war. I would much rather have them and be proven wrong in not needing them. So to modernise them may be a good idea.
If the Islamic states get them (I know Pakistan has them) then we definitely need them. We don't run our culture on an ancient book that promotes genocide.
I do not believe that you can educate wars away... that seems to me to be nieve. If we get to 2045 without a world war then never in the field of human history will there have been a time like it and shows that it works
This video makes sense, atleast more sense compared to some previous TED videos.
Hope for more videos like this.
There is no need 2 upgrade our nuclear weapons, we should just let them get old and falling apart. She brings up the past accidents as a reason not 2 upgrade. Makes perfect senses as everyone knows itmes only grow more stable with age.
I think the point is that we should dismantle them altogether.
I disliked this because this woman is not making a justified argument, which is a bad thing to do when you're talking about such a serious issue. On top of that, the video title isn't technically correct, she is talking about maintaining the quality of the weapons not obtaining more, which is another reason I'm disliking it. I'm saying this so you can take one more off your tally of "people who disliked the video just because they've been influenced by Trump". Although I'm sure there are a few.
What is the proof of the existence of nuclear weapons?
why the dislikes?
but then fallout irl would never come out :/
Tell that to Gandhi.
It just needs one... And I want it!
Good show! Rid chemical and bioweapons also.
To those who disagree with non-proliferation how about everyone being able to obtain a nuke licence? You happy now?
If the Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, do you think Russia would have invaded?
who disliked it?
or just let the world reach nash equilibrium
Well you don't fucking say!
Good Video! Good Stats.
to bad middle East doesn't think that way.
LOL, the middle East. Yes, countries in the Middle East have nuclear weapons but who has the most? Hmmm? Hard question, isn't it? The USA,Russia, China, England, France etc. It's not only the middle East fault that there are still Nuclear Weapons, they are a factor though. If all countries would disarm their nuclear arsenal together, it would solve the problem.
Yes Israel doesn't think that way, having the most amount of nuclear weapons in the middle east.
The 'T' in TED stands for Technology (and the danger it can present as well).
Are you sure you aren't enraged by her second X chromosome, whereas you only have one?
We actually do need more nukes, Chang my minde
Good fucking job Ted, you've polarized your viewership and now even talks like these get bad ratings.
wtf. whats up with the Like/dislike ratio. I would think that this issue and topic is one without such drastic viewpoints. 1/3rd of the votes are dislikes. Why? I dont see why we would need nuclear weapons, we have so MANY different weapons and ways to defend ourselves. Why do people think we need a weapon so powerful that it could not only kill the people around the detonation, but continue to create a toxic area on and arround the detonation area.
ArcticPoise nukes kept the participants of the Cold War from starting WWIII
Read more about how nuclear weapons actually work to prevent big countries to go to war on smaller countries and each other. Google Mutual Assured Destruction. A scary word, yes, but you need to know it.
#2045 no to nukes #nuclear