One estimate is that about 10 percent of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions, around 37.75-60 million people in Eurasia. These events are regarded as some of the deadliest acts of mass killing in human history. Mongol conquests were described as genocidal.
The scary or difficult thing to swallow on that is the population reduction from the Mongols is detectable in carbon deposition samples of that era of time.
I have a joke that I'm racist against Mongolian because they never apologized for this online and people get a kick out of the sheer ridiculousness of it
I don't think the point is going over peoples heads. Its been 78 years since we've used them in war which is great, but still VERY early days when you're talking the entirety of human civilisation. There are still many years to go. We don't know how this story ends. 78 years is nowhere near enough time to get comfortable and say "actually not so bad huh?" The mere fact that an individual holds the power to destroy everything is horrific. The fact that there was a false alarm in the 80s and we came very close is horrific. That the entire world and all of humanity is at the mercy of a handful of countries making peaceful and logical decisions is horrific. Thats what makes it bad. This doesn't go away just because it hasn't happened so far.
I don't think this is accurate though. Or at least it is misleading. WWI and WW2 were outliers, not part of a trend, so of course it has come down since then. But there were bigger aside from these two outliers there were still bigger conflicts in the 20th century than in the 19th.
Most significant weapons advancement was seen as a way to make war too costly in men to consider. This is: nitroglycerin, machine guns, chemical weapons, nukes, among others.
@@filozofwielki1121 You got to it before I could. Though technically it was that it had brought to an end so many lives, that he created the Nobel Prize, in an attempt to right the wrong he did though creating dynamite (a more stable form of nitroglycerin.)
Based on what I've seen from this gentleman, I respect and admire him a great deal. That said, I've actually been slowly coming around to the idea that nuclear weapons are not the cause of the positive development (and some of the other shorts I've seen from the presenter here have reinforced that). It's not Pax Atomica, it's Pax Americana. Putin's aggression against Ukraine is a key piece of evidence of that. If he didn't have nukes, he couldn't have risked it; it became quite evident after the invasion that - should the USAF intervene *directly* on behalf of the Ukrainians - it all would've been over in a matter of months. Putin did not expect the Ukrainians to resist as well as they did, but he knew that nukes were the only thing stopping the Americans from getting involved. One piece of further evidence this gentlemen provides is the Pakistani incentive to start the Kargil War in 1991. Since both sides had nukes, they knew that India's escalation options were limited. Although he's arguing the other point in this short (he was arguably arguing my point in the one about the Kargil War) the evidence he presented doesn't align with the hypothesis presented. It makes sense that 1943 was the peak, because that's when the Allies were unambiguously winning - without having used or even threatened the use of nukes. The Axis were (usually) the ones invading other countries, so as the Allies began to take the upper hand, neither side had a reason to expand the War. The war was going to end in 1945 whether the two bombs were dropped or not. The explanation for how "correlation does not always equal causation" is that there could be a "confounding variable" that causes *both* effects being measured. In this case, that variable is Allied success in WWII. Another possible variable is just how horrifically destructive all the weapons used in WWII *other* than nukes. There had never been a war that destructive before. If a war were to break out in Europe in the 50s or 60s, we know that the Soviets would have "won" if neither side used nukes (by sheer force of numbers and the fact that they'd be much closer to the fight than the US). American historians were surprised to learn - in the 90s when they gained access to Soviet historical archives - that it wasn't the nukes that kept Stalin from actually testing that theory. 15% of the population had died in the previous war. He knew that the population would not put up with another war. He wasn't threatened the first time, because he didn't start it, but if he did? Anyways, we've all been taught to believe for the past 50 years that nuclear weapons have kept the peace. However, the more I dig into it, the less evidence for that claim I find. In another video of his, he mentions that Kennedy was horrified at the prospect of 25 countries with nuclear weapons - the chance for miscalculation was simply to high. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was able to work with his Soviet counterparts to make Non-Proliferation a part of policy for both countries. If it weren't for that, we would be singing a different tune regarding nuclear weapons today.
Correlation does not imply causation. This is grade school knowledge. The reason European countries don't wage war against each other is not because we point nukes at each other, it's mostly because of the European Union and decades of work building relations between countries.
Works both ways. If it werent for the NATO nukes, he would have taken the Baltic States already, possibly Poland, just to control the Northen Plains where Russia doesn't have any natural barriers.
