4 ms·
Worldwide verification of the elimination of nuclear weapons is the minimal necessary metric to predict that our civilization will survive. Besides eliminating
by a3n 6y ago
Worldwide verification of the elimination of nuclear weapons is the minimal necessary metric to predict that our civilization will survive. Besides eliminating their immediate danger, it's a proxy for our ability to cooperate as a world and think past our differences.
- travisjungroth 6y agoOne of the things scary to me about nukes for human survival is I think it gains limited resiliency from being interplanetary, at least at first. The same countries on Earth will set up nukes on Mars and point them at each other. Other threats (asteroid impact, virus) get more of a boost. Put more generally, I don’t think the nuclear threat is something we’ll tech our way out of.
- whatshisface 6y agoOne country teching its way out of nukes before everyone else would be the most dangerous thing ever.
- travisjungroth 6y agoYeah, that’s even worse. A perfect missile shield seems like it would save lives, but could negate MAD.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoMAD is funny this way. Not only you have to keep up with your enemy - you have to stay in lock-step with them. Go ahead too fast - in offensive or defensive capabilities - and you're just provoking a preemptive strike. A better missile, or a better missile shield, or a better submarine detection technology - all can trigger the end if developed deployed too quickly. It's already beneficial to be open about what you can do; I wonder if we reach the point at which it will be beneficial for the country that's ahead to just give others its tech, to keep the parity going. As for other planets, I suspect the early colonies will be completely defenseless from Earth, but if they reach sufficient level of development and self-governance, they'll want to rapidly develop capability of hurting Earth as an opening move for declaring independence.
- dillondoyle 6y agoThere might already be nuclear weapons deployed in space, and almost surely already deployable quickly via a platform like x-37b
- ben_w 6y agoWould X-37B really be any more useful than a boring old ICBM?
- dillondoyle 6y agoI mean it would be a 4th leg and maybe less detectible?
- ben_w 6y agoTo both: Why? It’s still a thing on a rocket. If anything, it’s easier to spot than an ICBM. Amateurs make a thing of finding it: https://gizmodo.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-found-the-armys-secret-space-1707305408 https://gizmodo.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-found-the-arm...
- phkahler 6y agoIt 3 countries establish colonies on Mars, there will still be only 1 government with real authority on mars and it will be the one established there. It's just too hard to survive there without local autonomy and cooperation.
- markdown 6y agoWe need them (and oil drillers) in case an asteroid comes at us.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoAn elimination that isn't immediately followed by a conventional World War 3, that is. Nukes are what keeps our world of uncooperative humans mostly at peace after all. Nuclear weapons are themselves just a test for us, too. If we want to grow as a species and civilization - truly grow and reach out of our gravity well - then nukes will become just firecrackers compared to what we'll end up dealing with. Orbital velocities being what they are, any interesting interplanetary or interstellar tech will require us commanding similar or larger levels of energy on a regular basis. Which is why I suspect MAD doctrine is with us to stay - now with nuclear weapons, in the future with asteroids and power plants of large spacecraft.