Asking the wrong question: the nuclear bomb was developed before nuclear power, and was developed in an environment where it was suspected that the Germans and Japanese - which the US was at war with - were trying to do the same.

But there's another component to that too: the ability to "level another nation" isn't quite a function of nuclear weaponry - it's much more a function of rocketry which makes ICBMs possible. It's perhaps an interesting thought exercise that a world without nuclear weapons could still have a very large scale build up of say, ICBM-delivered thermobaric weapons which would enable a country to rain effective destruction down on any other while being at no risk of being responded to in-kind.

Nukes short-circuited that: because it's much cheaper to put a nuke on an ICBM, and as such all ICBMs are presumed to be nuclear until proven otherwise, as a result now, no one uses ICBM technology to deliver anything but nuclear weapons since launching anything else invites a nuclear response (one of the big problems with most of the "carrier-killed" missile concepts - their launch sites look indistinguishable from nuclear ICBMs).

Honestly, I probably would.

The threat of nuclear war hasn’t gone away you know ? There is as much chance now as ever before for a civilisation ending nuclear exchange to happen even if by accident.

This is real, not fantasy.

I stumbled on this recently: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/essentials/making-sense-o..., I have to say it was fucking terrifying.

Summary the podcast: “we have forgotten about the situation we’re in…it’s as if 75 years ago we rigged our houses and buildings to explode, and then just got distracted”…it’s really with a listen.

I understand where you are coming from but I feel AI fundamentally differs from nuclear power in how accessible it is. Right now, most of the large models are kept from the public purely via a monetary gate - if you can afford GPUs to train these models, you have replicated the power that someone else has. In case of nukes, the ability to process and manufacture them put a physical barrier, which can be enforced by means of sanctions / preventing access to mining etc.

Nuclear research obviously should have been stopped. I hope that goes without needing to be said...

What are you talking about ? Do you think the invasion of Ukraine would even be a thing if Russia didn’t have nukes ? The only single reason it’s gone this far is that Putin dropped the N word several times.

What about North Korea’s nuclear program ? It has happened already the wrong people have access to nukes already. It’s only a matter of time till one goes off again unless more work for peace and nonproliferation is successful and back on the table.

It wasn’t meant to be a direct comparison, it’s that both men were very destructive and their ability for destructive behaviour goes up with access to more powerful tech.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So even a nice guy with powerful tools can turn bad.

Sorry if I caused any offence. I’m not trying to say the guy is as homicidal as hitler, but he is as dangerous and destructive.

America is already doing some form of this no ? Limiting access to semiconductors for China and Russia ?

On the same list as "American Women" and "the computer", and everyone on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

…right

What is the point of inserting politics into an argument like that? You instantly lose 50% of your audience and the only upside is some smug feeling from virtue signaling.