The US nuclear program is about deterrence after all. Well, after 1945, anyway.
These comments are being obtuse on purpose. Look at the name and look at what the name is on. The name peacekeeper is on a weapon that will only be used in times of no peace. Not a hard thing to see the irony in.
In my view, violence, or hopefully, just the threat of violence, maintains order.
There are certain classes of people where diplomacy and pacifism just isn't going to work.
Again, the post-1945 US nuclear program is about deterrence ("peace through superior firepower"). So, in that perspective, the Peacekeeper's threat of violence... kept the peace.
The US and the Soviet Union/Russia both do not want to use nuclear weapons.
Citation: Self. Was in the nuclear program during the latter days of the Cold War and shortly thereafter.
Which, you know, is the dice we're going to be rolling from now on. Maybe we'll survive the next century, then maybe the next, but in the long term? Humans just don't have that good judgement.
The name "peacekeeper" is a formal acknowledgement of its purpose in the military arsenal. It has no other role.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Or as Roosevelt put it, speak softly and carry a big stick.
Building an incredibly powerful weapon and calling it "Peacekeeper" is meant to strongly imply that we don't plan on using it, but rather, it's symbolic as a preemptive threat against any would-be attackers. Peace is kept by showing that any attack would be retaliated with overwhelming force.
It is indeed a deadly weapon system. But it is used every second during peacetime too. Every second it is fielded it maintains a situation where the preferable choice of action is to not attack the one fielding it. In other words it is keeping the peace.
What else does maintain peace besides power?
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. If you want peace prepare for war. Do you think these are just famous slogans or they really do reflect some hard earned wisdom?
Would we still have an equivalent war deterrent today without nuclear? What would it look like?
My guess is something biological. My tongue-in-cheek guess would be something zoological (laser sharks anyone? pigeon pirahna hybrids?)
What changed with nuclear is that you could maintain a credible and scalable strategic deterrent indefinitely at a tiny cost compared to maintaining conventional forces at an equivalent level of deterrence effect.
And in the short-term future, I think synthetic biology will represent an even greater threat than nuclear.
Why? Lethality, ease of manufacture once figured out, mishandling of process or materials, lack of regulation, ethnic/DNA targeting, etc.
The only thing nuclear weapons seem to do is ensure their owners are always the aggressors in war and not defenders. Nobody wants to attack a country with nuclear weapons, so it enables them to pick and choose which wars to start.
