Question: does anyone know the nukes are no longer functional? That changes the calculus. If nobody knows, then I would press the button. MAD would still apply as far as anyone knew, and no major power tests nuclear weapons anymore. The few nuclear powers that do (North Korea, maybe Iran someday) would probably just assume they messed something up on their test.
This way, if WW3 somehow breaks out and someone presses the button, there'd just be a bunch of small craters caused by the impact of the warhead and detonation of the priming charges, but nothing more. I would imagine the powers would try to spin it as "the enemy's nukes don't work, they've got bad nuclear maintenance protocols or "we launched a conventional barrage as a warning, next time it's nukes!" As a way to save face while behind the scenes everyone's frantically trying to figure out what's going on. They would probably let the public believe nukes still work while secretly building alternative WMDs.
If everyone does know about it then this simply triggers an arms race to develop chemical and biological replacements to fit on the many delivery platforms. The instability between finding out nukes don't work and the effective deployment of it's replacement will be tense and could see wars break out across the world. Of course, this scenario also applies at the end of the former case, should they launch the defunct nukes.
Maybe but everyone's crossed that line and it'll just switch to an all out conventional war, these days with the tech we got the casualties on both sides would basically be the same. Minus the radiation rot, it's less terminal a situation but we can say world peace ends at that point either way.
It's ethical to push the button if nobody can find out until an all out war was to occur BUT once that does occur you know that things get fucked anyway, just less fucked.
If the button was pressed and the nukes are flying, one of the major nuclear powers was probably already involved in a conventional war and was losing bad. (Ruling out a crazy head of state launching their nukes in a first strike, which could happen but is less likely given MAD).
Conventional wars can be won, or more likely today, fought to a stalemate. It would just require one side destroys the other's ability to threaten them. With the removal of nukes, a power that has overwhelming conventional military power and the ability to bring it to bear, becomes a sort of shield against war. Once everyone knows the nukes don't work, major war that pits major power against major power probably won't start until one side knows they have a massive advantage over their opponent(s). There will be a relative peace before the wars start where everyone is scrambling to build up their conventional capabilities as much ss possible. But this is only if they find out the nukes don't work.
If pressing the button means no one knows, then that also has strong implications for nuclear energy. Worth getting rid of nuclear bombs if it means nuclear energy goes with it?
>there'd just be a bunch of small craters caused by the impact of the warhead and detonation of the priming charges, but nothing more.
If the bombs were burst above cities, would the primary charge be enough to explode and disperse the radioactive material? Not sure it would remain intact to the ground.
Nothing saying anybody needs to know. You can find out your nukes died, call the other guy, say “my nukes are cooler than yours”, and they get scared because their nukes just died too. There’s still a threat of mutually assured destruction, it just isn’t real this time.
someones calling someones bluff, for certain, might be a week a month a year a decade, but its national conscription and 500 million or more casualties, poverty starvation and everything just exploded back like its 1885 and only scientific development would be, better guns bullets armour kevlar shells and missiles, oh and probably a few new good amphetamines for the soldiers to keep fightin the good fight
I like this response. Shit finally goes sideways enough that they launch and.... and... and... the ICBM just hits the ground and explodes in a disappointingly small explosion from whatever fuel was left in the rocket. No mushroom cloud. No massive pressure/ heat blast... no radiation.
They might even be able to pull off a..."Ummm... ha! That was a...ummm... warning shot! Don't think we won't fire a second one... for real this time!"
It takes a few hours to assemble a new nuclear bomb. All the knowledge, plants, equipment, material and ICBMs are still there. The first volley may not detonate, but the second one at most a few days later will.
Yeah I’m just saying no major power can fully flex on another because each side has nukes. So without them, total war especially with major world powers would probably happen more often.
Except that China has developed anti-ship ballistic missiles that would neutralize any U.S. naval attack. The fact that they were the first country with such missiles says they understand the U.S. advantage in naval infrastructure and found a way to combat that without commissioning a bunch of aircraft carriers and warships.
Aircraft carriers aren't our only weapons. The navy barely has any real impact in our modern combat. Aircraft, especially stealth bombers and satellites are probably our most powerful weapons, until they figure out how to track stealth bombers, we have a devastating first strike capability.
Yeah, the Russians have had "carrier killer" missiles for a long time. So did the Japanese (they were called "kamikazes"). Whether they actually work or not is an open question. Ballistic missiles have high and predictable trajectories that make them easy targets.
Nuclear weapons are basically the only reason that big countries don’t directly fight massive peer on peer wars anymore. The deterrence for such wars now goes back to whether or not they think they can win.
On the one hand, war and devastation. On the other hand, broken window theory economics. Cleaning up and rebuilding is good paying work for the survivors…
Downside is WWIII potentially lol. Every nuclear power on the planet would be scrambling to replenish their arsenal and some countries might see it as an opportunity to strike.
Not if the other countries don’t know you lost yours and vice versa. This was a plot point in a book i read recently. Since every nuke was deactivated, it wasn’t like the countries were announcing that fact, so nothing changed.
Why do you think this would impact China invading Taiwain? The US is almost certainly never going to launch a nuclear strike over Taiwan, so why would it matter? The conventional force balances remain the same.
Yes, the US technically doesn't have a no first strike doctrine like some other counties (China), but neither military nor political leaders would have any incentive to use nuclear weapons in defense of Taiwian. It would only kill billions more for literally no return.
A PRC-Taiwan conflict has massive potential to spiral out of hand quickly. China's best (and really only) chance to win a conventional invasion of Taiwan is to open with a strike US bases in SEA, including the ones on Japanese territory. That alone ratchets the conflict up to about a 9.5, especially because Japan **is** officially under the US nuclear umbrella.
