> At the height of Watergate a drunken Nixon was quoted as saying "You know what the difference between us is? I'll tell you, I can walk out of this room right now and give an order and a hour later 80 million people are dead".
Sorry, I'm really struggling to take this example seriously, despite the fact it was obviously meant in jest and Nixon was far smarter than most people give him credit for, as it ignores so much context, obvious deterrents, and basic common sense that it hardly changes the equation at all.
Nor does the two potential major known nuclear near-accidents, as I've already conceded that much could be done to minimize the risk. Yet it could still be entirely logical to maintain nuclear weapons as an option going forward and to hold the opinion it was historically ultimately beneficial to society as a whole...
At the height of Watergate a drunken Nixon was quoted as saying "You know what the difference between us is? I'll tell you, I can walk out of this room right now and give an order and a hour later 80 million people are dead". Cuba was nearer the real deal that either side realised, we've had launch orders ignored and lose weapons that were a fail from going off - which almost certainly would have been interpreted as a strike.
And yet people construct everything as ok.