“End all war” or “…make them [nukes] all disappear, forever…”

Vastly understates the complexity of the issues, as if the only reason we still have nukes and war is because no one has really bothered thinking it through. It seems like a sound bite, pop-politics if you like, its an opinion that can be offered without any knowledge whatsoever, and woe betide anyone who disagrees because if they do they must be sadistic warmongers.

I don’t think this definitely applies to the author (as judging by his excellent list) and perhaps I have over-exagerrated, but it’s what I think and its something that grinds my gears.

If I may make a humourous *****ogy:
I have done internet dating, and it is a bit like when someone would write on their profile, under “likes”, they put “family” or “hanging out with friends”. Of course you do, it doesn’t make you special, it just makes you seem pretty “special” when you point it out like it’s a personal quality.

PS:
It has long been accepted that a full-scale nuclear exchange would not “end everything” nor render the planet uninhabitable. Nuclear war and conventional war are, of course, very different, but they can hardly be treated separately. The idea of making a distinction between a “conventional WW3” and a “nuclear WW3” seems invalid to me. WW2 was a conventional war and what happened? They invented the nuke.

I suppose you could make a distinction under certain circumstances (there are exceptions to every rule, after all) such as a surprise launch by a rouge state or a terrorist device, but it is unlikely that that would involve a global conflict, nor would it involve the exchange of more than a few weapons.

You could “make the nukes disappear forever” in order to prevent such a rouge detonation, but that would not remove the *will*, and if you do not remove the will, then you really haven’t solved anything. All you’ve done is remove any deterrent effects and effectively lower the price of war. And given a free ticket to the next rouge state to build one.

I’m all for peace and (partial) disarmament, but we as a race are very, very, very far from leaving war and weapons behind us. And, returning finally to my initial point, making statements like “no more nukes” does not move us any closer, in my opinion, to that end, despite it’s deceptively peaceful nature.

A conventional WW3 could kick off tomorrow, and a year later the world would still be here.

A full nuclear exchange could end everything in an hour.

I wouldn’t say conventional war is “better” or “perfectly fine”, but we’d be around as a species to talk about our mistakes afterwards. Nuclear weapons allow for one mistake or misunderstanding to make the planet virtually uninhabitable for years.

If one wishes, like the author, to “…make them all disappear, forever…” – then one must wish *all* weapons to disappear forever – or else, one is stating that dying by any other weapon is somehow better? Or that war fought by conventional means is perfectly fine?.

This is tantamount to stating that “I wish all war would stop.”

This is a childish, naïve and utterly unrealistic statement. While wishing such obviously shows a heart in roughly the correct location, it is so broad, and ignorant of the human condition, that stating such almost does more harm than good.

Do not misunderstand, war is the most terrible thing on this Earth and must be avoided at all costs, but simply denouncing it as a concept cannot be logically done.