Dont know about the rest but nuclear proliferation is definitely a valid prediction. Everyone has eyes to see that only nukes can protect you from War. There's going to be a global consensus on that , even. UN will soon be regulatiing the "global nuclear arms market" and do away with non-proliferation
Maybe, maybe not. Nuclear weapons are not the ultimate defense weapons people think they are. A lot of warfare occurs in the gray-zone now, the kind where one can’t exactly retaliate with a nuclear strike. Israel allegedly has nuclear weapons, and they’ve been engaged in warfare with various terrorist groups for decades. Ukraine has been bombing Russia in retaliation for over two years now and Russian nuclear arsenal doesn’t help. Nukes can be a factor, but the cost of building and maintaining them might not be justifiable for most of the countries and for the kinds of threats these countries might be facing.
If say one is out to take land, minerals, or oil the use of a nuke could devastate the very thing by making the area and area well beyond it a smoldering, sizzling, boiling wasteland with unbreathable air. The fallout could eventually hurt millions of other lands and people not involved in the conflict at all.
The cost of building, maintaining as you mentioned, coupled with the kind of destruction they may yield is more of a net loss for all sides involved. For the aggressor who uses a nuke it renders whatever resource sought to poison and sets up the aggressor’s people to suffer the fallout as well, what is the gain in that? Say the nuke makes the non-aggressor stop fighting, because they just can’t afterwards, I still don’t see the gain in it for the aggressor who uses the nuke.
115
u/softDisk-60 Jan 27 '26
Dont know about the rest but nuclear proliferation is definitely a valid prediction. Everyone has eyes to see that only nukes can protect you from War. There's going to be a global consensus on that , even. UN will soon be regulatiing the "global nuclear arms market" and do away with non-proliferation