3 ms·

Setting aside the highly relevant particulars of history mentioned in other replies, it's odd to me that every city isn't designed this way; we'd probably have

Setting aside the highly relevant particulars of history mentioned in other replies, it's odd to me that every city isn't designed this way; we'd probably have less wars if they were. The main incentives for invading countries are 1) taking resources/land 2) travelling through to take other countries' resources/land and 3) self defense. If you aren't attacking anyone, and attacking you is more trouble than it's worth, you'll most likely be left alone.

jhoechtl 7y ago
Following your principle you mean the system of checking forces by fear was good? Like in the cold war aera?
- brigandish 7y ago
  That's why it remained the Cold War and not the hot kind. Thomas Schelling can take a lot of the credit for formalising this kind of thinking.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  <insert pedantic quibble about value judgements rabble rabble good v.s. good at averting wars> I think horizontal nuclear proliferation would make us (the US and others) less likely to invade other nations, and I would like to see a world where nuclear weapons are more evenly distributed so that we stop bombing so many children. I do see how my "more trouble than it's worth" line can be taken as leading into that, but I wasn't trying to go there even though I totally see it in retrospect. I think it's fair to note that this self-sabotage strategy can potentially make the entity employing it more trouble than it's worth to invade without becoming a threatening force. By making all of your tunnels and bridges useless in times of war, you're not a good route to other enemy lands. The more you're willing to burn, the less appealing it is to control you. What good is salted earth? If you additionally offer some economic benefits in trade, the chances of invasion go down even further... and you don't have to worry about provoking the enemy to attack out of fear. Honestly, I feel like nukes are a safer bet at deterrence, but I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The self-destruction model is certainly cheaper.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  The Swiss method, unlike Mutually Assured Destruction, does not induce fear, and it it not intended to - it is intended to induce caution and self-interest in potential invaders.

jhoechtl 7y ago

Following your principle you mean the system of checking forces by fear was good? Like in the cold war aera?

brigandish 7y ago
That's why it remained the Cold War and not the hot kind. Thomas Schelling can take a lot of the credit for formalising this kind of thinking.
blotter_paper 7y ago
<insert pedantic quibble about value judgements rabble rabble good v.s. good at averting wars> I think horizontal nuclear proliferation would make us (the US and others) less likely to invade other nations, and I would like to see a world where nuclear weapons are more evenly distributed so that we stop bombing so many children. I do see how my "more trouble than it's worth" line can be taken as leading into that, but I wasn't trying to go there even though I totally see it in retrospect. I think it's fair to note that this self-sabotage strategy can potentially make the entity employing it more trouble than it's worth to invade without becoming a threatening force. By making all of your tunnels and bridges useless in times of war, you're not a good route to other enemy lands. The more you're willing to burn, the less appealing it is to control you. What good is salted earth? If you additionally offer some economic benefits in trade, the chances of invasion go down even further... and you don't have to worry about provoking the enemy to attack out of fear. Honestly, I feel like nukes are a safer bet at deterrence, but I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The self-destruction model is certainly cheaper.
mannykannot 7y ago
The Swiss method, unlike Mutually Assured Destruction, does not induce fear, and it it not intended to - it is intended to induce caution and self-interest in potential invaders.