But nuclear weapons and their lack of use prove my point. The goal should be lack of weapon use, yes? People use weapons especially at scale when they think they can get away with it. Current war proves that nations and groups think they can get away with it. I'm posing a way to remove that impunity.
You are aware I assume of ‘Murphy’s Law’. The one sure way to avoid nuclear war , or most wars , is not to have nuclear weapons, or any weapons for that matter. Impunity does not remove the consequences of ‘Murphy’s Law’, it just extends the time at which impunity still holds the reins, but does not remove its possibility.
I.e. landing the above brings about the question as to how we can remove the weapons, but if we don’t remove the reasons why the weapons exist, we cannot remove the weapons… ??????
Goals and implementation are different. We already made murder illegal, but it persists. Just banning something doesn't make it go away. DEA is drug enforcement agency, as in drug war, as in making something criminal doesn't just make it go away.
besides, there are a billion legitimate uses for nuclear explosives as with any explosive. We just don't use them for this expressly because of the war problem.
Banning nuclear explosions would be like banning stars…
I’m writing about eliminating nuclear BOMBS , and banning them would certainly be an idea. Helen Caldicitt for one would agree with you that banning nuclear weapons does not seem to be on humanity’s menu,
Interesting idea. Do you think it could be effective even as drone warfare becomes the default? The drone thing introduces a sort of David-Goliath dynamic, and ICBMs fitted with non-nuclear warheads surely fall on the Goliath side.
Excellent question. And basically yes. Drones live at a different scale, or from the other direction, an ICBM is just another drone. Drones change war because they are basically smart bullets. ICBM is a very large smart bullet. For clarity this ICBM concept has a wide range of tunability. Firstly they don't even have a warhead, they have an inert mass in the nose where the nuclear warhead would have been. The missile itself is the payload. By default it will arrive at mach 27~ give or take. Impact will be substantial unless you actively reduce speed, which is an option, so instead of taking out a block, you can take out a building, or even a single transport. This has all been deeply explored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_Prompt_Strike (TIL they changed the name.)
The innovation here isn't the tech, it's the radically transparent use case to expressly fill a gap in the escalation with the goal of suppressing all weapon use generally through rational and honest disclosure of intent and ability.
One thing the Ukraine and Iran wars have made more evident is that these smaller countries can do significant damage way more cheaply with drones than the big weapons of the larger states like the US and Russia. A key advantage of ICBMs is they can travel quickly over huge distances. But they're expensive, and to do what you envision them doing, they have to be expensive because they have to be heavy. Is there a way to develop intercontinental drones that can travel huge distances quickly and still wreak devastating damage without costing what ICBMs cost?
The proposal could essentially cost zero dollars because it's ultimately a diplomatic suggestion.
Only one nation has to underwrite the actual launches.
New technologies are possible but this is mostly a policy, doctrine, and messaging proposal.
The advantage here isn't speed, it's certainty. Imagine if China said to the US: If one new American solider sets foot on Iranian soil we'll level the statue of liberty, from this specific sub, at this specific time, and they start livestreaming from the sub in real time. (And if you attack that sub we'll nuke D.C.) What would happen? I can assure you we'd find a way not to land troops. Or we'd lose the statue, and the next time the target would be more serious.
It would assemble a new version of MAD only smaller. War of the scale between genuine police action and ww2 would halt, and stay halted.
The only reason wars exist after the nuke was because everyone knows they won't suicide at the drop of a hat. The bank has cultivated this operational space to bleed money from the governments of the world into the corporations.
It's a very interesting notion. But what if a madman or woman gets control of the weapon systems of a country (think Trump)? Might the concept you're proposing increase the chances of spiraling into a nuclear dustup? You're assuming brinkmanship managed by rational agents, aren't you?
You ask excellent incisive questions. The fact that we're all still alive means either that rationality dominates, or that the apparent madmen in government, aren't actually the ones in charge. Either way we've already crossed that bridge. Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons already exist.
No matter the rhetoric, wars start in your own neighborhood. Eventually, as weapons increase in lethality, they become the nuclear kind.
The mentality which will have been the catalyst of a probable war of Armaddgefdon, was created in the jungles of human history.
We are jungle- like and with nuclear arsenals ready to settle yet another conflict, the end of humanity cannot be far away.
