Timeline for Portals to Parallel Earths: Economic Effects
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2019 at 13:01 | comment | added | Ventifacts and Yardangs | I don't understand how you're arriving at "little cost to themselves." No matter which country attempts this, it's an absurdly risky plan with no actual chance of gaining the average participant anything. In the short term, someone crazy with no long-term plan can cause a lot of damage and then self-destruct, and in that sense this is a potentially dangerous technology. But no nation that understood the technology would attempt anything like this. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your suggestion. There's a chat for this question now, so if you want, we can go over it there. | |
| Apr 17, 2019 at 4:04 | comment | added | Marbrand | I'm not saying North Korea would conquer the world. Their logistics would fail them. They would just wreck the world for little actual cost to themselves. But when you include the possibility of Russia doing this? | |
| Apr 14, 2019 at 8:50 | comment | added | Ventifacts and Yardangs | 2 points I want to make here. First, the whole point of mutually-assured destruction is that it doesn't matter if NK has a million nukes - if they use them, it only takes 1 US nuke to destroy them in return. Second, say world 1's NK multiplies its army with the intent of conquering worlds one by one. Once they've conquered the US (assuming no nukes were fired somehow), how exactly do they plan on keeping the world from retaliating after their army leaves to help NK 2? These sorts of plans seem good on paper but fall apart because they don't actually increase your resources in the long term. | |
| Apr 14, 2019 at 4:41 | history | edited | Marbrand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Format change.
|
| Apr 14, 2019 at 4:27 | history | answered | Marbrand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |