4 ms·
If the goal is mutually assured destruction, then wouldn't it be more economical for all countries to just share one bomb rather than duplicate all the developm
by hotpotamus 5y ago
If the goal is mutually assured destruction, then wouldn't it be more economical for all countries to just share one bomb rather than duplicate all the development efforts and go to the trouble of putting rockets under them?
- lapetitejort 5y agoPerhaps form an alliance with as many countries as desired, each of which gets one button wired in parallel with the rest. If any one country were to feel threatened by any other, they could just hover their hand over it.
- dylan604 5y agoBut with all things geopolitical, how many buttons must be pushed to reach a consensus? Or better phrased, how many do not have to push the button to make it useless?
- lliamander 5y agoBut who gets to push the button?
- duskwuff 5y agoIt hardly matters. Once the button is pushed, there's no one left to care who pushed it.
- brokenmachine 5y agoThat's a hilariously rational proposition! The whole world working together for a single goal, it's beautiful.
- brokenmachine 5y agoWe're pretty much doing that now with global warming.
- duskwuff 5y agoExcept in reverse. Everyone is refusing to take their finger off of the button.
- BoxOfRain 5y agoThat would be a brilliant premise for a dystopian story I think, have it set a hundred years after the single bomb was created. There could be an international organisation set to guard and if necessary detonate it, the plot could revolve around a team desperately trying to debug 100 year old sensors and triggers nobody really understands any more because the documentation is so secret.