Yes! Exactly! I think Putin single-handedly disproved the popular theory that "nukes=peace." Nukes do one thing and one thing only: convince *other* great powers to not get involved. That might keep the peace *between* great powers, but it actually *encourages* nuclear-armed states to invade non-nuclear states, because they know that the other nuclear powers will be too afraid to get involved. The other day, I was watching a short from the same presenter where he explained how the Kargil War happened under a similar influence (in that case, both sides had nukes, which emboldened Pakistan because they sought a limited war and knew the possibility of nuclear exchange limited options of India; which was the stronger power between the two of them).
Another component is that the US and friends dramatically restructured the postwar world order to benefit free and rich countries like themselves, and since modern war and modern industry mean the return on investment for conquest is now very small while the return on investment for economic development is quite large it no longer made any sense to do offensive wars of conquest, and with democracies the people are able to usually disuade people tryna do expensive wars of conquest. The long peace since ww2 isn't just because of nukes, but also because of the new world order created in the war's aftermath.
It’s not that nuclear is inherently bad, it’s that the humans who run the facilities are inherently flawed and when big money becomes involved safety takes second place to profits and shareholders. Also his apparent claim that nuclear power has reduced wars and therefore deaths may be a factor but it’s not a direct 1:1 correlation
Yes it is a direct correlation. Without nukes and mutally assurred destruction WW3 would have happened already. Checkpoint charlie was almost the start of WW3 for example and, in a world without nukes, those tanks would have fired on each other because complete drstruction would not be possible.
You have the same argument with gun control: It's not the gun that are inherently bad, it's the people that use them that are flawed... But if you know that giving a weapon to people is a recipe for disaster, you act on the people to restrict their ability to get a weapon...
Ok, since we're trying to sow seeds of doubt, please, enlighten us: What other than the ability to destroy every one of your opponent's cities has stopped us from going toe to toe directly with other nuclear states?
Exactly this. Europe had seems almost constant warfare between nations before WWII. The nations learned from the failure of the post WWI time and rather than just punishing the losers, the Allies worked to rebuild the losers and especially in Europe to create a linked and shared mentality that has largely held for 70 years, one the longest periods of peace in European history.
I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong. Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true. Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅" BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢 Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong. Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true. Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅" BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢 Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
@ckleinheksel incorrect. I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong. Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true. Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅" BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢 Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
@@ckleinheksel How many wars have there been... That include nuclear weapons in any possible way. And also this guy is kinda rambling on and not making coherent points.
15 million deaths in WWII?! That has to be one of the most stupid assertions ever. That doesn't even include all of Europe. Obviously he's excluding some 26 million Soviet deaths. The Japanese killed some 30 million Chinese by war, famine and disease (1 million just by bio warfare by Japanese Unit 731 alone). Real estimates range from the absurdly low 60 million to the more accurate 100 million deaths by military means or starvation and disease.
I think this bodes well for AI ad Quantum computing. An undeniable universal observation of equity and Inequity will produce a benevolent conscientiousness.
But incorrect. I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong. Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true. Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅" BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢 Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
I'd say the advent of radio, movies and T.V. kept people to preoccupied to have them interested in war. As the old saying, "idle hands are the devil's tools" means a bored person is more likely to find mischief.
It is believed by multiple sources that Moscow detested the Ukrainian people (the workers in the fields and factories) and they were routinely subjected to brutal treatment by the KGB and other agents of the Communist Party. The administrators and officials in Ukraine who oversaw the wheat and steel production and other ‘fruits’ of Ukrainian production were regarded as patriots of the Soviet Union. It would appear this is still the case, except now Moscow hates everyone in Ukraine. Слава Україні! 🇺🇦
Well, technically and I mean technically, it wasn't part of any war. Of course soviets were always in war with the nations they occupied, but it's a war that could be misunderstood as peace. Kind of peace putin wants now...
He didn't forget, he was mentioning the Holocaust in conjunction with WWII. The Holodomor happened before WWII (by anyone's standards as to when WWII began).
I have NEVER heard 15 million as a figure for the second world War. the only thing I can imagine is that 15 million people died in just 1943? but the war as a whole cost mankind some 80 Million people.
@@kazmark_gl8652 15million inside Germany alone is low. It's about bright for inside the camps not everyone in those camps was a Jew . They killed many other types of people they didn't like in there
Fun fact: if we instantly replaced all our coal powered plants with nuclear plants, we would save more lives in a year than nuclear bombs have taken in all of their existence.
Not really, the soviets and allies were immediately hostile and china intervened directly in korea. In a world without nukes, ww3 would have happend already.
One estimate is that about 10 percent of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions, around 37.75-60 million people in Eurasia. These events are regarded as some of the deadliest acts of mass killing in human history. Mongol conquests were described as genocidal.
The scary or difficult thing to swallow on that is the population reduction from the Mongols is detectable in carbon deposition samples of that era of time.
