It has been over 72 years since the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan during WWII and that means that the last of the generation that lived it are now nearing the end of their lives. Does increase the risk of another nuclear incident?

Probably. History repeats itself. May not be America doing it, could be any country. Could even be against America.

I don’t see why it should.

It has also been centuries since cities in national conflicts have been sacked, looted and burned, all the male adults slaughtered without exception and the women and children sold into slavery. I don’t think that means that we’re at imminent threat of that reoccurring just because no one remembers it having happened. Though I would keep an eye out. I’m not saying we should ignore the possibility, either.

The risk has nothing to do with the die off of the generation responsible for the arrival of nukes. As the weapons grow ever more common and dispersed throughout the world, the opportunities and excuses for their employment expand, and it is sadly a simple matter of time. I think it extraordinarily good luck that we made it 70 years without hostile detonation of a single nuke. Another 70 years is asking for a miracle.

@stanleybmanly I wonder how much of that has to do with luck and how much has to do with people who were intimately associated with the possible consequences being in charge.

It’s surely a combination of both. But the truth is that the people who’ve come of age since the things were invented understand the consequences and effects of using the things far better than the folks who invented and tested them with wreckless abandon.

What increases the threat of nuclear war is the intent to develop smaller nuclear weapons and lowering the criteria of using them. *cough orangutan cough

It might be a bit of a factor, although that was also a generation raised with the idea that strategic bombing of cities was somewhat acceptable (if it was an opponent’s city, anyway).

I’d think it’s more of a concern that younger generation who now vote didn’t grow up in a Cold War context, and the general anti-education trends in the USA, corporate tools beholden to the military/industrial complex for elected office, etc.

I don’t know if they will be employed in the future, but I don’t believe they’d have been used in the past had it not been for the mindset of Imperial Japan. There was a consensus amongst the Allied countries that the Japanese Home Islands would have to be invaded and subjugated before the PTB in Japan would even consider surrender. And that the butchers bill on both sides could be astronomical. Not
saying dropping the bombs was justifiable just talking about the mentality at the time. The world is a different place today, and with religious zealots like ISIS and rogue nations like Iran and N.Korea it’s anybody’s call.

I would say no. In fact. The first two bombs were so much smaller than today’s nukes, they’re almost a completely different weapon. The devastation from the bigger nukes we have today, would be exponentially worse.

Our ability to cause mass destruction, has long ago outpaced our ability to be rational. That hasn’t changed.

Doubtful. When dynamite was invented it was said that it would make war obsolete. The same thing happened with machine guns. However, there are more tactical nuclear weapons now that can target much smaller areas.
I have always assumed that at some time in my life, there would be a nuclear exchange between nations. I figured it would be India and Pakistan.

^I think the biggest ,current, threat is a terrorist obtaining a nuke…

^ I’d say Trump.