Can you give one example of a technological development that was successfully suppressed in a sustainable way?
(Your example with nukes isn't it, because, while we reduce stockpiles, the nukes are still around, as is the know-how on how to make them.)
For example, one 'technological product' I cannot abide by, and for which I routinely consider reaching our for a sledgehammer, is the automated supermarket check-out. Its intelligence and UX is abysmal. It's slow, unresponsive, pedantic, intolerant, and cannot rely on itself without continual help from a bored mind-numbed shop assistant.
What is missing is a technology that is fast, responsive, tolerant, intelligent and autonomous. You might ask well how would that be possible. That's the point. We or the people that build it, don't have the know-how or wherewithal to do so.
It is clear the technology we do have is not the best that we can possibly develop; and for many reasons, there is not an interest or desire to do so.
Like the luddites, I really couldn't give a toss it costs much less resources for them while achieving the same crude goal.
Think laser pointer attached to an eye-seeking aimbot. Scary stuff.
Still, though, the technology evidently exists (and we still make lasers that are plenty powerful to do this). The ban is on its use for this purpose, not the tech itself.
Ukraine had 3rd largest world nuclear arsenal before they gave them up.
It's hard not to conclude - never give up nukes if you have them.
Only because it was one part of the USSR though.
Besides, where were those people crying for Ukraine when the democratically elected government of the country was overthrown by the riots of a rag-tag coalition that included bona-fide neo-nazis (with swastikas et all)?
What does it change?
> democratically elected government of the country was overthrown by the riots
After shooting at protesters and killing over 100 of them you lose all the legitimacy that comes from being democratically elected as far as I am concerned.
> included bona-fide neo-nazis
Among hundreds of thousands of people someone had nazi flags. It's OK to shoot at that crowd, obviously.
It's sad how Russians lost all hope of a modern, civilized and free country and accepted Putin autocracy. I pity you. Nothing will change there as long as Putin rules. Whole country stopped in time.
That is was perhaps Russia itself (the main entity in USSR) that designed, built, and put those weapons there.
>After shooting at protesters and killing over 100 of them you lose all the legitimacy that comes from being democratically elected as far as I am concerned.
So, if the Weimar Republic shot down the Nazis at Krystalnatch they'd lose their legitimacy?
Not to mention that this wasn't some "peaceful" conflict. 18 policemen where shot dead as well. If an armed revolt like that happened against the governments in many other places there would be much more than 1 to 5 ratio of police vs protesters deaths.
In the events of Mexico in 1968 for example, there were 300+ shot [1]. That government not only didn't lose its legitimacy, but enjoyed hosting the Olympics with all western nations participating. And those people were killed without such provocation (killing policemen) or toppling the government or anything, just for protesting. How's that for hypocrisy?
>Among hundreds of thousands of people someone had nazi flags.
"Someone"? 18 of the shot protestors (and thousands more in the protests) were members of neo-nazi parties and groups (e.g. Svodoba). Wikipedia: "Eighteen Svoboda members were killed in the Euromaidan protests and the 2014 Ukrainian revolution". They also got 3 ministers in the post-events government. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre#Massacre [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#2012...
Lisp and Smalltalk.