12/12/2025
A DEEP DISCUSSION OF NUCLEAR PEACE
Every once in a while I run into a person who questions why we have so many nuclear weapons.
On a lesser occasion a few people wonder why we have nuclear weapons at all. Often these are ultra liberals and progressives.
I am going to give my short answer first, then dive in depth into the very nuanced answer and concepts to this question.
Hopefully this nuanced discussion will provide you with the stark reality of mankind, the devil's world system, and the role the threat of nuclear weapons has provided and is providing towards avoiding world war.
THE SHORT ANSWER
In a volatile world, America's nuclear arsenal stands as the ultimate guardian of peace.
America’s nuclear arsenal exists to stop major wars, not to fight them. Nuclear weapons change the cost-benefit logic of aggression in a way conventional weapons alone never can. Makes sense?
Okay now lets go deeper; lets purge our fears, ignorance, and nieveness.
* WARGAMES THE MOVIE
a 1983 techno-thriller about a teenage hacker who accidentally accesses a U.S. military supercomputer called WOPR.
Mistaking it for a game, he triggers a simulation of Global Thermonuclear War, nearly causing World War III.
The film explores themes of artificial intelligence, hacking, and nuclear brinkmanship during the Cold War era.
The film sparked already tense feelings about nuclear war, and stirred the ever persistent movement of "No nuclear Weapons".
To this day I still love that movie, it was ahead of its time on touching on some of the real issues that emerging technology now introduces to our modern military landscape.
The movie informs us that human beings need to be intricately involved in the final decision of nuclear war, not exclusively a cold logical machine.
The movie predicted a time of advance cyber warfare entering into the nuclear conflict equation.
Here the potential is not for an intruder to takeover a nuclear system which would be extraordinarily difficult in inspite of the movies claim.
Rather the potential is within cyber forces to shutdown a nuclear system.
NUKES AND COLD WARS
Friends understand this. The reason we have Cold Wars is because of nuclear weapons.
How nukes prevent world wars you say?
You see when two or more great powers all have viable nuclear forces, any all-out war between them would lead to mutual annihilation, not victory.
It was this reality that kept the U.S. and USSR from ever letting Cold War crises escalate into direct total war, despite fierce ideological conflict and proxy fights.
I try to express to people that today America is in a Cold War with China, and Russia desires to reestablish the influence of its former post world war two empire.
Nuclear weapons make the three amigos, play fair, far nicer than any of them would like to.
* THE POLITICS OF NUKED
American presidents always have to manage public perceptions with real strategic values. President Reagan dealt with this forthright aggressively.
President Obama dealt with it in another way.
Publicly he suggested a concept of disarmament as examples by his His 2009 Prague speech which outlined a vision for a world without nuclear weapons, leading to the New START Treaty with Russia, which capped deployed warheads at 1,550 each by 2018.
But strategically President Obama's nuclear policy sought controlled reductions to enhance global security, not drastic unilateral cuts.
In this regard the knock on Obama by some conservatives was wrong. Whether he believed in the vision of disarmament that he publicly spoke of or not, the stark truths he faced of the real world made certain of his adherence to the nuclear deterrence.
* THE FOLLY OF DISARMAMENT
A major risk of significant arms reduction up to the insane notion of full disarmament is that it erodes credible deterrence if reductions are not matched by potential adversaries.
If one nuclear power cuts deeply while others expand or modernize, these rivals may think they can coerce or attack without facing devastating retaliation, especially in regional crises.
A much smaller arsenal can also be more vulnerable to a “disarming first strike,” where an enemy believes it can knock out most forces in one blow, which is precisely the scenario deterrence is meant to prevent.
* WHY AMERICA NEEDS A ROBUST NUCLEAR ARSENAL
As I hinted at above America is in a Cold War with China, and we are ever concerned about the former soviet Russia.
A robust nuclear arsenal
Deters tyrant leaderships— like in Iran and North Korea it makes them think twice knowing U.S. retaliation could wipe them out, even at a minimal tactical level.
America requires a strong nuclear arsenal to deter aggression from adversaries like Russia and China, ensuring national survival and global stability.