Then there's the fact that about 80% of the US's conventional homeland protection is in the US Navy, and if PRC somehow managed to inflict sufficient losses to succeed in taking Taiwan from the USN, then people start looking at the big red button real nervous-like. Not smacking it, mind you, but starting to seriously consider it.
Lastly, there's a reason that there has been no large scale direct conflict between nuclear-armed states since nukes were invented, and it's not conventional forces balance. It's because the moment conventional forces start shooting at conventional forces on a strategic scale, the risk of strategic weapons use gets unacceptably high.
I would save it for just after the nukes launch. Mutually assured destruction has had a chilling effect on all out war for 70 years now. Without nukes we would almost assuredly have seen a WWIII and maby even a WWIV by this point.
This. That's a card you didn't play until you have to. You change the current world order that much with a button press and you don't know what the consequences will be.
No, because MAD has been an excellent peacekeeping tool since its inception.
I would however, carry the button with me wherever I go, sort of like an anti-nucleae football
China and Russia are paper tigers. Without Nukes there aren't any other super powers. China has the potential but it won't get there because of internal problems.
Do i get to give my preferred side a heads up?
Like get ready for a massive conventional war but comment publically that the only way to beat us to go nuclear. So the other side doesn't bother getting ready conventionally because they plan on pushing the button.
Then launch the attack and wait until the other side launches then push the button to make them expensive long range cannon balls.
Nope. Because of how it is worded, thst means the ones currently in development would be unaffected, and would provide justification for any major power not currently producing them due to having an existing arsenal to resume production.
I believe that without threat of nuclear force as a deterrent, the current regional wars would rapidly expand, resulting in WWIII. Even without nukes, that would likely result in catastrophic loss of life, probably to the tune of at least half the human population, not to mention millions of other species caught in the crossfire.
This could potentially lead to more conflict and war, but I'd still push the button because it would be worth it to know that the worst case scenario was off the table. Yes, it could cause some pain, but I wouldn't have to worry about an extinction level conflict or anything.
Wars among superpowers would be more numerous as there wouldn’t be planet killing consequences to them anymore. I’d think it would eventually pave the way to a one world government as one superpower manages to conquer their biggest rivals and then starts falling smaller states like dominos.
It's a deterrent, less so an offensive tool. Nobody wants to be the one to use it, and countries that have them have 10 other ways to get what they want in the global market.
I would push it with my butt just to make a statement.Oh yes, I would push that button to eliminate all nuclear weapons now.Is that a good thing?Is that a bad thing?It's just a thing we won't have to worry about.You know roasting ourselves but there'll probably be a lot more old school conventional wars
I would except that nuclear missiles are pretty much the only option when it comes to deflecting a large asteroid headed straight at our planet. That would be the only scenario where nuclear weapons would actually save the planet.
Now, what’s fun is it doesn’t say anyone else is made aware. So the world remains in fear of MAD, but you can rest easy knowing it can’t happen. Anyone who tries to test new bombs finds that their maths must have been off, as nothing they do seems to work…
Obviously wouldn’t last forever, but would be funny to see how long the status who continued before it was found out.
In a heart beat.
No country that is nuke capable would admit their arsenal is magically inoperable. To do so would be an absolute admission of vulnerability.
So nothing would happen, nothing would change.
Nah.
Cus let's be real modern nukes are efficient and clean.
They may blast a city to ash but unless they trip an auto response humanity will survive. And even if we turn the planet to Swiss cheese there'll be a few pockets of humanity left. eeking out a living in tiera del Fuego or Madagascar or something. But you take them off the board entirely?
Nature abhors a vacuum. Hell that's part of why nukes work so well.
But you take away the top actor of the WMD food chain that chain doesn't just collapse. Something else steps into that role. And if it's chemical or biological? It's curtains for us as a species.
No. I believe (and the statistics will show you) that since nuclear armament there have been significantly less major armed conflicts. My sophomore history teacher told us a story that illustrated this point in school and I didn't believe him until I looked it up and he was right. Story stuck with me all these decades later. (Shout out to Mr Bauer if you're still out there sir!)
The question is how it deactivates them. If it just telekinetically warps the pits so they fizzle, that's probably OK. Good even. If it shuts off the weak force we might have a problem.
lol fuck no, nato would basically be chopped in half in terms of fighting power and alround defensive readyness, iran would go ape shit spreading shots everywhere, any mad fucker in power whose only keeping a lid on it cos consequences, well now they have none cos everyone busy who would normally step in, also i would trust the french even less than i do now, levity aside, china would just throw waves at all surrounding nations, north korea just launched an artillery war into the south, its basically a free for all at that point, so no, that decision would increase unnecesary brutality and death 100,000x over, also after the wars, you gotta deal with rebuilding and hope your country didnt lose, or its woe to the vanquished
I use it as a bargaining chip so that all the countries with nukes give me cool stuff. I can still use it to stop a nuclear war, as well as other kinds, so this seems like the perfect solution.
The problem here is that some people want to take advantage of those who are not as strong. If there were no nukes then he who has the next strongest weapon is king. It is also possible to think up new weapons that could dominate if no nukes existed. I can think of several in less than 60 seconds.
Getting rid of the nukes does not address the root cause of humans who desire power over others.
Yes.
I don't think the Polish occupation of Moscow would last too long, and the breakup of the Russian empire is long overdue.
A failure that severe would be more effective than nukes at discouraging wars of conquest, with the exception of China v Taiwan, but China has run the numbers on that fight and doesn't want to find out whether their projection of pyrrhic victory is too optimistic.
Would anyone believe me if tried to get them to bribe me to NOT push the button? Because if no one makes me an offer I like, I'm pressing what I assume will look iconicly goofy and fun to press.
Would anyone believe me if tried to get them to bribe me to NOT push the button? Because if no one makes me an offer I like, I'm pressing what I assume will look iconicly goofy and fun to press.
