US and Russia used to have a treaty against either country developing anti-ballistic missiles. The idea was that if 1 party trusted their ABMs too much, they would no longer care about a counter attack, and that would undermine the MAD doctrine.
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?
Submitted 1 day ago by Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
Brown5500@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So… you’re talking about playing by the rules I’m talking about something different.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 17 hours ago
It would depend on the tech.
Low tech: e.g. detect and destroy incoming weapons…if a single major power had this, it would bad. They maybe emboldened to use their weapons (both nuke and conventional), as their perfect defense would keep their assets (people, places, weapon systems) safe.
High tech: e.g. directed EMP type weapon that could eliminate any weapon world wide at launch, this would eliminate the MAD doctrine. No-one would be able to launch nukes at anyone. Conventional war would likely have the same driving factors that it does today. But also, it may not get “car bomb” nukes, so nuclear war still possible, just in a very different mode.
Super high tech: e.g. some crazy quantum detection and elimination of weapons that haven’t been fired. This would be terrible, basically the group/state that has this power eliminates its rivals ability to retaliate with a proportional response. They instantly become the major threat in the world, this would destabilize any alliances that they have, no one would believe them if they said that they also disabled their own nukes. This would put the world on the edge of WW3 in a heartbeat.
CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
Probably more war:
- Depending on the country who developed it, the risk of nuclear war could go up.
If I don’t have to worry about nuclear retaliation, maybe I’m very confident in engaging in war. After all, my nukes will still work, and everyone else’s won’t.
- If the technology is shared equally to all countries at the same time, the risk of conventional war could go up.
Imagine the nuclear armed countries who are enemies of another nation with a bigger military. North Korea vs USA, Pakistan vs India. In these cases, nuclear weapons are a deterrence against the stronger opponent. Without this, the country with a stronger conventional force may be more likely to they think they’ll win a war unscathed.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
They already have - having Nukes.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
They already have - having Nukes.
That only defends against a sane leadership with a military chain of command that isn’t compromised.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
sigh
Nm
blarghly@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Also, if you meant that a country created some sort of perfect defence against nukes, then every other country would immediately start pouring money into creating their own version, while working on ways of subverting the new technology.
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 day ago
We already have it, they’re called nuclear bombs, and MAD.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
How is that fool proof?
ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.”
― Carl Sagan
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Hasn’t failed yet (yes I know that’s the survivorship bias fallacy)
scarabic@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
This points to a flaw in your question.
You probably should have said “foolproof countermeasure” if you really just wanted to remove nukes as a factor to see what happens.
But you said “foolproof deterrent” and now you’re quibbling at people over whether a psychological deterrent can actually be foolproof.
Maybe not, but even your question is nonsensical. The fact is that we are already using guaranteed total destruction of the world as a deterrent and it has so far worked. What more deterrence are you even suggesting we might add to that???
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I think the US has already achieved it and aren’t saying anything.
Think how much money they’ve poured in there over the decades, as much as the rest of the world combined.
They were working on directed energy weapons in the 80s to neutralise them from space, but the tech was ‘decades away’. They had a working pilot way back in 2000 too.
Ziggurat@jlai.lu 1 day ago
The problem is that with the MAD doctrine, it’s not about neutrajazing a warning shot where a tactical nuke would neutralise an aircraft carrier fleet or an tank division. It’s about dozens if not hundred of nuke flying to your country.
Even 80% efficiency in the counter measure would mean remove 10 of the 50 big cities from the map. This has drastic consequences for a country. Especially in a hyper connected, advanced industry society
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Ok, how do you feel about elon musk (and subsequently russia) gain access to some of our most classified data.
auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 hours ago
We’re cooked.
FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 1 day ago
How does confidence factor into this? I’ve been confident in stuff before and it turned out that confidence was misplaced. Pride cometh before the fall shit. Confidence alone risks cockiness. Cockiness may lead to somebody testing your Golden Shield. Didn’t work. You now don’t have a country any more.
If the Golden Shield really worked it’s a question of capacity. If you had enough juice in it to repel all nuclear weapons you could throw at this country in a worst-case scenario, you’d have a powerful defense against the most powerful weapon on Earth that’s ready to deploy this minute. It may not save you from conventional attacks. It may not shield you from chemical or biological weapons so gruesome they aren’t currently shelf-ready. But development of those would suddenly become a viable prospect. I fear it just turns the spiral of development of more destructive weaponry one more rotation. Extrapolating from the last 6000 years of history, we’ve gone from sticks and stones to vaporizing people into thin mist by harnessing the power of the atom. We’re already in the narrow bit of the spiral. Paradoxically, developing a Golden Shield against nuclear attacks may lead to wiping our species out for good.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
The US and / or Russia would obtain it ASAP, by hook or crook. Followed rapidly by World War 3
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
So convention warfare.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
Your premise is that nuclear warfare is no longer possible, so by default, yes.
remon@ani.social 1 day ago
It’s a bit of an oxymoron. A detterence is about discouraging your opponent from doing something, not preventing them. So kind of by definition it can’t be fool proof.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Does anyone actually want to answer the question?
Hazmatastic@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
I think the idea is one of them is convincing someone to not do something they still have the power to do, while the other would be taking that power away completely. There may be a truly foolproof way to disarm a weapon, but there will never be a foolproof way to convince someone of anything due to the unpredictability of people.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
It would just be another system they could sell to other countries. That’s it.
drspod@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Something a lot like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpBAFOmdNgU
jewbacca117@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Turns out, having a bunch of nukes is a pretty foolproof deterrent
shalafi@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
OP’s learning what we kids knew in the 80s.
War is just another game,
Tailor made for the insane,
But make a threat of their annihilation,
And nobody wants to play,
If that’s the only thing that keeps the peace,
[Chorus] Then thank God for the bomb!
scarabic@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I mean… for now. How long until drones with thrusters on their backs can land on a missle and redirect it wherever they want?