Timeline for Would instantaneous teleportation encourage or discourage warfare?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2017 at 10:11 | answer | added | Burki | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 14, 2017 at 2:55 | answer | added | mensenisevirem | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 20, 2014 at 19:50 | history | edited | HDE 226868♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 19, 2014 at 0:17 | answer | added | Steve Jessop | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 8, 2014 at 18:02 | answer | added | supercat | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 2, 2014 at 9:45 | comment | added | Raestloz | I'd say that the first civilization that discovered such power will transport their most powerful bomb into the royal/presidential bedroom around midnight, thereby winning the war, this will discourage open warfare (relying on brute force) and encourage guerilla tactics and espionage (less strength, more mind tricks) | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 23:53 | comment | added | Envite | You say "...can instantly transport a large army...", but can them instantly transport any other thing, like a nuclear bomb, a biological weapon, a single assasin or some tons of sulphuric acid? And, is this transport "from here to anyplace (wizards's teleporting)", "from here to anyplace and viceversa (Star Trek transporter)" or "from anyplace to anyplace (God's wish)"? | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 3:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 24, 2014 at 14:17 | |||||
| S Sep 19, 2014 at 5:47 | history | suggested | octern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
More accurate title
|
| Sep 19, 2014 at 5:45 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 19, 2014 at 5:47 | |||||
| Sep 18, 2014 at 11:39 | answer | added | celtschk | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 18, 2014 at 9:51 | answer | added | Engineer | timeline score: 8 | |
| Sep 18, 2014 at 8:40 | vote | accept | congusbongus | ||
| Sep 18, 2014 at 7:49 | answer | added | Fulli | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 18, 2014 at 7:26 | answer | added | Katie | timeline score: 8 | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 15:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 17, 2014 at 15:51 | |||||
| Sep 17, 2014 at 2:56 | answer | added | Bobson | timeline score: 28 | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 2:39 | answer | added | Joshua Barron | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 2:30 | comment | added | Bobson | @congusbongus - I would say "resources or 'they're different'", personally. Humans can be very xenophobic. | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 1:51 | comment | added | congusbongus | @NauticalMile assume a conflict over resources. I personally believe all conflicts can be boiled down to this, but that would be a different question. The instant travel is just an extreme example, the general question is expressed in the title. If the answer depends on specifics like cost, that would be good to include - I don't know if it depends. | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 1:41 | comment | added | NauticalMile | I think it might also depend on the nature of this transport? It sounds from the question like you are talking about some sort of group transport (i.e. is only fesible for large groups of people), but does it also apply to individuals? Can you give a sense of how expensive the transport is? | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 1:32 | comment | added | NauticalMile | Nice Question. Is there a primary motivation for this war? Is it over resources, religious differences, political ideologies, or are we only to assume that both nations wish to destroy each other at all costs? | |
| Sep 17, 2014 at 0:40 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 17, 2014 at 1:58 | |||||
| Sep 17, 2014 at 0:39 | history | asked | congusbongus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |