Since my house never burnt down, I guess it is alright to smoke in bed, while drunk, and leaving the gas burner on on windy days...
If you winning the lottery has a chance of 1 in 10 million, that doesn't mean you for sure will hit it in 10 million tryings. Maybe it will take 30 million. Or on the other hand you could hit it next week... Life isn't always black and white. There could be a limited nuclear war. Lately actually the chances of that happening (lots of smaller countries having the nukes) is getting bigger than an all out nuclear winter. On the other hand, that might be benefitial to humankind. After all, if the lesson/result of Hirosima and Nagasaki was that we have been nuclear war free in the last 7- years, that was a pretty damn good result. So if Pakistan nukes India and they retaliate, killing let's say 5 million people, but then the world goes another half century without nukes going off, that is a pretty good deal...
I can only identify one small country that claims to have developed nuclear weapons recently: North Korea. That is indeed scary, but not as scary as "lots of smaller countries having nukes." On top of that, North Korea is a totally-owned client state of China. The Chinese do not want Industrial Era weapons used on a large scale because they would destroy too much of the infrastructure that supports the world economy. The Chinese are arguably #1 in cyber warfare. Before North Korea, what was the last "small country" to develop nukes? Israel, as far as I can tell. Israel is using its nukes in the traditional way: as a deterrent. It's been decades since anyone other than the Palestinians have attacked Israel.
You obviously haven't heard of the Pakistanian nuke... Pakistan isn't such a large country. South Africa neither...
There's also Pakistan, and Libya had an active program they gave up after seeing what happened to Saddam (Iraq being another country that was hard at work on nukes back in the 80's). There's also that secret reactor in Syria that Israel bombed a couple of years back, etc. No, that's not an accurate characterization. They don't take orders from China, although China does have a lot of cards to play to influence them. It's more of a blackmail relationship, though, since China doesn't want a unified Korea, nor does it want to deal with the fallout of an NK state collapse. That got a lot less arguable once StuxNet and Flame were discovered and publicized. But what does it have to do with North Korea? They can barely keep the lights on a few hours a day in the capitol - there are no cyber targets there to speak of. Nah, it was Pakistan. And, again, you're ignoring the various other countries that had/have active nuclear programs but did/have not succeeded in developing weapons. Regardless of how they're using them, the fact of them having them creates an incentive for proliferation in the region (and beyond). Hezbollah is, what, chopped liver?
Good grief, Pakistan is not a small country! It has about 180M people. That makes it quite a bit bigger than France and the UK together, both of which are "large" nuclear powers! I didn't make my point. Which was that neither China nor any of the other world leaders really need to worry about their armies and air forces any more. The next war will be virtual. We in the software industry have known for forty years that the quality of your software is only part of your key to success. The rest is the quality of the organization and people who deploy it--in business, military, science, academia or civilian government. China may not have the world's best cyberwarfare software, but they sure know how to use it. As I've noted elsewhere, it's generally accepted without argument that China has penetrated every large American corporation. Throughout my life I've had active programs to develop relationships with hotties. Almost all of them were complete failures. So far, the sum total of the effect of possessing nuclear weapons is that no other nation will attack you. Not so bad. Well except for India and Pakistan, somehow they keep playing that silly posturing game. Or did that all take place before they had nukes? I forgot that one, sorry. But it's telling that only non-state actors will attack Israel. They can't bomb a party. And even Israel's leaders understood that the world would not have tolerated them destroying Lebanon in order to destroy Hezbollah. Hell, their economy would collapse without U.S. military aid.
I read "small countries" there as referring to their geopolitical status, not their populations. I.e., "large" countries are already enmeshed in various institutions and power relationships that constrain the danger of them possessing nukes, whereas "small" countries tend to do volatile things for "small" local reasons, which they are able to do exactly because they are marginal in the larger international system. I'm open to the suggestion that I misread there, and that population is somehow relevant to the danger of nuclear proliferation. But I haven't seen anyone make that argument, and I suspect that you're simply being pedantic here. Why would we care about the population of a nuclear state, as such? Yeah, not buying it. Ain't nothing "virtual" about drones or industrial sabotage, and we're already engaged in international cyber warfare. Cyber warfare is not some alternative thing that will happen in the future. It's what is happening right now, and has been for years. Evidence? Likewise, where is your evidence that others aren't even better? Isn't the USA supposed to have sabotaged thousands of Iranian centrifuges over a long period of time, in a facility that is not connected to the internet? Can anyone claim to have topped that one? That's weasel wording but, more to the point, I don't accept that and do not accept that anyone's acceptance of anything "without argument" is evidence of anything other than that person's credulity. Moreover, the standard interpretation of that canard is not that China is particularly good at cyberwarfare, but that US targets are particularly vulnerable - because we have computerized and networked more of our infrastructure (because we invented the stuff and so deployed it earlier, and also aren't paranoid authoritarians about this kind of stuff). The Russians tend to be regarded as at least as good as the Chinese (see various attacks on Baltic states, etc.), and both them and the Chinese likewise assume that Americans penetrate all of their networks (but it's only our own paranoia that shows up in our media). You're being very blithe in arguing from canards like this. The only thing a bad analogy proves is that you don't have a good response, but still don't want to concede the point. Do you not understand that you're addressing an argument about the probability of an unlikely event eventually occurring? Or that we've had several terrifying "near miss" scenarios stemming from prosaic things like flocks of birds fooling radars? Allow enough nuclear proliferation and wait long enough, and somebody is eventually going to miscalculate and set off a conflict. Or that one of the nuclear weapons states fails (Pakistan, North Korea, etc.) and the weapons fall into the hands of some crazy types. Up until recently, the "sum total" of the effect of Japan possessing nuclear technology was that they got cheaper electricity and imported less fossil fuels. They'd planned back-up systems for every eventuality, have excellent earthquake codes, etc. right? But the calculus looks a lot different once the eventual "black sheep" event finally occurs. Your premise was that weapons prevent attacks, not that they get rid of hostile relations nor put an end to "posturing," spycraft, etc. Indeed, the prototypical nuclear arrangement is exactly the Cold War, which featured sprawling proxy wars, black ops, tradecraft, "posturing" etc. for generations. So we should not expect any dimunition of hostilities to stem from nuclear weapons proliferation, just a reduction in frontal, massed warfare. They can and did bomb Hezbollah and the areas Hezbollah controls. Which is why Hezbollah went so far as to admit that it made a strategic miscalculation in provoking Israel, and pledged not to do so again. The word very much tolerated exactly that - Israel conducted extensive attacks against Lebanon in general (bombing the airport in Beirut, complete naval blockade of the country, destruction of lots of infrastructure). The whole Israeli strategy was to cause other forces in Lebanon to restrain Hezbollah by making it clear that they would not be spared from the trouble Hezbollah stirred up. This is exactly why Hezbollah publicly said they did not think Israel would react that way, and pledged not to do it again - the audience for that statement was the rest of the Lebanese polity. That's not true, US aid to Israel runs to about 1% of Israel's GDP. That's a nice boost, but nowhere near decisive. Moreover, I don't see what this subject has to do with the topic in the first place.
Quite right. I found my own thought process was too consumed with "What are the odds?" then I realised that so long as there are odds, it will one day play out. But gents, can we direct our conversation to the question I posited in the first post? If you don't believe it to be an issue, there is another nuclear war topic where your ideas can be discussed.
