Nuclear weapons. There hasn’t been a full scale war between major powers since.

rvnx · on Aug 4, 2023

350K+ reported casualties just in a year sounds already much

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-wit...

ben_w · on Aug 4, 2023

Ukraine isn't a major power, and the fact that they've been able to hold back Russia so effectively, with so few resources, is mainly an indicator of how weak Russia is these days.

ayende · on Aug 4, 2023

To give some context, Battle of the Somme, lasted 4 months, total casualties: 1m+.

rvnx · on Aug 4, 2023

This was before invention of Twitter, now with so many conflicts in the air, I'm sure we can beat that figure.

Sugimot0 · on Aug 4, 2023

There's been plenty of war, and it could well be the first step on a path to the end of life on earth. I imagine this belief stems from all the "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary/good" propaganda.

blitzar · on Aug 4, 2023

> There hasn’t been a full scale war between major powers since.

Yet all the major powers have launched multiple, lengthy full scale wars since.

Ekaros · on Aug 4, 2023

Entirely ruined by the reality that those having them are not bombed to ground by conventional weapons when they attack somewhere.

So I would argue they are either neutral or massive negative.

jchanimal · on Aug 4, 2023

As long as the people with the weapons act rationally. Which might be an anomaly.

rurban · on Aug 4, 2023

The problem with game theory is that the actors do act rationally, and the most rational scenario is still the doomsday genocide: first strike, with a submarine counterstrike.

ben_w · on Aug 4, 2023

When you know your opponent has counterstrike capability, first strike stops being rational.

justin66 · on Aug 4, 2023

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

urinotherapist · on Aug 4, 2023

Full scale war between Russia and Ukraine (with help of NATO) progressing right now with constant threats to use nuclear weapons or blow up a nuclear power station.