> I would say around the 1970s. At that stage, with the maturity of ICBMs, it seems that we would have the weapons to wipe out the human race in less than a day

> I would say around the 1970s. At that stage, with the maturity of ICBMs, it seems that we would have the weapons to wipe out the human race in less than a day. Nuclear bombs were developed in the 40s. Why not stop there? > The USA leads the world in military spending by quite a way, they could easily slow down without risking their geopolitical position Slowing down is not the same as stopping, my friend. My argument is against those who claim that weapons research is categorically wrong and must stop. Trust me, I have seen many people who hold this view in the US. But let's assume that the US eases the world into stopping completely. From a game theoretic standpoint, can you ever truly ensure that all countries have ceased weapons research? The answer is simply no. Heck, we couldn't even manage to do that with nuclear disarmament: Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Libya, and NK have all illegally (and covertly) developed nuclear weapons at one point or another. > When war can be conducted with minimal human involvement in the military, do you think this is going make it easier or harder for a government to decide to go to war? I'm sure that the rules of engagement and warfare will develop as technology improves. Wars could reach the point where both sides operate unmanned vehicles that are only allowed to target each other. The primary goal would then be to cripple your enemy financially and strategically by destroying and/or disabling their unmanned weapons. In other words, targeting human soldiers/operators could become a war crime. Don't get me wrong: I am against warfare in general. But I am also a realist, and from what I have read and seen, both history and human nature tell us that war will never stop.