>>> The final conclusion I’d like to draw from this model is that it would be preferable to not have weapons that could destroy other weapons. For instance, suppose that both parties were countries that had biological weapons that when released infected a large proportion of the other country, caused them obvious symptoms, and then killed them a week later, leaving a few days between the onset of symptoms and losing the ability to effectively do things. In such a situation, you would know that if I struck first, you would have ample ability to get still-functioning people to your weapons centres and launch a second strike, regardless of your ability to detect the biological weapon before it arrives, or the number of weapons and weapons centres that you or I have. Therefore, you are not tempted to launch first.
This was the case with the San people (formerly Kalahari Bushmen). They had slow acting poison arrows . This meant that any deadly fight resulted in the death of all the parties. So such fights were few and far between.
This was the case with the San people (formerly Kalahari Bushmen). They had slow acting poison arrows . This meant that any deadly fight resulted in the death of all the parties. So such fights were few and far between.