8 ms·
This was job #1 in US defense policy from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. There was a lull after the wall came down but it's back. In my opinion the only wa
by hodgesrm 4y ago
This was job #1 in US defense policy from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. There was a lull after the wall came down but it's back.
In my opinion the only way to avoid nuclear war is to get rid of nuclear weapons entirely. Humans being what they are, it may take a war to get that point across.
- peteradio 4y agoHow do you get rid of nuclear weapons entirely? Do you somehow erase the knowledge required to build nuclear weapons? How does this prevent knowledge/building from moving out of sight rather than actually disappearing? When I worked in a recycling facility in college I would collect old books off the conveyor describing nuclear engineering, how do you track me down to prevent that knowledge from proliferating?
- moistly 4y ago> How do you get rid of nuclear weapons entirely? Rods from god. Eliminates headquarters and control centers every bit as effectively as a nuke, but without the radiation.
- throwaway5959 4y agoThe same way we don’t make general artificial intelligence. We all agree not do it. It’s just too dangerous. Dismantle all the nuclear warheads, destroy the materials, erase the research and focus on nuclear power instead. Whether or not we’ll be smart enough as a species to avoid these research paths and behaviors… I’m not holding my breath.
- peteradio 4y agoIf you require 100% compliance in an endeavor, count on it failing.
- thfuran 4y agoYou can't destroy the knowledge required to make nukes. It's too widespread and they're too easy to make. There's some moderately difficult engineering involved in the material processing, but the basics are dead simple. And someone is totally going to make an AGI.
- throwaway5959 4y agoThat’s where avoiding behavior is important. Nuclear weapons don’t spontaneously appear.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sterlind 4y agoNot a workable idea, but a good sci-fi plot: get the major powers to give up their nukes. create a single, tiny nation, a nuclear Vatican, populated by citizens from all former nuclear powers. give them a number of ICBMs. have them nuke whoever else develops the tech.
- salawat 4y agoSomething about the phrase "nuclear Vatican" makes me giggle more than it should.
- arthurcolle 4y agoNuclear Vatican should just be the US
- akoncius 4y ago
- peeringaught 4y ago[flagged]
- Qem 4y agoUS erased that possibility when it stopped honouring warranties given to states that gave up WMDs, and started screwing them one after another. Iraq, Libya, Iran... Quite impossible for North Korea to give up on their WMDs now they saw what happened to those following that route. Others took notice also.
- hodgesrm 4y ago> How do you get rid of nuclear weapons entirely? One step at a time. Start by reducing numbers radically. There's no reason for countries like the US, Russia, and China to have such large arsenals.
- im3w1l 4y agoThe way I see it we live in a markov process where nuclear annihilation is an absorbing state. With mitigations we can increase the "halflife" of humanity so to speak, but only so much. The only long term solution is for civilization to go multi-planetary.
- klysm 4y agoIf there any arrows with non zero probability into that state then it certainly is always increasing.
- sudosysgen 4y agoNukes can easily be sent between planets. With sufficient tech you can even make nuclear shaped charges.
- im3w1l 4y agoThe distance give you more advance warning, making it more realistic to intercept them.
- sudosysgen 4y agoThe only reason nuclear interception is even plausible is thanks to the atmosphere. Was it not for the atmosphere, you could wrap the warheads in inflatable mylar balloons, and send in tens of millions of identical but empty balloons. Unless you have the capability of intercepting 30 million+ objects, you would not be able to intercept an interplanetary nuclear attack, even one levied with current technology.
- totony 4y agoMAD is the only way. The current powers are just too weak to enforce it. Ukraine shutdown its nuclear arsenal because of russia and the us. The US should, if it had any balls or was worthy of trust, declare that any nuclear attack on ukraine will be seen as a war declaration to the US. The situation in Ukraine only shows the world that non proliferation is a stupid gamble. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_...
- CamperBob2 4y agoThe US should, if it had any balls or was worthy of trust, declare that any nuclear attack on ukraine will be seen as a war declaration to the US. My understanding is that a nuclear attack against Ukraine puts the Budapest Memorandum in play. The effect will be similar, in that we'll be more or less compelled to join the war on Ukraine's side. If we fail to do that, then good luck with any future nonproliferation efforts that involve promises from the "good guys."
- thoughtstheseus 4y agoOddly enough China agreed to protect Ukraine in the event of a nuclear strike.
- squarefoot 4y agoChina aims at becoming/remaining the world #1 economic superpower; Europe's GDP being 10 times the Russian one suggested them to be more pragmatic.
- totony 4y agoIt's already been violated afaik