• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      21 hours ago

      They’re talking about a treaty designed to prevent the result of the exact situation you’re asking about. Extrapolating a step gives you at least one answer to your question.

        • iarigby@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          core if your question was about the outcome that such technology would have. The reasoning behind the treaty explains that outcome.

          You’ll benefit from working on being a more receptive to new information

        • Brown5500@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          20 hours ago

          The point of bringing up the treaty is just to point out that the result of the situation you are describing was so scary that for about 30 years the 2 biggest nuclear powers agreed not to do it. That is all to say that one answer to your question is " US and Russia pretty much saw your scenario resulting in inevitable full scale nuclear war"

        • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          The treaty isn’t the technology, it’s the result of people much better informed on the topic considering the scenario you are asking about.

          The technology is the hypothetical anti-ballistic missiles.

        • fartsparkles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I’d say treaties are indeed a technology; they’re frameworks / systems that arose around the time commerce was invented. Since technology is purely the application of knowledge to achieve goals, while they may be somewhat intangible, so is software which I think most would agree is technology.