I will not venture to speak for Aldous Huxley, he speaks well for himself. For me, the concept is simple enough. Prior to World War One, many people thought that the machine gun would prevent wars from happening. They were wrong. Prior to World War Two, they thought that the even more powerful artillery and other even more deadly weapons would prevent war . . . . they were wrong again. Prior to World War Three, they think that nuclear weapons will prevent World War . . . . . . They are right . . . . war will not happen once the human race is wiped off of the planet. The statistics are against us. Either humanity ends war, or war ends humanity.

@THHA So far, we have not had a World War 3.

I meant, by my question, what your purpose was in recycling his quote.

War won't end, as long as we have economic inequality, religious dogmas, and gullible masses for duplicitous leaders to provoke into war. That being the case, we must decide if we want to be winners or losers if said wars are forced on us. I'd rather win. I also want leaders in my country who don't talk a lot of damnfoolishness about how easy it is to win a war, but right now we have Trump...

Win? There will be no winners in the next world war. Nuclear weapons will make sure of that.

@THHA Didn't say anything about World war. Our current most prevalent danger is assymetric warfare, small states or non-state actors using terrorist and guerrilla tactics to strike civilian targets. I take it you remember 9/11. That was a case in which we needed a robust surgical capability to pinpoint the leadership of Al-Qaeda, capture or kill them, and dismantle their network through legal means (targeting their finances and supporters), all the while waging a propaganda campaign to highlight our neutral stance toward Islam in general.

What we got was the Bush administration, who immediately began throwing around the word "Crusade" while looking for excuses to attack Iraq.

Of course you did not say anything about World War . . . that is my whole point. People will jump in their car and drive every day, knowing that without a doubt the more they drive, the higher the chance there will be an accident, that it is inevitable, insurance companies bank on it . . . . but when it comes the nuclear weapons? They think they are safe, that it could never happen, that it is inconceivable that man could wipe himself off the planet. In fact, it is NOT inconceivable, it is inevitable as long as people walking this earth retain that attitude, along with the weapons.

@THHA Nuclear war is far from inevitable.

I would love a world where we could disinvent the atom bomb. But they do exist. And let's say for one moment that the United States and Europe unilaterally disarm, so they can prove they aren't a threat to anyone and the rest of the world can get rid of all their nuclear weapons. Well, now whoever does have nuclear weapons is in a position to dictate terms, since they can use them with no fear of retaliation.

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, abhorrent as it is to any thoughtful person, nevertheless has worked for over 60 years. The main threats to our world are unstable actors like Kim of North Korea, who may calculate that the world will not retaliate against him launching a single strike to prove himself as a player on the world stage, and non-state actors like ISIS or Al Qaeda acquiring fissile materiel and manufacturing their own weapon, which they would not hesitate to use, since they have no home base to retaliate against.

Here we go . . . I have driven for 20 years without an accident, it will never happen. Who said we should just unilaterally disarm? What nation is it that is always beating the war drums, who is the nation who has been in more wars than most other countries combine? Never mind do not answer that, there is no need to do so . . . because the answer is clear, there is no doubt whatsoever what nation I am talking about!

@THHA Russia
152 wars since the year 830.

You didn't say we should unilaterally disarm. But it is not safe to completely disarm, period, for even if the entire world disarms, the technology exists for a Kim Jong Il to then build nukes and hold the world hostage. The world must have a deterrent capacity.

"Deterrent capacity" is not protecting a thing. That is like saying we should attach cannons to our cars to blast the other person out of the way in case it looks like there will be an accident. Next thing you know, everyone has cannons on the cars, and the situation is worse.