That's one of the logical conundrums of MAD, that it will always be unproven..until it's proved that it doesn't work.
That's what I'm trying to get at.
MAD should always work unless a suicidal/deluded person is controlling one side, or one side can render the other sides weapons useless some how.
MAD is bad. But it can work. Better solutions need to be found whenever it's being used. Hopefully humanity can come to a point in our cultural evolution where excessive tactics like that don't need to be used (I'm not holding my breath ).
That's one of the logical conundrums of MAD, that it will always be unproven..until it's proved that it doesn't work.
That's what I'm trying to get at.
MAD should always work unless a suicidal/deluded person is controlling one side, or one side can render the other sides weapons useless some how.
MAD is bad. But it can work. Better solutions need to be found whenever it's being used. Hopefully humanity can come to a point in our cultural evolution where excessive tactics like that don't need to be used (I'm not holding my breath ).
Yeah...roger that.
Escalation of weapons reaches a point of diminishing returns when real science is shared that improves the chances of members of our species leading a satisfying life.
AMH I'm having trouble following the syntax of your words. I wouldn't bother, but I'm interested in what you have to say.
I'm just not fully understanding you at the moment.
Understand. We should let it rest. Maybe one of the others in this forum might help us both. This is a difficult subject.
Perhaps AMH's point is that: To the extent that the positive outcomes of science, (the discoveries that make our lives better), are available to and experienced by all, then the impetus for groups to prepare for mutual destruction is diminished.