Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, has been a thing since the Soviets tested their first nuke circa the '50s. In that funny little game, the two powers always remain paranoid about being blinked off the map by trans-uranic tomfoolery, but never take the bait and attack first out of fear of retaliation. It's the world's deadliest stare-down contest.
However, I'd argue that this is actually a great thing. In my opinion, humans don't do anything at all unless motivated by greed, lust, fear and laziness. Instantaneously changing into a subject of physics by atomic fire is absolutely frightening, and therefore we have researched into faster computers for ballistics calculation, better communication technologies, more investment into particle physics in general to develop better nukes, more research into radiation and its effects, so on and so forth. I can name one thing off my head rn, the nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imager (nMRI). I doubt we'd develop any of that without the progress in computation and nuclear science.
In history, warfare has been the greatest catalyst of progress. Rudimentary ballistics, industrial development, a lot of advanced chemistry, rocketry (the first rockets were firecrackers, I know. But it didn't take too long for some geniuses to fire them at forts). In essence, it is the Spirit of Competition driving innovation through necessity and rarely, dedication.
Destruction in warfare is bad. Very bad. But, if MAD keeps us from destroying ourselves entirely, and provides a path to lightning-fast progress in exchange for paranoia, fear and some proxy wars, I'm all for it. Maybe MAD isn't so mad after all.
However, I'd argue that this is actually a great thing. In my opinion, humans don't do anything at all unless motivated by greed, lust, fear and laziness. Instantaneously changing into a subject of physics by atomic fire is absolutely frightening, and therefore we have researched into faster computers for ballistics calculation, better communication technologies, more investment into particle physics in general to develop better nukes, more research into radiation and its effects, so on and so forth. I can name one thing off my head rn, the nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imager (nMRI). I doubt we'd develop any of that without the progress in computation and nuclear science.
In history, warfare has been the greatest catalyst of progress. Rudimentary ballistics, industrial development, a lot of advanced chemistry, rocketry (the first rockets were firecrackers, I know. But it didn't take too long for some geniuses to fire them at forts). In essence, it is the Spirit of Competition driving innovation through necessity and rarely, dedication.
Destruction in warfare is bad. Very bad. But, if MAD keeps us from destroying ourselves entirely, and provides a path to lightning-fast progress in exchange for paranoia, fear and some proxy wars, I'm all for it. Maybe MAD isn't so mad after all.