But nuclear weapons and their lack of use prove my point. The goal should be lack of weapon use, yes? People use weapons especially at scale when they think they can get away with it. Current war proves that nations and groups think they can get away with it. I'm posing a way to remove that impunity.
You are aware I assume of ‘Murphy’s Law’. The one sure way to avoid nuclear war , or most wars , is not to have nuclear weapons, or any weapons for that matter. Impunity does not remove the consequences of ‘Murphy’s Law’, it just extends the time at which impunity still holds the reins, but does not remove its possibility.
I.e. landing the above brings about the question as to how we can remove the weapons, but if we don’t remove the reasons why the weapons exist, we cannot remove the weapons… ??????
It's not about removing them. It's about making them unused relics or future fuel pellets for the civilian reactors. /points at the drug war
You don't solve this by going DEA.
If you remove nuclear weapons, how could they be used?
You reply by writing about “drug wars”, and DEA… please enlighten my ignorance… don’t know the acronym..
Murphy’s Law’ any comment??
Goals and implementation are different. We already made murder illegal, but it persists. Just banning something doesn't make it go away. DEA is drug enforcement agency, as in drug war, as in making something criminal doesn't just make it go away.
besides, there are a billion legitimate uses for nuclear explosives as with any explosive. We just don't use them for this expressly because of the war problem.
Space travel and mining for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Banning nuclear explosions would be like banning stars…
I’m writing about eliminating nuclear BOMBS , and banning them would certainly be an idea. Helen Caldicitt for one would agree with you that banning nuclear weapons does not seem to be on humanity’s menu,
Interesting idea. Do you think it could be effective even as drone warfare becomes the default? The drone thing introduces a sort of David-Goliath dynamic, and ICBMs fitted with non-nuclear warheads surely fall on the Goliath side.
Excellent question. And basically yes. Drones live at a different scale, or from the other direction, an ICBM is just another drone. Drones change war because they are basically smart bullets. ICBM is a very large smart bullet. For clarity this ICBM concept has a wide range of tunability. Firstly they don't even have a warhead, they have an inert mass in the nose where the nuclear warhead would have been. The missile itself is the payload. By default it will arrive at mach 27~ give or take. Impact will be substantial unless you actively reduce speed, which is an option, so instead of taking out a block, you can take out a building, or even a single transport. This has all been deeply explored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_Prompt_Strike (TIL they changed the name.)
The innovation here isn't the tech, it's the radically transparent use case to expressly fill a gap in the escalation with the goal of suppressing all weapon use generally through rational and honest disclosure of intent and ability.
One thing the Ukraine and Iran wars have made more evident is that these smaller countries can do significant damage way more cheaply with drones than the big weapons of the larger states like the US and Russia. A key advantage of ICBMs is they can travel quickly over huge distances. But they're expensive, and to do what you envision them doing, they have to be expensive because they have to be heavy. Is there a way to develop intercontinental drones that can travel huge distances quickly and still wreak devastating damage without costing what ICBMs cost?
The proposal could essentially cost zero dollars because it's ultimately a diplomatic suggestion.
Only one nation has to underwrite the actual launches.
New technologies are possible but this is mostly a policy, doctrine, and messaging proposal.
The advantage here isn't speed, it's certainty. Imagine if China said to the US: If one new American solider sets foot on Iranian soil we'll level the statue of liberty, from this specific sub, at this specific time, and they start livestreaming from the sub in real time. (And if you attack that sub we'll nuke D.C.) What would happen? I can assure you we'd find a way not to land troops. Or we'd lose the statue, and the next time the target would be more serious.
It would assemble a new version of MAD only smaller. War of the scale between genuine police action and ww2 would halt, and stay halted.
The only reason wars exist after the nuke was because everyone knows they won't suicide at the drop of a hat. The bank has cultivated this operational space to bleed money from the governments of the world into the corporations.
It's a very interesting notion. But what if a madman or woman gets control of the weapon systems of a country (think Trump)? Might the concept you're proposing increase the chances of spiraling into a nuclear dustup? You're assuming brinkmanship managed by rational agents, aren't you?
You ask excellent incisive questions. The fact that we're all still alive means either that rationality dominates, or that the apparent madmen in government, aren't actually the ones in charge. Either way we've already crossed that bridge. Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons already exist.