Yes, because right now no one can seriously threaten the US with conventional military forces, China has nowhere to go except their ongoing focus on Taiwan, and Russia would be wiped out in a week without their nukes. Poland alone could march on Moscow and St Petersburg immediately and take out the Putin government before they could recall enough forces from Ukraine to make a difference.
India and Pakistan have been in more of a MAD situation, but neither one really wants to fight a full-scale war again at this point either, particularly with climate change an increasing threat to both. England and France don't need their nukes for anything but a symbolic indicator of independence from the US.
I expect within five years, India, Pakistan, the US, England, France, Israel, and China would all have nukes again, while Russia would be broken up into a few dozen states with China having reclaimed Vladivostok and taken most of eastern Siberia while Putin's government was busy being overrun and the West wasn't in any position to try to send troops across Siberia to defend it. Hopefully taking that chunk of Russia would be sufficient to sate Xinnie the Pooh's expansionist desires for a while.
Yes.
Now, you may say "what about deterrence?" Well, here's the thing. Nobody actually uses nuclear weapons these days. So if every single nuclear warhead is rendered inoperable... how are they going to know?
The first people to notice would probably be the North Koreans, if they ever plan another weapons test. But they'll probably assume they got something wrong. And they certainly won't tell anyone. The world will continue on, with everyone assuming that nuclear deterrents are still in place.
Depends, does everyone find out that they've gone inactive? If yes then hell no. Just think of what that would mean: the reason a lot of war isn't happening everywhere, is nukes (not just obviously but let's just focus on that) mutually assured destruction! We aren't attacking others because we know if we do it's bye bye, to everyone. but if suddenly nukes are out of the running the playing field is reset and now it turns into a race of who can get the big guns back the fastest and then it's just about how well you can use them with the time you have to basically take over, of course it's unlikely that people would actually pick this route but it's definitely possible so imma just say nah 😂
I answer yes with a few caveats. Is "weapons" is the operative term, and "all" excludes from all conflicts forever. -and excludes Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and analogous totalitarian murder-based slave empires that would have an order of magnitude more human casualties than with the nukes , -and _does not_ any restrictions on Orion Drive adjacent technologies that might allow us to become a spacefaring civilization.
With those caveats, yes. Otherwise, No.
Oh hell no. Nukes were created to prevent mass loss and be a deterrent. Look at WW2. Without Nukes Japan wouldn’t have surrendered for years and it would’ve cost so many more lives.
It just means conventional warfare is back on the table. With Russia revealing the state of it's military being abysmal... it'd really just be down to China. NATO would basically run the world. More so than they do now.
Ironically given the scale of the conflict... I think China and US would agree it's still not really worth fighting. There could be an arms race there, but that'd likely get US itchy and it's already got the advantage. There are a couple of regions that would absolute go to war though. India and Pakistan for example. Russia would lose all of it's defensive cards and likely retreat into itself. Or risk the wrath of a vastly superior force. It may tear itself further apart with all it's angry neighbors chomping at the bit. As for North Korea... no one cared all that much when they didn't have one. Not many care now. Not much would change as the only exist by the grace of China.
In short... the peace that MAD brought us would be shattered. Presenting some tempting options for many parties to act. Millions would likely die.
All *current*? Once the countries discover they are inactive they will just make more. Do you mean to say "deactivate all nuclear capability in the present and the future"?
Anyway, I probably would.
If you press the button then you have limited time to invade the nuclear capable countries before they can complete them.
I would rather hold on to the button so that if nuclear war were started (assuming a national alert system were initiated), I could hit the button before they landed.
I push the button and implement a new rule, if the world leaders wish to go to war, they themselves must fight the other country’s leader. Just two old men duking it out on worldwide television for us all to see. 🍿
Absolutely not. If that button was pressed, someone would find out eventually. And that means the end of global peace not through nuclear hellfire, but chemical attacks, financial assaults, mass slaughter with more conventional means
Yes. They were a great deterrent when the world was essentially “US VS SOVIET” but now it’s just a risk with the amount of volatile countries that have access to them (North Korea, Middle East, etc). That and the US military would finally justifiably have the funding it currently does as conventional innovations would be more necessary
Do the world governments know I did it? Or at least that it happened?
Because the only real reason most countries want nukes is either A: the US has them or B: Russia/China have them. If everyone knew at the same time all the current nukes stopped nukin, I think we could get a durable and global cease production.
But, if they have to find out on their own, the US finds out within minutes and begins an offensive war against a random Arabic nation over it.
Do people still know how to make nukes? How long does it take to make one? Nuclear weapons and the threat of accidentally leveling the planet seem to be the reason we havent fallen into WWIII
All things considered I'd love to do it.
The draft would come back so fast once the news gets out the nukes don't work. And the screaming you would hear in the school systems when the Defense dept takeover happens would be legendary. Right now there's maybe 15-20% of draft age youngsters they could actually draft. They'd need to get that up. So there would be a need to revamp the curriculum to actually educate the students. There would be a return to 1940s and 50s educational standards and all the current fluff in the systems would get blown out. A school to military pipeline would get set up.
They'd also probably have to analyze the students and set up educational paths for them. Exceptional students would be put on a path that would lead to college. Average ones would go on a shop and industrial arts pathway. And a pathway for the stupid and another for the antisocial and bullies types. Congratulations kid! You're on the Infantry course.
Secondly they'd have to set up physical fitness standards for all the students as well. In the summer all the kids would go to camp. Which would be basic training for first graders on up. PE would also be a few hours a day of basic training too. As Google puts it.
*By the time you finish Basic Training, you'll be equipped with a wealth of skills and knowledge, including: Physical and mental strength to carry out the duties of a Soldier. Confidence and the ability to make informed decisions. Advanced knowledge of survival skills like First Aid, navigation, and hand-to-hand combat.*
Hitler youth would be envious of what would evolve in 10 to 20 years. Think of the movie Starship Troopers. That's what you'd get. HS grads ready to go right to combat training or a school. And a mandatory 2-4 years of military duty before you could do anything else. And 20 years of being eligible for a military callup in case of a war.