I have a joke that I'm racist against Mongolian because they never apologized for this online and people get a kick out of the sheer ridiculousness of it
@@austinsatterfield6792: Those same people probably try to blame America instead.
I read one estimate that you don't know anything about anything. Based on your laughable comment, I believe that estimate.
It's kind of sad how often this point goes over peoples' heads. For too many, the thought process is just 'nuclear = bad.'
I agree but while this may be true, we only need one bat-shit crazy leader to start something irreversible ... which is still scary.
I don't think the point is going over peoples heads. Its been 78 years since we've used them in war which is great, but still VERY early days when you're talking the entirety of human civilisation. There are still many years to go. We don't know how this story ends. 78 years is nowhere near enough time to get comfortable and say "actually not so bad huh?" The mere fact that an individual holds the power to destroy everything is horrific. The fact that there was a false alarm in the 80s and we came very close is horrific. That the entire world and all of humanity is at the mercy of a handful of countries making peaceful and logical decisions is horrific. Thats what makes it bad. This doesn't go away just because it hasn't happened so far.
At this point I think someone seems to have forgotten to tell North Korea this little tid bit.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about
I don't think this is accurate though. Or at least it is misleading. WWI and WW2 were outliers, not part of a trend, so of course it has come down since then. But there were bigger aside from these two outliers there were still bigger conflicts in the 20th century than in the 19th.
Most significant weapons advancement was seen as a way to make war too costly in men to consider. This is: nitroglycerin, machine guns, chemical weapons, nukes, among others.
Why nitroglycerin?
@@BarnyWaterg8 dynamite by Nobel
@@filozofwielki1121 You got to it before I could. Though technically it was that it had brought to an end so many lives, that he created the Nobel Prize, in an attempt to right the wrong he did though creating dynamite (a more stable form of nitroglycerin.)
but they all have been used, eventually .... except one..
@@SuperPhexx It was in using that one that it became too horrific to let it be used again.
The best weapon is the weapon you never have to use.
You but when you have to the best weapon becomes the worse weapon
Based on what I've seen from this gentleman, I respect and admire him a great deal. That said, I've actually been slowly coming around to the idea that nuclear weapons are not the cause of the positive development (and some of the other shorts I've seen from the presenter here have reinforced that). It's not Pax Atomica, it's Pax Americana.
Putin's aggression against Ukraine is a key piece of evidence of that. If he didn't have nukes, he couldn't have risked it; it became quite evident after the invasion that - should the USAF intervene *directly* on behalf of the Ukrainians - it all would've been over in a matter of months. Putin did not expect the Ukrainians to resist as well as they did, but he knew that nukes were the only thing stopping the Americans from getting involved.
One piece of further evidence this gentlemen provides is the Pakistani incentive to start the Kargil War in 1991. Since both sides had nukes, they knew that India's escalation options were limited.
Although he's arguing the other point in this short (he was arguably arguing my point in the one about the Kargil War) the evidence he presented doesn't align with the hypothesis presented. It makes sense that 1943 was the peak, because that's when the Allies were unambiguously winning - without having used or even threatened the use of nukes. The Axis were (usually) the ones invading other countries, so as the Allies began to take the upper hand, neither side had a reason to expand the War. The war was going to end in 1945 whether the two bombs were dropped or not.
The explanation for how "correlation does not always equal causation" is that there could be a "confounding variable" that causes *both* effects being measured. In this case, that variable is Allied success in WWII. Another possible variable is just how horrifically destructive all the weapons used in WWII *other* than nukes. There had never been a war that destructive before. If a war were to break out in Europe in the 50s or 60s, we know that the Soviets would have "won" if neither side used nukes (by sheer force of numbers and the fact that they'd be much closer to the fight than the US). American historians were surprised to learn - in the 90s when they gained access to Soviet historical archives - that it wasn't the nukes that kept Stalin from actually testing that theory. 15% of the population had died in the previous war. He knew that the population would not put up with another war. He wasn't threatened the first time, because he didn't start it, but if he did?
Anyways, we've all been taught to believe for the past 50 years that nuclear weapons have kept the peace. However, the more I dig into it, the less evidence for that claim I find. In another video of his, he mentions that Kennedy was horrified at the prospect of 25 countries with nuclear weapons - the chance for miscalculation was simply to high. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was able to work with his Soviet counterparts to make Non-Proliferation a part of policy for both countries. If it weren't for that, we would be singing a different tune regarding nuclear weapons today.
Correlation does not imply causation. This is grade school knowledge.
The reason European countries don't wage war against each other is not because we point nukes at each other, it's mostly because of the European Union and decades of work building relations between countries.
