4 ms·

Ignoring the calls for it to be built by a "one world government", it would be difficult to do this in secret. Those that possess nuclear weapons would simply k

Ignoring the calls for it to be built by a "one world government", it would be difficult to do this in secret. Those that possess nuclear weapons would simply keep it from being built. Since it can't destroy all nuclear weapons at once but has to do so one at a time, using the power equal to the generation capacity of the UK, it wouldn't take long for any nuclear nation to detect this and simply nuke the source long before it could destroy even a small fraction of the existing nuclear stockpile. As a thought experiment, it's pretty good. But there's no real practical application.

chii 3y ago
This is the same argument as having a nuclear missile shield that is 100% effective. If such a shield becomes operational, then there's no reason not to first strike anyone without such a shield, as there'd be no repercussions. So, by that same logic, the opponent knows this, and thus, it's in their interest to first strike, before the shield becomes operational. So the MAD doctrine no longer applies, and we'd have destroyed the world. Therefore, even starting to make such a technology will very quickly spiral the world into a nuclear appocalypse.
- waffleiron 3y ago
  This is why the ABMT was in my opinion one of the most important recent arms control treaties. Making sure you cannot defend yourself against a second strike with high likelihood will prevent a first strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    Yeah, that reasoning seems broken to me. An ABM system can be developed surreptitiously; it wouldn't be easy to distinguish ordinary research launches from ABM test launches, or to distinguish ABMs from other kinds of air-defense missile. Patriots, for example, are supposedly able to defend against ballistic missiles. If you can't detect another state developing ABM systems, then the treaty becomes unenforceable, and is a destabilising factor.
    - waffleiron 3y ago
      The treaty ran for 50 years, and was extended within that time. There was thus obvious value to it.
      - denton-scratch 3y ago
        Non-sequitur? People don't sign treaties that prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do. It follows that the parties didn't want to develop/overcome ABM systems. When one of the parties changed their mind (under Ronald Ray-guns), the treaty ended. But it turned out to be very difficult and expensive to build an ABM system that can protect much more than an airbase from ballistic missiles. Protecting something like the entire continental USA was infeasible.
lukan 3y ago
If it is build deep deep underground, it might work long enough to get the job done. But there are other ways to stop such a project, besides nuking it.

chii 3y ago

This is the same argument as having a nuclear missile shield that is 100% effective. If such a shield becomes operational, then there's no reason not to first strike anyone without such a shield, as there'd be no repercussions. So, by that same logic, the opponent knows this, and thus, it's in their interest to first strike, before the shield becomes operational. So the MAD doctrine no longer applies, and we'd have destroyed the world. Therefore, even starting to make such a technology will very quickly spiral the world into a nuclear appocalypse.

waffleiron 3y ago
This is why the ABMT was in my opinion one of the most important recent arms control treaties. Making sure you cannot defend yourself against a second strike with high likelihood will prevent a first strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Yeah, that reasoning seems broken to me. An ABM system can be developed surreptitiously; it wouldn't be easy to distinguish ordinary research launches from ABM test launches, or to distinguish ABMs from other kinds of air-defense missile. Patriots, for example, are supposedly able to defend against ballistic missiles. If you can't detect another state developing ABM systems, then the treaty becomes unenforceable, and is a destabilising factor.
  - waffleiron 3y ago
    The treaty ran for 50 years, and was extended within that time. There was thus obvious value to it.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      Non-sequitur? People don't sign treaties that prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do. It follows that the parties didn't want to develop/overcome ABM systems. When one of the parties changed their mind (under Ronald Ray-guns), the treaty ended. But it turned out to be very difficult and expensive to build an ABM system that can protect much more than an airbase from ballistic missiles. Protecting something like the entire continental USA was infeasible.

lukan 3y ago

If it is build deep deep underground, it might work long enough to get the job done. But there are other ways to stop such a project, besides nuking it.