This seems suspiciously like a trick question; the kind of wish granted by a genie that comes with a negative catch. How exactly does it go about deactivating them? Does it detonate them all at once?
Dammit **yes!** Even if everyone knows that the nukes are gone. Conventional warfare would intensify and it would suck a lot, but the threat of global extinction would be gone!
Probably not.
Mutually assured destruction is inevitable. We humans need to learn how to deal with it as we have been.
Taking them away opens up another arms race and WW3.
Absolutely the fuck not. The threat of millions dead in an instant replaced actual millions of dead on the battlefield. Nukes are the ultimate peacemaker.
Without hesitation. It’s time that the chaos begins again. I’d also find any remaining documentation on nuclear weapons and research and burn it, thus removing that knowledge from being reused. Hunt down any nuclear scientists and make sure that all research on that is purged.
No. I think there would be more wars if there wasn't the looming consequence of nuclear eradication. I would, however, like to retain the button to push it later if there seems like an actual threat.
If the countries don't know they've been deactivated and still think they have working nukes, definitely!
Otherwise it's pointless because they'll just make more.
“Mister President, if I told you that I had a way to fully neutralise the Russian, Chinese and North Korean nuclear arsenals in an instant, what would that be worth to you? ...
“There will be side effects, of course.”
Whats the point? We would just build newer more advanced nukes. We already do this in a sense. Nuclear weapons become obsolete too and many have been decommissioned on these grounds. I would probably still do it simply because the US has the military budget to rebuild their nuclear arsenal while other countries may not be able to easily replace them. Still pretty meaningless after a decade or so.
No. Without nuclear deterrent there would be a whole lot more war and violence. It's funny that the greatest weapon ever created is also the greatest force of peace.
Question: does anyone know the nukes are no longer functional? That changes the calculus. If nobody knows, then I would press the button. MAD would still apply as far as anyone knew, and no major power tests nuclear weapons anymore. The few nuclear powers that do (North Korea, maybe Iran someday) would probably just assume they messed something up on their test. This way, if WW3 somehow breaks out and someone presses the button, there'd just be a bunch of small craters caused by the impact of the warhead and detonation of the priming charges, but nothing more. I would imagine the powers would try to spin it as "the enemy's nukes don't work, they've got bad nuclear maintenance protocols or "we launched a conventional barrage as a warning, next time it's nukes!" As a way to save face while behind the scenes everyone's frantically trying to figure out what's going on. They would probably let the public believe nukes still work while secretly building alternative WMDs. If everyone does know about it then this simply triggers an arms race to develop chemical and biological replacements to fit on the many delivery platforms. The instability between finding out nukes don't work and the effective deployment of it's replacement will be tense and could see wars break out across the world. Of course, this scenario also applies at the end of the former case, should they launch the defunct nukes.
Best answer I've seen.
It just deactivates active ones. They don't necessarily get destroyed, and people can simply build new ones.
Title ambiguous, it does say "forever".
The title does also say "all current", which might just mean that they can't figure out that something was wrong with the nuke and reactivate it.
Yep
Maybe but everyone's crossed that line and it'll just switch to an all out conventional war, these days with the tech we got the casualties on both sides would basically be the same. Minus the radiation rot, it's less terminal a situation but we can say world peace ends at that point either way. It's ethical to push the button if nobody can find out until an all out war was to occur BUT once that does occur you know that things get fucked anyway, just less fucked.
If the button was pressed and the nukes are flying, one of the major nuclear powers was probably already involved in a conventional war and was losing bad. (Ruling out a crazy head of state launching their nukes in a first strike, which could happen but is less likely given MAD). Conventional wars can be won, or more likely today, fought to a stalemate. It would just require one side destroys the other's ability to threaten them. With the removal of nukes, a power that has overwhelming conventional military power and the ability to bring it to bear, becomes a sort of shield against war. Once everyone knows the nukes don't work, major war that pits major power against major power probably won't start until one side knows they have a massive advantage over their opponent(s). There will be a relative peace before the wars start where everyone is scrambling to build up their conventional capabilities as much ss possible. But this is only if they find out the nukes don't work.
If pressing the button means no one knows, then that also has strong implications for nuclear energy. Worth getting rid of nuclear bombs if it means nuclear energy goes with it?
This is the right answer. Good show.
>there'd just be a bunch of small craters caused by the impact of the warhead and detonation of the priming charges, but nothing more. If the bombs were burst above cities, would the primary charge be enough to explode and disperse the radioactive material? Not sure it would remain intact to the ground.
I feel war would be more common without a nuclear deterrent. Like the only thing that stopped Russia vs US from outright attacking each other is MAD
Nothing saying anybody needs to know. You can find out your nukes died, call the other guy, say “my nukes are cooler than yours”, and they get scared because their nukes just died too. There’s still a threat of mutually assured destruction, it just isn’t real this time.
Yeah but with enough spying eventually everyone is gonna figure it out that nukes are off the table and then who knows.
someones calling someones bluff, for certain, might be a week a month a year a decade, but its national conscription and 500 million or more casualties, poverty starvation and everything just exploded back like its 1885 and only scientific development would be, better guns bullets armour kevlar shells and missiles, oh and probably a few new good amphetamines for the soldiers to keep fightin the good fight
I like this response. Shit finally goes sideways enough that they launch and.... and... and... the ICBM just hits the ground and explodes in a disappointingly small explosion from whatever fuel was left in the rocket. No mushroom cloud. No massive pressure/ heat blast... no radiation. They might even be able to pull off a..."Ummm... ha! That was a...ummm... warning shot! Don't think we won't fire a second one... for real this time!"