While you are largely correct about reasons Western Europeans stopped killing each other in job lots, he was referring to the entire globe.
Yeah right up until it doesn't.
nobody wants total annihilation. Maybe a sore loser could though...
what a pointless comment lmao.
yeah.. you're alive right up until you're dead.
people like you are the types who never paid attention in class.
Exactly. Iran, NK don't seem that rational.
I would have asked the one example of "UP UNTIL IT DOESN'T" but i know you don't have it... And i pray we never have it...
@sagarkarvande What do you think China is doing?
Moderns deaths in war are way below 1-2 million. More like 200,000 now a days with a low point in 2005 of a couple of tenths of thousands.
Yet 2 million iraqis died because of US invasion, and some say a million soldiers died on both sides in the Ukraine-Russia war.
Now Putin is working under the assumption no one will restrain him in fear of escalation.
Relatively few deaths due to Putin.
Works both ways. If it werent for the NATO nukes, he would have taken the Baltic States already, possibly Poland, just to control the Northen Plains where Russia doesn't have any natural barriers.
Within his borders and that of ex-Soviet states (save Ukraine), he's a mastermind.
Outside of that, he's an idiot.
Yes! Exactly! I think Putin single-handedly disproved the popular theory that "nukes=peace." Nukes do one thing and one thing only: convince *other* great powers to not get involved. That might keep the peace *between* great powers, but it actually *encourages* nuclear-armed states to invade non-nuclear states, because they know that the other nuclear powers will be too afraid to get involved. The other day, I was watching a short from the same presenter where he explained how the Kargil War happened under a similar influence (in that case, both sides had nukes, which emboldened Pakistan because they sought a limited war and knew the possibility of nuclear exchange limited options of India; which was the stronger power between the two of them).
Rerun the numbers after any 1 of 1000 possible nightmare scenarios come true. You cannot hold weapons on high alert for decades without an accident.
Another component is that the US and friends dramatically restructured the postwar world order to benefit free and rich countries like themselves, and since modern war and modern industry mean the return on investment for conquest is now very small while the return on investment for economic development is quite large it no longer made any sense to do offensive wars of conquest, and with democracies the people are able to usually disuade people tryna do expensive wars of conquest.
The long peace since ww2 isn't just because of nukes, but also because of the new world order created in the war's aftermath.
Mutually Assured Destruction is based on a game theory solution developed by the best mathematical minds on the planet.
It’s not that nuclear is inherently bad, it’s that the humans who run the facilities are inherently flawed and when big money becomes involved safety takes second place to profits and shareholders.
Also his apparent claim that nuclear power has reduced wars and therefore deaths may be a factor but it’s not a direct 1:1 correlation
Yes it is a direct correlation. Without nukes and mutally assurred destruction WW3 would have happened already. Checkpoint charlie was almost the start of WW3 for example and, in a world without nukes, those tanks would have fired on each other because complete drstruction would not be possible.
You have the same argument with gun control: It's not the gun that are inherently bad, it's the people that use them that are flawed... But if you know that giving a weapon to people is a recipe for disaster, you act on the people to restrict their ability to get a weapon...
Good thing they displayed a graph.
It was the Growth of the Women's Vote.
I made the consequences of total war unacceptable.
Correlation is not equal to causation. In that time many things changed, nuclear is just one of thousand things that changed.
Ok, since we're trying to sow seeds of doubt, please, enlighten us: What other than the ability to destroy every one of your opponent's cities has stopped us from going toe to toe directly with other nuclear states?
Exactly this.
Europe had seems almost constant warfare between nations before WWII. The nations learned from the failure of the post WWI time and rather than just punishing the losers, the Allies worked to rebuild the losers and especially in Europe to create a linked and shared mentality that has largely held for 70 years, one the longest periods of peace in European history.
Uh, did you mean correlation?
@@benahaus yes, fixed it
How can we distinguish if it is just correlation or actual causation?
Putin: I’m gonna put an end to that
Mutually Assured Destruction
Yea….give it another 100 years
I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong.
Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true.
Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅"
BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢
Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong.
Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true.
Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅"
BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢
Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
Yeah but the number only stays low as long as we don't use the nuclear weapons
You say that as if you're disappointed.
@ckleinheksel incorrect.
I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong.
Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true.
Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅"
BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢
Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
@@harryp6047yes you're right but this man is right in that, so far at least, war between nuclear powers is avoided at all costs
These are some very unrelated and vague points hes making.
@@ckleinheksel
How many wars have there been... That include nuclear weapons in any possible way.
And also this guy is kinda rambling on and not making coherent points.
