Comment on What would it mean for the world if America was confident they developed a technology that would act as a fool prove deterrent from nuclear attacks what would that mean for the rest of the world?

Brown5500@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  So… you’re talking about playing by the rules I’m talking about something different.

  source

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    They’re talking about a treaty designed to prevent the result of the exact situation you’re asking about. Extrapolating a step gives you at least one answer to your question.

    source

    • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Is a treaty really a technology? Seems like a stretch.

      source

      • Brown5500@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The point of bringing up the treaty is just to point out that the result of the situation you are describing was so scary that for about 30 years the 2 biggest nuclear powers agreed not to do it. That is all to say that one answer to your question is " US and Russia pretty much saw your scenario resulting in inevitable full scale nuclear war"

        source
      • fartsparkles@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I’d say treaties are indeed a technology; they’re frameworks / systems that arose around the time commerce was invented. Since technology is purely the application of knowledge to achieve goals, while they may be somewhat intangible, so is software which I think most would agree is technology.

        source
      • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Sometimes we ask questions to gain knowledge we simply haven’t found yet.

        Other times we ask questions because some knowledge just won’t stick in our brains even when it’s given to us, and then we spend the thread fighting the answer for that same reason: it just won’t stick.

        Anti-ballistic missles are a technology.

        You asked what would happen. A treaty is a thing that can happen.

        Why don’t you tell us what you think would happen and be done, if that’s what this is really about.

        source
      • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The treaty isn’t the technology, it’s the result of people much better informed on the topic considering the scenario you are asking about.

        The technology is the hypothetical anti-ballistic missiles.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • iarigby@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        core if your question was about the outcome that such technology would have. The reasoning behind the treaty explains that outcome.

        You’ll benefit from working on being a more receptive to new information

        source

        • -> View More Comments