End of the world
Nuclear weapons changed the world; they provided a deterrent unlike anything the world has ever known. All previous wars in history would not have happened if either side had nuclear weapons. Of course nuclear powers still have wars against each other, but now they are proxy wars (like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc), but that is a story for a different day.
However, there is one technology that would reserve this. With all the technological advances in the world, countries seem to fall flat trying to create this one thing, but eventually it will happen. That technology is an extremely effective missile defense system. It doesn't seem that difficult to create a technology that can identify an incoming missile (or bombs) and blast it out of the air (using a high powered laser would make sense). Hypothetically, if China and Russia invested $100billion a year into this technology, for however long it takes, until they developed an effective laser grid, what would be the result.
Note: The United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, and France are all investing in this technology, including $10billion the US spends on it every year. However, none of them are even close to 100% effective, but there is no reason why this technology won't be perfected at some point in the future.
Every single empire in the history of the world has fallen. Almost every country has been invaded and occupied. Why do we have this believe in America that such a prospect is impossible (it has happened to everyone else, why are we so special). The nuclear deterrent is one very special reason why (plus our geography), but our nuclear weapons only work if they can each their target.
So let's say that China and Russia (who have virtually unlimited resources and dream of world domination) create this technology and actually invade. They nuke Washington, Hawaii and threaten to nuke a major US city every day until we surrender. We could fight back with traditional weapons, but just look at the size and capacities of those countries (without the ability to ability to launch missiles, our biggest advantage is lost). If we don't surrender, we fight. Both sides races to build more tanks and ships; are we really to win that contest (do we understand the manufacturing and population capacity of China)? They have more people, more resources, and nuclear weapons. Even if we get a few nukes past their defense system, would they really even care about the damage. Maybe, our best bet might to obliterate the entire world environment with the nukes we have, which would cause both sides to lose. Would the rest of the world rush to our aid? Maybe England would, but perhaps the rest of Europe would remember that the US didn't exactly rush to their aid during WW2. It certainly wouldn't help if we had a President that took us out of NATO, defunded the United Nations, and declared an America-first policy.
Eventually, the technology to defend against nuclear missiles we be developed and one country will be first to have it. If that country has a desire to take over the world, than we may be doomed. History has shown that there are a few blood-thirty megalomaniac, dictators at all times. If Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Chiang Kai-shek, or any other dictator would have been able to mass produce nuclear weapons first, they (realistically) could have taken over the world. However, the US was the first and Truman decided that world domination wasn't our thing, which is lucky for everyone. However, the technology to stop nuclear weapons is just an important. Perhaps we should make sure that we win this technological race as well.
Side note: The UN tried to ban all countries from building such a missile defense system (which would maintain the status quo and avoid this issue indefinitely), but the US voted against it. We also had a treaty with the Soviet Union to minimize any missile defense systems that we have (again maintaining the status quo), but the US withdrew from that as well. Of course, in our defense, we might not believe that some other countries would comply with these agreements, putting us a significant risk.
This was my thought in the shower last night. Perhaps is it just my mind trying to think of something less depressing that the current news.
However, there is one technology that would reserve this. With all the technological advances in the world, countries seem to fall flat trying to create this one thing, but eventually it will happen. That technology is an extremely effective missile defense system. It doesn't seem that difficult to create a technology that can identify an incoming missile (or bombs) and blast it out of the air (using a high powered laser would make sense). Hypothetically, if China and Russia invested $100billion a year into this technology, for however long it takes, until they developed an effective laser grid, what would be the result.
Note: The United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, and France are all investing in this technology, including $10billion the US spends on it every year. However, none of them are even close to 100% effective, but there is no reason why this technology won't be perfected at some point in the future.
Every single empire in the history of the world has fallen. Almost every country has been invaded and occupied. Why do we have this believe in America that such a prospect is impossible (it has happened to everyone else, why are we so special). The nuclear deterrent is one very special reason why (plus our geography), but our nuclear weapons only work if they can each their target.
So let's say that China and Russia (who have virtually unlimited resources and dream of world domination) create this technology and actually invade. They nuke Washington, Hawaii and threaten to nuke a major US city every day until we surrender. We could fight back with traditional weapons, but just look at the size and capacities of those countries (without the ability to ability to launch missiles, our biggest advantage is lost). If we don't surrender, we fight. Both sides races to build more tanks and ships; are we really to win that contest (do we understand the manufacturing and population capacity of China)? They have more people, more resources, and nuclear weapons. Even if we get a few nukes past their defense system, would they really even care about the damage. Maybe, our best bet might to obliterate the entire world environment with the nukes we have, which would cause both sides to lose. Would the rest of the world rush to our aid? Maybe England would, but perhaps the rest of Europe would remember that the US didn't exactly rush to their aid during WW2. It certainly wouldn't help if we had a President that took us out of NATO, defunded the United Nations, and declared an America-first policy.
Eventually, the technology to defend against nuclear missiles we be developed and one country will be first to have it. If that country has a desire to take over the world, than we may be doomed. History has shown that there are a few blood-thirty megalomaniac, dictators at all times. If Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Chiang Kai-shek, or any other dictator would have been able to mass produce nuclear weapons first, they (realistically) could have taken over the world. However, the US was the first and Truman decided that world domination wasn't our thing, which is lucky for everyone. However, the technology to stop nuclear weapons is just an important. Perhaps we should make sure that we win this technological race as well.
Side note: The UN tried to ban all countries from building such a missile defense system (which would maintain the status quo and avoid this issue indefinitely), but the US voted against it. We also had a treaty with the Soviet Union to minimize any missile defense systems that we have (again maintaining the status quo), but the US withdrew from that as well. Of course, in our defense, we might not believe that some other countries would comply with these agreements, putting us a significant risk.
This was my thought in the shower last night. Perhaps is it just my mind trying to think of something less depressing that the current news.
Comments