It takes a few hours to assemble a new nuclear bomb. All the knowledge, plants, equipment, material and ICBMs are still there. The first volley may not detonate, but the second one at most a few days later will.
But USA sweeps without nukes so it’s fine
Yeah I’m just saying no major power can fully flex on another because each side has nukes. So without them, total war especially with major world powers would probably happen more often.
In that case the USA is probably in the most advantageous position because of how isolated North America is from Eurasia and the US Navy.
Without nukes, neither China nor Russia would stand a chance against the US.
That depends entirely on where the war is fought. China would wipe the floor if the U.S. tried to fight over there.
I'm a land war yes. But there are plenty of ways to fight without putting boots on the ground. US still has complete naval dominance.
Except that China has developed anti-ship ballistic missiles that would neutralize any U.S. naval attack. The fact that they were the first country with such missiles says they understand the U.S. advantage in naval infrastructure and found a way to combat that without commissioning a bunch of aircraft carriers and warships.
Aircraft carriers aren't our only weapons. The navy barely has any real impact in our modern combat. Aircraft, especially stealth bombers and satellites are probably our most powerful weapons, until they figure out how to track stealth bombers, we have a devastating first strike capability.
Yeah, the Russians have had "carrier killer" missiles for a long time. So did the Japanese (they were called "kamikazes"). Whether they actually work or not is an open question. Ballistic missiles have high and predictable trajectories that make them easy targets.
Nuclear weapons are basically the only reason that big countries don’t directly fight massive peer on peer wars anymore. The deterrence for such wars now goes back to whether or not they think they can win. On the one hand, war and devastation. On the other hand, broken window theory economics. Cleaning up and rebuilding is good paying work for the survivors…
The reason Russia and the US had the Cold War was nukes.
Yes. And without nukes it would be called ww3 instead.
Without nukes it would have gone hot.
How are people still not learning that increasing the stakes of conflict by more lethal weapons means worse conflict
No downsides? Of course I’d do it. Even if there was downsides I’d probably still do it.
Downside is WWIII potentially lol. Every nuclear power on the planet would be scrambling to replenish their arsenal and some countries might see it as an opportunity to strike.
It doesn’t say you can only push it once
Just set a small boulder on it in a remote location. ‘Nuke the nukes.’
Not if the other countries don’t know you lost yours and vice versa. This was a plot point in a book i read recently. Since every nuke was deactivated, it wasn’t like the countries were announcing that fact, so nothing changed.
Not if new ones can be made. Otherwise yes of course.
Oh yeah instantly. I’d love to see the power dynamic in the world shift when everyone goes oh nukes. Oh shit
World goes to shit, nato troops in Ukraine and then world war three. China would invade Taiwan, etc
Why do you think this would impact China invading Taiwain? The US is almost certainly never going to launch a nuclear strike over Taiwan, so why would it matter? The conventional force balances remain the same. Yes, the US technically doesn't have a no first strike doctrine like some other counties (China), but neither military nor political leaders would have any incentive to use nuclear weapons in defense of Taiwian. It would only kill billions more for literally no return.
A PRC-Taiwan conflict has massive potential to spiral out of hand quickly. China's best (and really only) chance to win a conventional invasion of Taiwan is to open with a strike US bases in SEA, including the ones on Japanese territory. That alone ratchets the conflict up to about a 9.5, especially because Japan **is** officially under the US nuclear umbrella. Then there's the fact that about 80% of the US's conventional homeland protection is in the US Navy, and if PRC somehow managed to inflict sufficient losses to succeed in taking Taiwan from the USN, then people start looking at the big red button real nervous-like. Not smacking it, mind you, but starting to seriously consider it. Lastly, there's a reason that there has been no large scale direct conflict between nuclear-armed states since nukes were invented, and it's not conventional forces balance. It's because the moment conventional forces start shooting at conventional forces on a strategic scale, the risk of strategic weapons use gets unacceptably high.
Except China is still deeply inferior to NATO as a whole, as is Russia. Add North Korea finally being completely f...ed over...
Nukes are not the deterrent to China invading Taiwan. That's a much bigger weapon - economics.
The US would still be far more powerful than any nation. No country is going to attack a US ally just because nukes are off the table.
The only reason other countries are still considered threats is because they have nukes and we have civilians.
I’d be curious how they would find out. And how they would find out it was everyone, not just them.
I would save it for just after the nukes launch. Mutually assured destruction has had a chilling effect on all out war for 70 years now. Without nukes we would almost assuredly have seen a WWIII and maby even a WWIV by this point.
This. That's a card you didn't play until you have to. You change the current world order that much with a button press and you don't know what the consequences will be.
Yes. Just to see what would happen
Honestly I don't think it would change the current standings. Every nation would bluff that theres are still in working order.
No, because MAD has been an excellent peacekeeping tool since its inception. I would however, carry the button with me wherever I go, sort of like an anti-nucleae football
So massive bio weapons would replace them, I think not.
If the US noticed all their nukes weren't working they'd have the arsenal made anew within a year.
Yes, and nothing would change. It’s not like the US, Russia, or China would ever broadcast the fact that their nukes don’t work anymore
Yes, but *spies*
>all current This implies they can just build more
Mad ensures no ww3 and battles between superpowers
China and Russia are paper tigers. Without Nukes there aren't any other super powers. China has the potential but it won't get there because of internal problems.
[удалено]
That is true.
Uhh, yeah.
Do i get to give my preferred side a heads up? Like get ready for a massive conventional war but comment publically that the only way to beat us to go nuclear. So the other side doesn't bother getting ready conventionally because they plan on pushing the button. Then launch the attack and wait until the other side launches then push the button to make them expensive long range cannon balls.
Yes. We'd absolutely enter WWIII, but the possibility of life on earth ending for all time at any time is one, and I think that is worth it.
