From: hal@finney.org
Date: Tue Nov 16 1999 - 12:29:36 MST
Billy Brown, <bbrown@transcient.com>, writes:
> There are several unfortunate trends here. The first is that the
> survivability of military forces tends to increase over time, because
> burying yourself under a mountain is easier than moving one. As a result
> the chance of nuclear weapons being used actually increases, which is a
> shame because the environment and civilian population on the surface are
> still very fragile targets.
I thought it was generally agreed that survivability was a stabilizing
trait, not a destabilizing one. It means that a first strike will only
invite a retaliatory attack which you cannot defend against. It keeps
you in a position of mutually assured destruction. From this situation
it is possible to negotiate downwards to a wary and watchful peace,
which is close to what we have today.
The danger is when the opposite happens, when survivability is lost due
to some breakthrough which makes the first strike effective. Then if
both sides achieve this state it is completely unstable, as the one which
attacks first will survive and the one which does not will be destroyed.
If nanotech really does increase survivability more than first strike
killing power then that would be very good news for the prospects of
peace in the future.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:47 MST