Offence permanently has the upper hand unless energy shields are possible. The worst possible case for the attacker is having to vaporize the armour. This is already simply a matter of spending enough money on energy delivery.
-
Show this thread
-
Because strategy is ironic, this is a more stable, peaceful situation than one where defence has the upper hand.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
If it have 100 men to defend your border because it takes 100, but you build a wall that can be guarded by 10 men, then you have 90 men to spend on raiding parties without compromising your defence. Walls are aggressive.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
Now that any wall can be breached by a cheaper bomb, this dynamic isn't possible. Bombs, therefore, are defensive.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Once a potential target of aggression has enough bombs to entirely wipe out the aggressor, they can simply stop investing in weapons and get on with their life. They have made aggressive war unwinnable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Indeed if the aggressor is vaguely rational, then the target need only get enough bombs such that [invasion cost]+[bomb damage] is equal to [seizable wealth], plus some redundancy. You can blow them up enough when you can blow yourself up. Very cheap.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
By contrast, if walls are effective, then one can invest endlessly in higher and thicker walls. Plus it is easy to betray a wall, difficult to betray a bomb salvo. Defence is unstable. Offence is stable.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread
2/ Given enough time proxy war will turn the whole world into patchwork. Only way to stop it is to end proxy war by giving every nation the bomb. All nuclear armed states will work to prevent that, thus, guaranteeing maximization of no. of countries
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.