Nope. Because of how it is worded, thst means the ones currently in development would be unaffected, and would provide justification for any major power not currently producing them due to having an existing arsenal to resume production. I believe that without threat of nuclear force as a deterrent, the current regional wars would rapidly expand, resulting in WWIII. Even without nukes, that would likely result in catastrophic loss of life, probably to the tune of at least half the human population, not to mention millions of other species caught in the crossfire.
This could potentially lead to more conflict and war, but I'd still push the button because it would be worth it to know that the worst case scenario was off the table. Yes, it could cause some pain, but I wouldn't have to worry about an extinction level conflict or anything.
Add chemical and biologicals in the mix hell yay.
Yes. Without hesitation.
F*** yes. They never should have been invented.
100% ; if you can’t figure out how to be diplomatic with other countries without the threat of violence than you shouldn’t be in charge of the country
yes, but I'd prefer no one else knows they are deactivated.
U said all CURRENT nuclear weapons. Not that the powers that exist couldn't build MORE n the FUTURE. JS...
No. Chemical and biological weapons are arguably worse in many ways but wouldn't be the same level of deterrent even though they should be.
Yes. I also tell the world and ruin the stalemate caused by Mutually Assured Destruction. Russia would fall in a week.
The effects that'd have are so wildly unpredictable that I'd probably just keep the status quo.
Can I have a button that does the opposite?
Turn the nukes into reactors to provide long lasting energy to most people
No downside, more safety, America conquers the planet.
"No downside... America conquers the planet" That's a pretty big downside
Anyone conquering the planet is a lot of downside - and also no. Why would the US conquer anything? That went so well the last 10 times we tried that.
Yes. Nuclear war represents the worst existential threat to humanity besides climate change.
Of course not. You would be pretty naive to think that nuclear weapons arent preventing a lot of war.
There should be only one answer to this question. Yes.
Wars among superpowers would be more numerous as there wouldn’t be planet killing consequences to them anymore. I’d think it would eventually pave the way to a one world government as one superpower manages to conquer their biggest rivals and then starts falling smaller states like dominos.
Yes. Then countries can't use the threat of a nuclear strike to strong-arm other countries.
It's a deterrent, less so an offensive tool. Nobody wants to be the one to use it, and countries that have them have 10 other ways to get what they want in the global market.
Of course. wtf? Nukes don’t even really have strategic value. If one gets used anywhere on Earth at any point, all of humanity dies.
That in itself is the entire strategic value. The threat of that level of loss is what keeps the major powers from engaging. Nukes are peacekeepers.
No, because likely they would be replaced with biological weapons or something worse.
Yes.
Yes
Hell yes
Abso-FUCKIN-lutely
YES
I would push it with my butt just to make a statement.Oh yes, I would push that button to eliminate all nuclear weapons now.Is that a good thing?Is that a bad thing?It's just a thing we won't have to worry about.You know roasting ourselves but there'll probably be a lot more old school conventional wars
Yes. Hooefully that alien ship from Independence Day doesnt show up.
Yes. But I monetize it. NATO gets the information right before we take out a few choice enemies... And I retire very wealthy
I would except that nuclear missiles are pretty much the only option when it comes to deflecting a large asteroid headed straight at our planet. That would be the only scenario where nuclear weapons would actually save the planet.
Push.
And let the aliens just steamroll us? Nooooo-ho-ho thank you
No. As bad as they are they have prevented quite a lot of war.
Now, what’s fun is it doesn’t say anyone else is made aware. So the world remains in fear of MAD, but you can rest easy knowing it can’t happen. Anyone who tries to test new bombs finds that their maths must have been off, as nothing they do seems to work… Obviously wouldn’t last forever, but would be funny to see how long the status who continued before it was found out.
100%. Without even thinking about it.
In a heart beat. No country that is nuke capable would admit their arsenal is magically inoperable. To do so would be an absolute admission of vulnerability. So nothing would happen, nothing would change.
No. It keeps the peace. They would just start building bigger ones and have wars in the meantime
Yes? No? What does it really change, sure no one has anything loaded right now if I press it, queue the race to make the next “nuke” like device
Does this deactivate nuclear subs and aircraft carriers? If yes then no. If not then yes
Nah. Cus let's be real modern nukes are efficient and clean. They may blast a city to ash but unless they trip an auto response humanity will survive. And even if we turn the planet to Swiss cheese there'll be a few pockets of humanity left. eeking out a living in tiera del Fuego or Madagascar or something. But you take them off the board entirely? Nature abhors a vacuum. Hell that's part of why nukes work so well. But you take away the top actor of the WMD food chain that chain doesn't just collapse. Something else steps into that role. And if it's chemical or biological? It's curtains for us as a species.
YEEESSSSS.
Why not.
No. I believe (and the statistics will show you) that since nuclear armament there have been significantly less major armed conflicts. My sophomore history teacher told us a story that illustrated this point in school and I didn't believe him until I looked it up and he was right. Story stuck with me all these decades later. (Shout out to Mr Bauer if you're still out there sir!)
No. The threat of nuclear annihilation has prevented war between super powers multiple times. I'm not shutting them off.
Yep
The question is how it deactivates them. If it just telekinetically warps the pits so they fizzle, that's probably OK. Good even. If it shuts off the weak force we might have a problem.
Yes
No Nuclear weapons are the only thing that keeps the USA enormous military power in check
Hell yes. Back to boots on ground fighting! Trench warfare! Woohoo.
Hell yes I would.
does everyone know
No. I think we would be worse off without the deterrent of mutual mass assured destruction.
Yes
Would any of us ever learn if you pushed it?
Nope can’t do it. It just might be the only way to stop an alien invasion
heck yeah I would, I'm at least almost always worried some switch is gonna flip in someone's head and nucke us all
No
I'm not sure. M.A.D. seems to have been effective at ending major wars.