Yeah but “No Nukes” has alliteration and I’m really really really stupid…
70 mln died ..not 15.mln
hold on to that thought, eh?
15 million deaths in WWII?! That has to be one of the most stupid assertions ever. That doesn't even include all of Europe.
Obviously he's excluding some 26 million Soviet deaths. The Japanese killed some 30 million Chinese by war, famine and disease (1 million just by bio warfare by Japanese Unit 731 alone).
Real estimates range from the absurdly low 60 million to the more accurate 100 million deaths by military means or starvation and disease.
War is one thing but homicides are still way too high.
only in the United States and a few other places (often places feeding our insatiable appetite for mind poisons)
War never changes.
Oh yes it does.
Did you not pay attention to the video?
That's what you say If you're dumb but trying to pretend you're not.
There haven’t been many wars since then. Jus5 police actions and interventions
just think how many people have died at the hands of religinutz over the ages.
Someone should tell this muppet about the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq...
Educate yourself. Those wars are trivial compared to what went on in the past.
I think this bodes well for AI ad Quantum computing. An undeniable universal observation of equity and Inequity will produce a benevolent conscientiousness.
MAD at war.
So, we're just gonna pretend that the communist purges of the twentieth century don't count ??😂
What Communist purges? *cough*
No WW1?
How interesting
But incorrect.
I don't like how this man (and many others) are so confused on this issue. He is actually dead wrong.
Nuclear weapons have temporarily reduced war casualties through "mutually assured destruction", that is true.
Now we say "yay look how nuclear have meant less deaths and no more WW2 like events yay we got this 😅"
BUT then... one proper nuclear exchange causes 10-20x the deaths of WW2... we were fooled 😢
Please don't be fooled by the distribution of war casualties over time..
Wow
he's got a point
I'd say the advent of radio, movies and T.V. kept people to preoccupied to have them interested in war. As the old saying, "idle hands are the devil's tools" means a bored person is more likely to find mischief.
Rulers decide when to wage war, not people. The things you listed would never stop a war. The threat of annihilation does.
That's npt the lesson....
Exactly right
AI: Hold my beer.
Through in the holocaust but forgot the holodomor
It is believed by multiple sources that Moscow detested the Ukrainian people (the workers in the fields and factories) and they were routinely subjected to brutal treatment by the KGB and other agents of the Communist Party.
The administrators and officials in Ukraine who oversaw the wheat and steel production and other ‘fruits’ of Ukrainian production were regarded as patriots of the Soviet Union.
It would appear this is still the case, except now Moscow hates everyone in Ukraine.
Слава Україні! 🇺🇦
Well, technically and I mean technically, it wasn't part of any war. Of course soviets were always in war with the nations they occupied, but it's a war that could be misunderstood as peace. Kind of peace putin wants now...
He didn't forget, he was mentioning the Holocaust in conjunction with WWII. The Holodomor happened before WWII (by anyone's standards as to when WWII began).
I don't think this is true though...
Go do the research.
@@AndrewBlacker-t1d I did
15 ? Way low old bat
I have NEVER heard 15 million as a figure for the second world War.
the only thing I can imagine is that 15 million people died in just 1943?
but the war as a whole cost mankind some 80 Million people.
@@kazmark_gl8652 15million inside Germany alone is low. It's about bright for inside the camps not everyone in those camps was a Jew . They killed many other types of people they didn't like in there
Deaths per year, 15 mil would be for only 1943
About 70 million shy mate.
@@larrybarnes3920 for the year 1944.
Listen again.
😂
Fun fact: if we instantly replaced all our coal powered plants with nuclear plants, we would save more lives in a year than nuclear bombs have taken in all of their existence.
Way more than 15 million people died in WW2 bruh 😂
in 1943 only, its deaths per year
He never said only 15 million died in WW-2.
You hear but don't listen.
Year by year during the war amd the average dropped after
There's so many mistakes in what this guy is saying, I'm not even gonna bother to start picking it apart.
so why bother commenting ya freak
Try
Random internet commenter obviously knows more than a man with decades of knowledge and experience. Let me guess: you are also a flat earther
Lmao the guy whose job is to speculate on this vs a random youtube comment.
Translation: I dont actually have any counter arguments
What Holocaust ⁉️
Except Israhell
This is great unless your in Gaza.
You're right, it is great not being in Gaza.
40 mil died at USSR alone what 15 mi. You talking about
Learn to listen
Per year
This is just rationalization how doing nuclear tests on civilians is not a war crime.
Not really, the soviets and allies were immediately hostile and china intervened directly in korea. In a world without nukes, ww3 would have happend already.