RE: NANO: Institutional Safety

Rik van Riel (
Wed, 17 Nov 1999 01:09:28 +0100 (CET)

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Dan Fabulich wrote:

> Thus, (surprise!) having a low survivability is a necessary but not a
> sufficient condition for nuclear stability in a MAD world. To get MAD
> stability you need low survivability AND ample opportunity to retaliate.

Which is why the US and the USSR agreed somewhere in the 1960's ('70s?) that they would not build defensive weapons to shoot down each others missiles.

Enemies or not, your own political and economical survival is always more important than the demise of the enemy. Especially when multiple parties are involved.

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Billy Brown wrote:

> Great, so we have a situation like Renaissance Italy - oh, wait,
> that wasn't very peaceful, was it?

It's not about it being peaceful. The point is that the wars in Renaissance Italy were:
- nondestructive
- about economics, with hardly any fighting going on if there wasn't something to be gained - not threatening to the 'stability' of Italy as a whole
- a pretty good incentive to encourage new inventions, economical advances, science and art

While the time may not have been a peaceful one for the citizens of that time, it has been a very good time for the development of the country as a whole (and for the culture we still have today!).


The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network
of people. That is its real strength.