So we end up with your original question as to why nuclear weapons are built and why would we allow crazy leaders to have access to them when we already know that nuclear weapons fit the paradigm in which man has for as long as there has been history has fought wars and for as long as there has been history we have lived under dictatorships and plutocracies which very often have crazy people in power.Lunatics end up in power because sometimes only crazy people can stand to do what it takes to get to the top. If only the psychopaths survive the struggle, that's who will end up ruling. Nazi Germany, for example, favored the promotion of bright, loyal, psychopathic personalities. Heil Hitler himself, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, Frank, Goring, Ernst Röhm, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, it would appear that quite sane people are in charge of places like Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom and maybe France. At least, "quite normal people" are in charge IF, and only IF, the societies over which Putin, Trump, May, and maybe Le Pen rule are sane.
Erich Fromm (The Sane Society) argues that many societies (possibly yours) are actually insane, and that there is a reverse diagnosis system: People who can get along in a crazy society are deemed sane, and people who can not get along in a crazy system are deemed insane. If not insane, then at least redundant.
Europe and North America do not have a monopoly on crazy societies and crazy leaders. They are all over the place. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan... — Bitter Crank
5% to 1% would have to scrounge and scrap much like the rest of us animals do nowadays in order to survive — dclements
Actually, the change would be more a mental issue than physical on the global scale. Of course, the term Limited nuclear war is a bit puzzling.Even a limited nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States, or Pakistan and India, or Iran and Israel--let alone an unlimited nuclear exchange everywhere--would reduce humans to scavenger status. It is difficult to describe just how utterly changed the terms of existence would be. — Bitter Crank
Bitter, nuclear non-proliferation agreements talks did have an effect. It's a thing that people don't realize that especially the nuclear deterrent in the US and Russia diminished in size greatly when the Cold War ended. It gives also perspective how dangerous the Cold War was in the 1980's.Surely stockpiles of warheads in the US and Russia haven't been diminished that much since their peak, have they? — Bitter Crank
I don't think there's much, if any, controversy about the US development of the A-bomb. It started early in WW2, when the Allies were aware that Germany was working on it too. If they got an A-bomb before the Allies, the consequences would be horrible. So they had to develop one.I was recently, briefly discussing why nuclear weapons were created in the first place. — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.