Would allowing all countries to have Nuclear Weapons or giving them to them eliminate war all together?

[888theGreat]

YES, because invasions would stop , fear of being nuked

NO, It would increase chances of wars and the use of them

[Anonymous]

It would be a disaster but ultimately, that's what the Democrats have shown they want.

[Likes2drive]

Not everyone can handle that responsibility, some idiot would use them on someone

[nightdrot]

Voted B - but the answer provided is not quite correct. The chances that a nuclear weapon would be used would not necessarily increase. The chances of war, however, would.

In terms of the former, as the United States is discovering - or more accurately re-discovering - with Ukraine is that deterrence works. Deterrence prevented the USA and the USSR from going nuclear in the Cold War. Mutually Assured Destruction - or MAD as it was dubbed - worked. Each side had the capacity to destroy the other and so neither took their conflict to the nth degree. Though to be sure they came close - see also the Cuban Missile Crisis.

However, what worked so well in the Cold War the USA is now discovering works the other way. Grant that the USA's interests in Ukraine are secondary and derivative, whereas Russia's are direct and historically and strategically linked. (Think of it this way: Ukraine is to Russia what Cuba was - and actually still is - to the United States.)

Nevertheless, were Russia absent a large, modern thermonuclear weapons arsenal, the USA might be tempted to intervene more directly - if not outrightly. Yet, as MAD deterred the USSR from taking the Cuban Missile Crisis to the point of outright confrontation, so now it deters the United States from outright confrontation - and indeed to considerable caution - over Ukraine. Indeed, the USA is even limiting itself in the quality of weapons it sends in aid to Ukraine.

That said, please note that under the auspices of MAD, both the USSR/Russia and the USA and indeed the other nuclear powers (see also China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea) have seen more than their fair share of conflict and war. Even sometimes between each other by proxy. (See also the Vietnam War and the Soviet-Afghanistan War as two examples.)

War thrived under the nuclear umbrella, if albeit that its scope may have been somewhat more limited in geography and duration. After all, under the nuclear umbrella, there has been no direct global military (emphasis added) confrontation such as World War I and World War II. The Cold War, albeit being global in scope, having been ideological, diplomatic, economic and where military by proxy in character.

This then throws into high relief the danger. If one side in a conflict sees itself existentially threatened, would it not consider a nuclear attack - launched under the right circumstances - worth the risk?

What the question does not take into account is human fallibility. The varied nature of governments on Earth, the potential for unique circumstances that might give rise to the chance that one or both sides in a conflict might see a moment when they calculate that, throw in the element of surprise, they might just pull off a nuclear first strike.

Would the world have avoided a nuclear conflict had Hitler been able to obtain a nuclear weapon at the same time the USA did? Would deterrence have worked in the same way?

Allowing all nations to obtain nuclear weapons - and the day may come, never underestimate the potential for human depravity - would exponentially increase the chances for disaster. Note again that even when the world was essentially limited to four nuclear powers - the USA, the USSR, the UK and France - in 1962, the world came within a whisker of nuclear annihilation, over Cuba no less.

No, insofar as it is possible given the basically lawless nature of the international arena - note well, "international arena," and not "international community" - it is best if the spread of nuclear weapons be as limited as possible. Grant that the day may come when most nations get such weapons. The farther that day is put off, the better the odds that nuclear annihilation will be avoided.

It being noted that war will thrive, come what may. Such is human nature. Imperfect and imperfectible and prone to conflict.

[888theGreat]

India and Pakistan is the same

[nightdrot]

No, they are two separate countries - and with a long history of not getting along. Both are nuclear armed, but again, that is a limited number of countries in obvious conflict that are able to make reasonable calculations about each other's actions.

Throw in a global matrix of nations with nuclear weapons, and rational calculation becomes well nigh impossible. Deterrence and "MAD" then becomes problematic and the odds of war and thus nuclear war skyrockets.

[888theGreat]

they can destroy each other so the same and why they don't

[nightdrot]

See what I just wrote above. Facing only each other, they can make reasonable calculations about each other's actions. This lessens - though by no means does it eliminate - the chances of nuclear conflict. (No more than the chances of avoiding nuclear war was 100% assured in the Cold War between the USA and the USSR.)

Multiply the number of players in the game and you multiply the chances for conflict and thus miscalculation. The number of nuclear powers increases mathematically and the chances of nuclear conflict then increases geometrically.

[JamesDiaz11]

Possession of nuclear weapons is no deterrence to war... anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history since WW2 would know this...

[888theGreat]

It is a fact US and Russia would not have invaded Germany if Hitler had nuclear missiles. You must be retarded

[JamesDiaz11]

It's a fact that T-Rex would still be alive had they invented space travel... You must be retarded, huh?

[888theGreat]

It is also a fact that the Arab countries have not tried to invade Israel since they had nuclear weapons.

[exitseven]

There are some cultures that believe if they die they get 23 virgins. If they had nukes it would end badly.

[888theGreat]

not countries , just groups.

[exitseven]

if they can drive a jet plane into a building they might be able to launch a nuke.

[888theGreat]

I doubt it , they could put an AK-47 to someones head and make him launch it

[Sevenpointfive]

not really. but detonating that nuke could destroy you before your enemy, so you better be sure it works

[XXblack88]

I think it would increase the chances of war

[douride2]

Your kidding right?

[888theGreat]

nope, look at countries that have them and how they are treated.