Is MAD objectively the best thing to happen to humanity in all of history?

>It's prevented a full-scale war for over 60 70 years
Pretty sure the US Army openly talk about this a point to Von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu.

Yeah but if there was a full-scale war, even if only conventional, it would've dwarfed the second World War, and likely had fatalities in the hundreds of millions

Augustus guaranteed peace for longer.
Face it, the world's already spiraling back to shit and it's barely been three generations.

The threat of nuclear annihilation only stops people if they aren't all nihilists or believe the apocalypse is just over the horizon and give a flying fuck about the continuation of the species. Humans are slowly but surely seeing themselves as parasite and taking steps to either prevent themselves from breeding or pushing forward toward the radical decline of the species.

Spengler was right but he didn't realize this civilization can only end in fire. We will get the ash and brimstone Revelation promises us, and there will be no doubt among the stragglers that it was OUR FAULT. And there will be no Jesus to save us from ourselves.

this

>Is MAD objectively the best thing to happen to humanity in all of history?
No. We no longer live in the 20th century. We live in a time where even a Totalitarian 3rd world country run by a dictator like North Korea can make a multi-stage nuclear warheads and put them on an Intercontinental missile even when they are sanctioned by literally the entire world. All MAD did was usher in Pax Americana which will end sooner, or later.

>prevented a full-scale war for over 60 70 years

I'm sure Iranians and Iraqis are very grateful.

Basically this.
MAD is a yet another incarnation of the "balance of power in Europe" meme that was pushed for centuries, sure a stalemate may guarantee an uneasy peace for a while, but when it fails it fails spectacularly, it's unsustainable.

Once the rest of the world starts to develop WMD's shits gonna get pretty fucking tense, we're seeing this happen already with rogue nuclear states like Pakistan and NK.

>We would have saved the millions who died under communism.

Fuck off faggot, Communism hasn't even been tried yet.

according to nutjobs there is no mad anymore. the us supposedly has the power to destroy every single missile with satellite lasers.

>implying
We were literally about to engage in nuclear war if a submarine captain obeyed his wars. MAD is literally the definition of a tactical genius but a strategic mistake. Only a fool would believe a dispute over economic systems is worth destroying the whole world over

Anybody who says this obviously has never heard of nuclear subs or how they work.

The problem is that the power of the world would shift even more heavily onto the United states of america therefore leading to an even more tyrannical world where the military industrial complex would have an even greater playground to create warfare for as long and as deadly as they want.
I don't really see that scenario as being beneficial compared to what we already have honestly.

>It's prevented a full-scale war for over 60 70 years

Yeah but consider the vast amount of time that human history will potentially encompass, things are alright now, but you can't even fanthom what the world will be like a thousand or ten thousand years from now. With time-scales like that you need to start to consider that maybe its a bad idea to even have these kind of weapons laying around simply on the basis of Murphy's law.

Best thing ever in all of history? Probably not. Modern medicine is pretty nice. Has it been great? Yes, absolutely. I suspect that without the existence of nuclear weapons, there would have been WW3 by now.

>destroying the whole world over
>le MAD means the end of the world meme
Why bother shitposting when you know nothing about the subject at hand?

>and won
Soviets had air parity and ground superiority until the 80s. A full-scale war in Europe would've been completely unsustainable for the US in the long run. But this time you can't just strategic bomb spam everything like in WWII because SAMs will chew your air fleet to shit in weeks. It would've just ended in a stalemate with the soviets taking the rest of Europe, short of the UK.

It's been great so far. And sane western nations having nukes isn't such as the US, France and Britain having nukes is no issue. autocrats and communists (Russia and China) having nukes isn't that big of a deal either, since they value self-preservation and maybe be ruled by dictators, but not idiots. We are entering and era though where advanced western democracies and other global powers are no longer the only ones who can produce these weapons. North-Korea is of course the best example of this. Whilst North Korea may somewhat value their continued existence, their leadership is not as cautious with the use of these weapons as we would like, and at the very least claims that it's intention is to use these weapons. Pakistan is also a country which we would not rather see having nuclear weaponry. whilst I would not call it a terrorist state, It is a very hard-line muslims state with a hatred for it's neighbour, the second-most populated country in the world. And terrorism is a huge problem in Pakistan. so terrorist getting a hold of nuclear weapons in that country is a possibility, however slight. Iran is a theocracy which may not fully commit to bringing on the apocalypse, but is surely another country we would not want waving it's nuclear dick around. And this has the potential to get worse, if more dictatorships around the world get a hand on nuclear weaponry, their behavior in international politics would shift in a rather negative way, with them knowing they basically can't be attacked. And in volatile places such as the middle east their exist groups who would love to get their hands on nuclear material. and for these groups MAD is not a detterent, but rather an encouragement.

Having the technology is not the same as having the power. The system was never implemented, and building it right now would be seen as making the first step towards conflict.

>implying fallout can be contained from more than 200 nuclear strikes
>implying reality always follows theory, that's why WW1 didn't occur, or the great recession
No user, you're the idiot

>argues against reality always following the theory
>memes about climate and atmosphere, one of the most unpredictable things on the planet
>while parroting the estimate of some retarded youtube video

Just fuck off.

>PDE
>unpretictable
No nigga, you're the retarded equating science and social science. You're the reason humanities are literal autist nigger tier academics

I'm just going to assume you are another retard vomiting opinions online without knowing what the fuck he's talking about.

I think the best fail-safe for the use of nuclear weapons (now we know the full extent of the damage they cause) is the fact that a human will have to pull the trigger.

I don't think any human - be it Russian, Chinese, American, Muslim - could knowingly usher in a nuclear holocaust by pushing that button.

There's been significantly more than 200 nuclear test detonations. We're all still here.

That's because the frontage was too narrow to support more of army. (And because there was other security concerns).

>sane nations
>US
>France
>Britain

wew

>I don't think any human - be it Russian, Chinese, American, Muslim - could knowingly usher in a nuclear holocaust by pushing that button.

You are on a history board here
Do you really don't know what humans have been capable of doing for the last few thousand years?

Mad Dog Mattis is the best thing to happen in a long time.

>humanity is totally the worst :(((
wew lad