Forrest Bishop wrote:
> From: Anders Sandberg <email@example.com>
> > > Fact is,
> > > offensive technology is running far enough ahead of defensive technology
> > > to blast civilization right now, fair or unfair, and I think the problem
> > > will only get worse.
> I don't agree at all. The efficacy of offensive and defensive measures
> change place over time, historically. The current situation is temporary.
> Even a simple strategy like change of address (e.g. Mars) will tip the
> balance back.
> > The important thing is to do a threat analysis, and try to see what
> > countermeasures (including the 36th stratagem, running away)
> Isn't this number 1 stategem? I've only lost one fight in my
> entire life, when I slipped going around a corner.
In fact, recent studies have shown that the Russian nuclear capability, numbers of warheads, has dropped below the limits of the proposed Start II treaty, which are half the levels of the (still unratified by the Russian State Duma) START I treaty. While we aren't anywhere near in as sad a shape, we still haven't complied with START I because the Russians refuse to ratify it, even though we have ratified it on our part. Iraq and North Korea are the only ones whe seem stupid enough to actually want to use nuclear weapons, while the India/Pakistan exchange of tests was merely bringing into the open capabilities which have, in fact, existed since the 1970's (when India did, in fact, test one device) to no adverse actions. I think that if nations like Pakistan are smart enough not to use nukes in real life, and other countries like South Africa are smart enough to actually disband their programs and give up nuclear capability, it says something significant in opposition to the position above.