It’s not really a sound argument for two reasons.
1. You are speculating at the lives saved. We cannot know for sure.
2. You are including lives speculatively saved because of an intangible- the wars that did not happen, but in your deaths caused by nuclear weapons you do not factor in the lives lost because of lack of war between developed nations.
The proliferation of proxy wars where nuclear powers instigate or create war between non nuclear powers was largely due to nuclear weapons.
When we look at proxy wars or at wars which couldn’t be effectively prevented due to involvement of nuclear states, then include things like coups, related or non related genocide, political killings and purges, invasions, annexations, etc.
the 20th centuries most prolific man on man death tolls take place independently from a specific war and were often acts of standing governments- who often had relationships with or to nuclear powers which effectively precluded external aid due to fear..
.. of nuclear escalation.
Nuclear weapons also didn’t stop developed nations from getting involved in costly and destructive wars and military actions like Vietnam, US/USSR wars in Afghanistan, French or American involvement in Vietnam, the Korean War, any number of conflicts in Africa and South America, The invasion of Ukraine, at least twice, and several other regional conflicts. Kosovo, Somalia etc etc.
Now it gets tricky as how do we compare all those deaths from the start of the atomic age to WW2? WW2 didn’t last half a century, so all that death happened in a condensed span comparatively. But WW2 was a global spanning open and total conflict which many individual conflicts and actions get balled into to create the total death toll- and in part that death toll relies upon the atmosphere of global politics at the time and other factors.
We can draw the conclusion that it is highly likely that direct clashes between developed post atomic age nations would have had staggering death tolls- the USA vs. USSR in direct combat for example.
That said it becomes a what if game.
If there were no nuclear weapons would a post war Russia have tried to invade Western Europe without their nuclear shield?
But… would america or Russia have taken the same trajectory post war if they didn’t have nuclear weapons? Would global politics have unfolded as they did had the world not watched america unleash the most terribly awesome weapon of the 20th century? The US and USSR for example still had massive populations and production capabilities, the US navy and Airforces were and are gigantic and formidable. So it isn’t like these nuclear nations weren’t imposing or a threat without nuclear weapons but….
Well, it’s all hypothetical. War itself is a deterrent to war.
When war happens people die, things are destroyed, social and economic systems get disrupted and uprooted and… lord of people suffer. If you take nuclear weapons out of the equation, Russia and America still through much of the 20th century could easily have leveled major cities and such. The fire bombings in Japan were arguably as or more destructive than the nuclear bombs.
Much of Europe was leveled and rebuilt after the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively quickly back up and running effectively and maintained large populations. Nuclear weapons have Strat/tac advantages but as far as devastation goes they don’t do a whole lot that conventional war of marge mechanized forces cannot.
To the opposite, nuclear weapons just make it easier and less costly to kill others.
That was the primary US justification for the only use of nuclear weapons in combat in history.
A couple planes or a single unmanned missile can release the devastation of an entire air group running multiple missions.
You can kill thousands or millions across the globe and never place a single one of your soldiers in danger to do it.
So we could make a hypothetical argument that nuclear weapons could make war and killing even more common.
Why didn’t we use more nukes? Why not against enemies who didn’t have them or what about before other powers developed them? Early in they were scarce and to this day they remain a bit precious to use for any old mission requiring explosions.
It is also the case that the globe including America was shocked and appalled and traumatized the more we found out about the effects of these weapons on humans and our world.
Even military leaders generally don’t relish in causing people suffering and have to grapple with moral and ethical issues and consequences.
But that alone isn’t enough, look at the use of Napalm and general conduct in conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan. People were seeing these things on the ground but once they started showing up in time magazine, the war ended shortly after.
So it gets complicated but at the end of the day, without nuclear weapons the world might have less death or more peace or it might just be harder for one person to decide to destroy the world, or… maybe nuclear weapons have kept the best peace or fewest deaths from conflict that we could hope for in the modern age. Maybe it’s somewhere in the middle and as the disclaimer “developed nations” hints at- maybe we just passed all the death and killing to nations without nuclear capability or close nuclear powered friends.
But here’s the kicker- nuclear weapons do exist so it doesn’t matter if we are “better” or “worse” for that. They are here.
Many say “we can disarm” and to that I say- you’re a moron. A sweet moron, but a moron.
Nuclear weapons were far from the most destructive force in WW2, far from the greatest killer, and far from the most depraved, disgusting, cruel, soul staining ways men killed and hurt other men in that war or since.
