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.
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 missile defense systems 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.
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"
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.
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.
Is a treaty really a technology? Seems like a stretch.
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 missile defense systems 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.
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"
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
No, the response would have been, “nothing” if you truly believe MAD would survive the creation of this hypothetical technology.
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.
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.
That’s foolproof?