It would depend on the tech.
Low tech: e.g. detect and destroy incoming weapons…if a single major power had this, it would bad. They maybe emboldened to use their weapons (both nuke and conventional), as their perfect defense would keep their assets (people, places, weapon systems) safe.
High tech: e.g. directed EMP type weapon that could eliminate any weapon world wide at launch, this would eliminate the MAD doctrine. No-one would be able to launch nukes at anyone. Conventional war would likely have the same driving factors that it does today. But also, it may not get “car bomb” nukes, so nuclear war still possible, just in a very different mode.
Super high tech: e.g. some crazy quantum detection and elimination of weapons that haven’t been fired. This would be terrible, basically the group/state that has this power eliminates its rivals ability to retaliate with a proportional response. They instantly become the major threat in the world, this would destabilize any alliances that they have, no one would believe them if they said that they also disabled their own nukes. This would put the world on the edge of WW3 in a heartbeat.
Turns out, having a bunch of nukes is a pretty foolproof deterrent
OP’s learning what we kids knew in the 80s.
War is just another game,
Tailor made for the insane,
But make a threat of their annihilation,
And nobody wants to play,
If that’s the only thing that keeps the peace,
[Chorus] Then thank God for the bomb!
Probably more war:
- Depending on the country who developed it, the risk of nuclear war could go up.
If I don’t have to worry about nuclear retaliation, maybe I’m very confident in engaging in war. After all, my nukes will still work, and everyone else’s won’t.
- If the technology is shared equally to all countries at the same time, the risk of conventional war could go up.
Imagine the nuclear armed countries who are enemies of another nation with a bigger military. North Korea vs USA, Pakistan vs India. In these cases, nuclear weapons are a deterrence against the stronger opponent. Without this, the country with a stronger conventional force may be more likely to they think they’ll win a war unscathed.
US and Russia used to have a treaty against either country developing anti-ballistic missiles. The idea was that if 1 party trusted their ABMs too much, they would no longer care about a counter attack, and that would undermine the MAD doctrine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
So… you’re talking about playing by the rules I’m talking about something different.
They’re talking about a treaty designed to prevent the result of the exact situation you’re asking about. Extrapolating a step gives you at least one answer to your question.
They already have - having Nukes.
They already have - having Nukes.
That only defends against a sane leadership with a military chain of command that isn’t compromised.