So… disarm? Because they kill people? Because they are horrific? They are powerful. Guns kill people. Tanks, bombs, flame throwers, gas…. Do you think the worlds militaries will stop using guns if one of them says they’re throwing them all away for “more humane” or less prolific killing tools? War is often won by those with advantage and the ability to exploit it. For all the proliferation treaties from mines to gas, tonnage of ships and treatment of combatants or non combatants etc
All are selectively followed and routinely broken if it gives advantage
1. You are speculating at the lives saved. We cannot know for sure.
2. You are including lives speculatively saved because of an intangible- the wars that did not happen, but in your deaths caused by nuclear weapons you do not factor in the lives lost because of lack of war between developed nations.
The proliferation of proxy wars where nuclear powers instigate or create war between non nuclear powers was largely due to nuclear weapons.
When we look at proxy wars or at wars which couldn’t be effectively prevented due to involvement of nuclear states, then include things like coups, related or non related genocide, political killings and purges, invasions, annexations, etc.
the 20th centuries most prolific man on man death tolls take place independently from a specific war and were often acts of standing governments- who often had relationships with or to nuclear powers which effectively precluded external aid due to fear..
Nuclear weapons also didn’t stop developed nations from getting involved in costly and destructive wars and military actions like Vietnam, US/USSR wars in Afghanistan, French or American involvement in Vietnam, the Korean War, any number of conflicts in Africa and South America, The invasion of Ukraine, at least twice, and several other regional conflicts. Kosovo, Somalia etc etc.
Now it gets tricky as how do we compare all those deaths from the start of the atomic age to WW2? WW2 didn’t last half a century, so all that death happened in a condensed span comparatively. But WW2 was a global spanning open and total conflict which many individual conflicts and actions get balled into to create the total death toll- and in part that death toll relies upon the atmosphere of global politics at the time and other factors.
That said it becomes a what if game.
If there were no nuclear weapons would a post war Russia have tried to invade Western Europe without their nuclear shield?
But… would america or Russia have taken the same trajectory post war if they didn’t have nuclear weapons? Would global politics have unfolded as they did had the world not watched america unleash the most terribly awesome weapon of the 20th century? The US and USSR for example still had massive populations and production capabilities, the US navy and Airforces were and are gigantic and formidable. So it isn’t like these nuclear nations weren’t imposing or a threat without nuclear weapons but….
When war happens people die, things are destroyed, social and economic systems get disrupted and uprooted and… lord of people suffer. If you take nuclear weapons out of the equation, Russia and America still through much of the 20th century could easily have leveled major cities and such. The fire bombings in Japan were arguably as or more destructive than the nuclear bombs.
Much of Europe was leveled and rebuilt after the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively quickly back up and running effectively and maintained large populations. Nuclear weapons have Strat/tac advantages but as far as devastation goes they don’t do a whole lot that conventional war of marge mechanized forces cannot.
That was the primary US justification for the only use of nuclear weapons in combat in history.
A couple planes or a single unmanned missile can release the devastation of an entire air group running multiple missions.
You can kill thousands or millions across the globe and never place a single one of your soldiers in danger to do it.
So we could make a hypothetical argument that nuclear weapons could make war and killing even more common.
It is also the case that the globe including America was shocked and appalled and traumatized the more we found out about the effects of these weapons on humans and our world.
Even military leaders generally don’t relish in causing people suffering and have to grapple with moral and ethical issues and consequences.
But that alone isn’t enough, look at the use of Napalm and general conduct in conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan. People were seeing these things on the ground but once they started showing up in time magazine, the war ended shortly after.
Many say “we can disarm” and to that I say- you’re a moron. A sweet moron, but a moron.
Nuclear weapons were far from the most destructive force in WW2, far from the greatest killer, and far from the most depraved, disgusting, cruel, soul staining ways men killed and hurt other men in that war or since.
So… disarm? Because they kill people? Because they are horrific? They are powerful. Guns kill people. Tanks, bombs, flame throwers, gas…. Do you think the worlds militaries will stop using guns if one of them says they’re throwing them all away for “more humane” or less prolific killing tools? War is often won by those with advantage and the ability to exploit it. For all the proliferation treaties from mines to gas, tonnage of ships and treatment of combatants or non combatants etc
All are selectively followed and routinely broken if it gives advantage