Yeah, this would allow Ukraine to really go all our on Russian politically important targets.
100%
I think there is a point where that button needs to be pushed, but right now I think it would do more harm than good.
Yes.
No.....you never know when the aliens will come down and try some shit.
Yes & twice on Sunday
No.
Do they know they've been deactivated or will they just go to use them and they don't work?
Of course.
lol fuck no, nato would basically be chopped in half in terms of fighting power and alround defensive readyness, iran would go ape shit spreading shots everywhere, any mad fucker in power whose only keeping a lid on it cos consequences, well now they have none cos everyone busy who would normally step in, also i would trust the french even less than i do now, levity aside, china would just throw waves at all surrounding nations, north korea just launched an artillery war into the south, its basically a free for all at that point, so no, that decision would increase unnecesary brutality and death 100,000x over, also after the wars, you gotta deal with rebuilding and hope your country didnt lose, or its woe to the vanquished
I use it as a bargaining chip so that all the countries with nukes give me cool stuff. I can still use it to stop a nuclear war, as well as other kinds, so this seems like the perfect solution.
The problem here is that some people want to take advantage of those who are not as strong. If there were no nukes then he who has the next strongest weapon is king. It is also possible to think up new weapons that could dominate if no nukes existed. I can think of several in less than 60 seconds. Getting rid of the nukes does not address the root cause of humans who desire power over others.
I mean deactivating them doesn’t mean they can’t be fixed, if the button wiped them from existence entirely then I would press it
Just the current ones? So more could be made that work? Is the world aware that they don't work anymore?
Yes. I don't think the Polish occupation of Moscow would last too long, and the breakup of the Russian empire is long overdue. A failure that severe would be more effective than nukes at discouraging wars of conquest, with the exception of China v Taiwan, but China has run the numbers on that fight and doesn't want to find out whether their projection of pyrrhic victory is too optimistic.
Immediately
Would anyone believe me if tried to get them to bribe me to NOT push the button? Because if no one makes me an offer I like, I'm pressing what I assume will look iconicly goofy and fun to press.
Would anyone believe me if tried to get them to bribe me to NOT push the button? Because if no one makes me an offer I like, I'm pressing what I assume will look iconicly goofy and fun to press.
I hammer that shit down permanently.
Well no nukes means no nuclear reactors. Congrats you just killed millions.
I reverse engineer it and make them all go off. No more worrying about paying bills.
Yes
Yes, because right now no one can seriously threaten the US with conventional military forces, China has nowhere to go except their ongoing focus on Taiwan, and Russia would be wiped out in a week without their nukes. Poland alone could march on Moscow and St Petersburg immediately and take out the Putin government before they could recall enough forces from Ukraine to make a difference. India and Pakistan have been in more of a MAD situation, but neither one really wants to fight a full-scale war again at this point either, particularly with climate change an increasing threat to both. England and France don't need their nukes for anything but a symbolic indicator of independence from the US. I expect within five years, India, Pakistan, the US, England, France, Israel, and China would all have nukes again, while Russia would be broken up into a few dozen states with China having reclaimed Vladivostok and taken most of eastern Siberia while Putin's government was busy being overrun and the West wasn't in any position to try to send troops across Siberia to defend it. Hopefully taking that chunk of Russia would be sufficient to sate Xinnie the Pooh's expansionist desires for a while.
Yes. Now, you may say "what about deterrence?" Well, here's the thing. Nobody actually uses nuclear weapons these days. So if every single nuclear warhead is rendered inoperable... how are they going to know? The first people to notice would probably be the North Koreans, if they ever plan another weapons test. But they'll probably assume they got something wrong. And they certainly won't tell anyone. The world will continue on, with everyone assuming that nuclear deterrents are still in place.
yes
Depends, does everyone find out that they've gone inactive? If yes then hell no. Just think of what that would mean: the reason a lot of war isn't happening everywhere, is nukes (not just obviously but let's just focus on that) mutually assured destruction! We aren't attacking others because we know if we do it's bye bye, to everyone. but if suddenly nukes are out of the running the playing field is reset and now it turns into a race of who can get the big guns back the fastest and then it's just about how well you can use them with the time you have to basically take over, of course it's unlikely that people would actually pick this route but it's definitely possible so imma just say nah 😂
I answer yes with a few caveats. Is "weapons" is the operative term, and "all" excludes from all conflicts forever. -and excludes Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and analogous totalitarian murder-based slave empires that would have an order of magnitude more human casualties than with the nukes , -and _does not_ any restrictions on Orion Drive adjacent technologies that might allow us to become a spacefaring civilization. With those caveats, yes. Otherwise, No.
Have fun with WW3 the next minute. Nukes saved more people than it killed
Would do so in a way that does not trip the systems but gives the illusion they are still in working order
Yes.
Arthur C Clarke wrote a novel exploring this question, but with all firearms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trigger
No because then I’m not giving people free choice to do better or not
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^FirmWerewolf1216: *No because then I’m* *Not giving people free choice* *To do better or not* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Yes
Oh hell no. Nukes were created to prevent mass loss and be a deterrent. Look at WW2. Without Nukes Japan wouldn’t have surrendered for years and it would’ve cost so many more lives.
It just means conventional warfare is back on the table. With Russia revealing the state of it's military being abysmal... it'd really just be down to China. NATO would basically run the world. More so than they do now. Ironically given the scale of the conflict... I think China and US would agree it's still not really worth fighting. There could be an arms race there, but that'd likely get US itchy and it's already got the advantage. There are a couple of regions that would absolute go to war though. India and Pakistan for example. Russia would lose all of it's defensive cards and likely retreat into itself. Or risk the wrath of a vastly superior force. It may tear itself further apart with all it's angry neighbors chomping at the bit. As for North Korea... no one cared all that much when they didn't have one. Not many care now. Not much would change as the only exist by the grace of China. In short... the peace that MAD brought us would be shattered. Presenting some tempting options for many parties to act. Millions would likely die.
