|
|
|
|
|
|
by camdat
1100 days ago
|
|
|
Honest question, would you limit nuclear research in the 40s for the above reasons? Sure we have nuclear power, but at the risk of the president holding the ability to level most countries. The only difference I see is that the harms you describe from AGI are nebulous and non-specific. |
|
|
But there's another component to that too: the ability to "level another nation" isn't quite a function of nuclear weaponry - it's much more a function of rocketry which makes ICBMs possible. It's perhaps an interesting thought exercise that a world without nuclear weapons could still have a very large scale build up of say, ICBM-delivered thermobaric weapons which would enable a country to rain effective destruction down on any other while being at no risk of being responded to in-kind.
Nukes short-circuited that: because it's much cheaper to put a nuke on an ICBM, and as such all ICBMs are presumed to be nuclear until proven otherwise, as a result now, no one uses ICBM technology to deliver anything but nuclear weapons since launching anything else invites a nuclear response (one of the big problems with most of the "carrier-killed" missile concepts - their launch sites look indistinguishable from nuclear ICBMs).