is that the defense is actually used to strike inside another’s boundary, as has been the case for ~all weapons
Yeah, I am worried about this.
This is notably not the case for infosec and encryption, where defensive capability doesn’t imply offensive capability. However, I’m unsure if this is also true for any physical interventions. (e.g.: Vaccines? No, bioweapons… Nanotech? No…)
That said, physical interventions do seem to be defense-dominant when there is coordination among a sufficiently large portion of society/power.
I don’t think I’m convinced physical interactions are defense dominant. The easiest-to-formally-certify defense is to enclose something in a hunk of impenetrable matter, and that only can be certified up to a given impact energy level. Above that energy level, the defense will simply be stripped away. Only MAD seems able to be game theoretically durable, and certifying that a MAD situation will endure requires proving through a simulation of the opposition.
Yeah, I am worried about this.
This is notably not the case for infosec and encryption, where defensive capability doesn’t imply offensive capability. However, I’m unsure if this is also true for any physical interventions. (e.g.: Vaccines? No, bioweapons… Nanotech? No…)
That said, physical interventions do seem to be defense-dominant when there is coordination among a sufficiently large portion of society/power.
I don’t think I’m convinced physical interactions are defense dominant. The easiest-to-formally-certify defense is to enclose something in a hunk of impenetrable matter, and that only can be certified up to a given impact energy level. Above that energy level, the defense will simply be stripped away. Only MAD seems able to be game theoretically durable, and certifying that a MAD situation will endure requires proving through a simulation of the opposition.