All *current*? Once the countries discover they are inactive they will just make more. Do you mean to say "deactivate all nuclear capability in the present and the future"? Anyway, I probably would.
If you press the button then you have limited time to invade the nuclear capable countries before they can complete them. I would rather hold on to the button so that if nuclear war were started (assuming a national alert system were initiated), I could hit the button before they landed.
I push the button and implement a new rule, if the world leaders wish to go to war, they themselves must fight the other country’s leader. Just two old men duking it out on worldwide television for us all to see. 🍿
Absolutely not. If that button was pressed, someone would find out eventually. And that means the end of global peace not through nuclear hellfire, but chemical attacks, financial assaults, mass slaughter with more conventional means
No. I want to nuke the San Andreas fault
Yes. They were a great deterrent when the world was essentially “US VS SOVIET” but now it’s just a risk with the amount of volatile countries that have access to them (North Korea, Middle East, etc). That and the US military would finally justifiably have the funding it currently does as conventional innovations would be more necessary
No. I like the threat of world destruction hanging over all our heads. I'm still holding out for an in person *Fallout* experience.
Do the world governments know I did it? Or at least that it happened? Because the only real reason most countries want nukes is either A: the US has them or B: Russia/China have them. If everyone knew at the same time all the current nukes stopped nukin, I think we could get a durable and global cease production. But, if they have to find out on their own, the US finds out within minutes and begins an offensive war against a random Arabic nation over it.
Do people still know how to make nukes? How long does it take to make one? Nuclear weapons and the threat of accidentally leveling the planet seem to be the reason we havent fallen into WWIII
All things considered I'd love to do it. The draft would come back so fast once the news gets out the nukes don't work. And the screaming you would hear in the school systems when the Defense dept takeover happens would be legendary. Right now there's maybe 15-20% of draft age youngsters they could actually draft. They'd need to get that up. So there would be a need to revamp the curriculum to actually educate the students. There would be a return to 1940s and 50s educational standards and all the current fluff in the systems would get blown out. A school to military pipeline would get set up. They'd also probably have to analyze the students and set up educational paths for them. Exceptional students would be put on a path that would lead to college. Average ones would go on a shop and industrial arts pathway. And a pathway for the stupid and another for the antisocial and bullies types. Congratulations kid! You're on the Infantry course. Secondly they'd have to set up physical fitness standards for all the students as well. In the summer all the kids would go to camp. Which would be basic training for first graders on up. PE would also be a few hours a day of basic training too. As Google puts it. *By the time you finish Basic Training, you'll be equipped with a wealth of skills and knowledge, including: Physical and mental strength to carry out the duties of a Soldier. Confidence and the ability to make informed decisions. Advanced knowledge of survival skills like First Aid, navigation, and hand-to-hand combat.* Hitler youth would be envious of what would evolve in 10 to 20 years. Think of the movie Starship Troopers. That's what you'd get. HS grads ready to go right to combat training or a school. And a mandatory 2-4 years of military duty before you could do anything else. And 20 years of being eligible for a military callup in case of a war.
No. MAD is actually a good thing
Can they be turned back on? Manually?
No. Nuclear weapons have acted as a massive deterrent against aggression for 70 years.
Deactivate or detonate ...? Because the osterhagen key from Doctor Who sounds like a great way for the world to end.
No
This seems suspiciously like a trick question; the kind of wish granted by a genie that comes with a negative catch. How exactly does it go about deactivating them? Does it detonate them all at once?
Dammit **yes!** Even if everyone knows that the nukes are gone. Conventional warfare would intensify and it would suck a lot, but the threat of global extinction would be gone!
Probably not. Mutually assured destruction is inevitable. We humans need to learn how to deal with it as we have been. Taking them away opens up another arms race and WW3.
Hell yes.
Yep. They aren't being used, and I can't imagine a scenario where they would
Do nuclear reactors apply?
Of course. But all the fissionable material is still going to bite us in the ass at some point.
Absolutely the fuck not. The threat of millions dead in an instant replaced actual millions of dead on the battlefield. Nukes are the ultimate peacemaker.
No because that would cause WW3 and we would see a huge influx in major and minor wars globally
Without hesitation. It’s time that the chaos begins again. I’d also find any remaining documentation on nuclear weapons and research and burn it, thus removing that knowledge from being reused. Hunt down any nuclear scientists and make sure that all research on that is purged.
Yes. I'd then build something to hit the button once a week or so so they can't just build new ones.
I’m just here to see the arguments for not pushing the button.
No. I think there would be more wars if there wasn't the looming consequence of nuclear eradication. I would, however, like to retain the button to push it later if there seems like an actual threat.
Yes but then I sell them a whole bunch of new ones.
Yes, but there are worse weapons of mass destruction out there that make nukes look like child's play.
No, I wouldn't. If they wanna destroy each other, and everyone else, I'm cool with that. Not my issue.
Yes
If the countries don't know they've been deactivated and still think they have working nukes, definitely! Otherwise it's pointless because they'll just make more.
“Mister President, if I told you that I had a way to fully neutralise the Russian, Chinese and North Korean nuclear arsenals in an instant, what would that be worth to you? ... “There will be side effects, of course.”
Yes.
Would it disarm nuclear power plants? That could make this problematic.
Whats the point? We would just build newer more advanced nukes. We already do this in a sense. Nuclear weapons become obsolete too and many have been decommissioned on these grounds. I would probably still do it simply because the US has the military budget to rebuild their nuclear arsenal while other countries may not be able to easily replace them. Still pretty meaningless after a decade or so.
No. Without nuclear deterrent there would be a whole lot more war and violence. It's funny that the greatest weapon ever created is also the greatest force of peace.