War is weird, but ultimately the concern is generally escalation/normalization of weapons. If nukes get normalized, then every military worth its salt needs one, and can use them, and that means suddenly warfare becomes much, much more bloody as a matter of averages, not just as a matter of a bomb or two vaporizing a few hundred thousand people in the occasional high-intensity war.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 13 points 7 months ago

Yeah, agreed. I think it's by far a good thing that we've been lucky enough so far that they haven't been used beyond that one time.

I actually think there's an unspoken factor that is why people actually treat nuclear weapons so differently: There is no way in the modern day that any leader anywhere in the world can start a nuclear war and be sure it won't come back and impact them and their family. Unlike other war things, it's never safely insulated in some faraway place happening to other people.

It would be nice to think that the taboo is because of the horrible consequences, but we're doing things with horrible consequences every day. I think it's because of the pure calculus of what might happen to me and people I care about, right away.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I feel that reaching your conclusion on that basis would have been all but impossible without the benefits of hindsight.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

Also, long-term effects were not known then

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

I meant in reference to the post-war attempts at nuclear restraint, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki.