sr123 wrote:We agree that all of the above-mentioned ridiculously-extreme destructive capabilities were realized and then rationally argued to bring peace by making war completely undesirable in the sense of mutually-assured devastation. My thesis is that this *failed* as all of these weapons and tactics were banned or mutually limited such that wars, even between great powers (China vs NATO in Korea, Iran-Iraq), inevitably continued.
I don't think we can count 50s era China a great power, or superpower (yet). Likewise, Iran/Iraq are at best regional powers, admittedly trying to up themselves to at least "considerable force" status. That said, Korean war is one of my least known episodes of 20th century, so I may be wrong in my assumptions.
sr123 wrote:*That said*, I will accept your assertion that we have not had a major international war since the H-bomb, discounting Korea, and am willing to believe that humanity is in a position that such wars can be completely preventable, in which case "Parson The Superweapon" may be an effective peacemaker.
However, I will not yet concede the superweapon to be a peacemaker, as a number of factors have prevented a stand-off on the scale of World War - most importantly would be the end of colonialism (which takes the "World" out of the equation). I will allow the end of colonialism and the U.N. to be direct consequences of the superweapon/superwar, but consider furthermore the information/scientific revolution as a separate driver of peace. By any standard, 50 years is certainly not long enough to make a sure claim.
I will give you that, even though we can discuss how much of information/scientific revolution is direct or indirect result of arms race. After all, ARPANET was funded by Department of Defense via DARPA.
sr123 wrote:Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Now, if Parson the Superweapon is a peacemaker, then he still has to counterbalance against the Arkentools, else the world is decrypted and it's Pax GobwinKnoba instead, which is certainly not "breaking the game" in-comic or irl.
IMO, not so much counterbalance the Arkentools themselves, but assure their even distribution. Admittedly, Arkenpliers battle worth is higher than that of Arkendish and Arkenhammer, but it has to be present on battlefield for wider usage, rendering wielder prone to attack. Wonder what the fourth one will be.
New idea: perhaps Paron's a Teacher, like Prometheus taking the knowledge of Fire from the gods to man. He is here not as a superweapon himself, but as the person who finds the exploit of total destruction and then teaches it to every side. Of course, the destructive paradox of Prometheus has not been lost
Depends if the other sides can learn to use lateral thinking to entertain new tactics and strategies. Up until TBfGK warfare was supposedly very predictable. Now you would need to expect unexpected, in other words, adapt FAST to the situation. And that is just on the defense side, where I find it easier than to craft all-new offensive strategies a la PGLH.
Also some units seem to show a bit of adaptability defense wise (Antium), not even Jack can quite grasp lateral thinking as in "imagine something unimaginable"