This capability provides flexible response options, preventing strategic attacks on the homeland or allies.
A robust nuclear arsenal allows America to avoid the paranoia of having a nuclear defense structure of " First Strike Doctrine" such as immediately after world War two, to having an arsenal that gives the United States a credible “second-strike” capability, meaning that even after absorbing a surprise attack, it can still retaliate with devastating force.
* PREVENTING WORLD WAR THROUGH DETERRENCE
Contrary to the mutterings of some,
Nuclear weapons prevent world war.
It does so by making conflict unthinkable due to catastrophic consequences.
Without nuclear weapons by the three world powers, conventional wars could escalate unchecked, as nations might risk total mobilization without the ultimate backstop. A robust U.S. arsenal reassures allies and hedges against future threats.
* RISKS OF A CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS ONLY WORLD
I began to hint this topic in the previous segment, so less go in more on this concept.
Without nukes, conventional wars would explode into world wars, like history bares witness from world War one and two. The modern military technology and advancements of strategy during those eras made it possible to expand war throughout the globe.
Conventional war once was slow, and regionally restrictive. Weapons, strategy, communication, and travel of the early 20th century allowed nations to move unheard of massive of troops and weapons in days and weeks instead of months and years.
In a world without nuclear weapons, conventional conflicts dramatically increase the potential for global war, as leaders face fewer restraints on escalation.
Historical precedents like World War I and II show how arms races without nuclear deterrence led to millions dead.
Nuclear balance forces restraint, avoiding such mass slaughter.
A world without nuke weapons and only the option of Conventional war risks an all‑conventional world, where great powers might again believe they can fight and win long, grinding wars like World War I and II without facing instant national su***de.
Without nuclear deterrence, states would lean much more heavily on massive standing armies, armor, air forces, and cyber and space weapons, raising the temptation to use them in crises.
I firmly believe that the regional conflicts of the Korean war, and the Vietnam war remained regionsl because of the threats of nuclear weapons.
Both of those conflicts had all of the fundemenral elements that allowed for the first two world wars.
* MUTAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) holds that no rational actor initiates nuclear war, knowing retaliation ensures mutual annihilation.
U.S. triad forces—ICBMs, submarines, bombers—guarantee survivable second-strike capability.
The concept of mutual assured destruction is the doctrine that if two nuclear powers both have secure second‑strike forces, a full nuclear exchange would guarantee the destruction of both.
Today we might say "Duh, no kidding"; but once upon a time just after World War two, the United States, Russia, and the British had the notion that nuclear war was winnable.
At that time the atom bomb was still considered a powerful weapon of the conventional war arsenal.
As the payload and destructive yields increased along with the increased and efficient ability to deliver these weapons any where in the world at greatly reduced time spans, the mind set began to change.
With the advent of the thermal nuclear device and intercontinental delivery the idea of a winnable war was over.
The new military strategy and political mindset was changed to that of " Mutually Assured Destruction".
This doctrine has maintained peace among nuclear powers for decades.
This dynamic is often called “nuclear peace”: nuclear weapons make the ultimate step of total war so catastrophic that leaders, even hostile ones, usually pull back from the brink
* MY CONCLUSION
History shows that when leaders think victory is possible and costs, though high, are survivable, miscalculation and escalation become far more likely.
MAD therefore creates a grim but stable equilibrium: peace at the highest level (no world war among nuclear powers), even while lesser conflicts and proxy wars may still occur at the margins.
As conservative Christians, we value life, desire and seek peace to the extreme, but just as Jesus told his disciples to purchase themselves a sword, so America must also make certain to maintain a viable nuclear deterrence force.
I am of the belief that some in China think that they could win a straight up conventional war against America with Russia as either their allie or neutral nation.
I also think they are delusional to think so as of this point in time.
China will not make the military mistakes of Japan or the eco/political mistakes of soviet Russia.
China will follow the paths of barbarians upon Rome. Except in this scenario China will help to be the facilator of America's internal erosion.
China says don't destroy America, but rather destabilized and marginalize it's global power, and control or affiliate with those who control American domestic power.
"The times, they are a changing."
AS ALWAYS CITIZENS
LIVE FREE
STAY FREE
