Let's pretend a new weapon was just introduced. This weapon

This is really more of a /k/ thread since its about weapons rather than history.

How would nukes be "irrelevant"? Even if destroyed at high altitudes, they can be set to detonate at said altitudes: the shockwave would still be destructive, there would probably be an EMP, and the radiation would be just as bad.

Shitty thread.

Well since the air superiority and bombing is off the table I predict nonstop border wars using conventional firearms and tanks.

Terrorism would get a huge boost since the only counter to them is bombings and drone strikes.

Like, Russia already invaded the Ukraine and Georgia last decade, Syria would be way way worse with no rockets or bombs.

everywhere except the developed world collapses and ends up looking like africa circa 1960 to 2000

>>1554348
The equipment is irrelevant. What I'm wondering is how world diplomacy would change compared to the times prior to air power and nukes and all

Are we enlightend to the point where we keep the peace, or do we go back to militarized nationalism?

It's an obtuse way to ask if we have to repress our warlike nature via MAD or if we can grow beyond it

>>1554364
If a weapon can destroy missiles before they reach your borders, it can supposedly shoot down missiles before they end up in altitude over your cities. Hell, countries trying to launch an ICBM are likely to get it shot down before it leaves THEIR borders, especially if the non-nuclear countries entered a sort of pact to automatically shoot down nukes launched by their neighbors.

On the other hand, "suitcase nukes" and bioweapons would still be a concern.

>>1554348
/k/ would just endlessly sperg about the premise.

>>1554369
>except the developed world
It wasn't Africa that started the last couple of world wars.

>>1554344
Nukes are feasible. You just have more state sponsored terrorism with football nukes.
Your machine can stop missiles, but what will it do about a nuclear weapon stashed in a van?

>>1554344
They found Tiberium in Russia.

It'll be accessible to places they bomb.

>>1554344
What if armor advanced to the point that bullets were obsolete and wars were fought with chainswords?

Nothing, because globalism and trade.

The only difference is we get to point and laugh at North Korea.

>>1555329
What?

>>1554344
>This weapon is cheap to produce and easy to implement. Even a 3rd world nation has access to it.

How to put this... both of those lines are unlikely. Making modern strategic level weapons is hard. Not just designing them but also manufacturing. Lets take India as example, because they are the best example on this subject.

At the Federal level they do have a fair amount of money. They also have a great need for quality equipment of all types. They have had a desire for over 60 years to have domestic designed fighter craft, or at lest domestic produced fighter craft.They have tried both and always had major issue. Native design, Russian, French, it does not matter. They all end up with major manufacturing faults.

The second issue with your though is tanks. Tanks, not air power, was the gold stranded by which a nation's offense ability was measure by before the yom kippur war. They would likely go back to being as such in the event of widely accessible cheap high quality SAM or AA guns.

It just looks exactly like it does now. Cyber warfare. Crashing economies, bringing down electrical grids, hacking government servers, etc.

File: ny520a0cc6.jpg (240KB, 800x888px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 800x888px

>>1554344
1st world still have the advantage, two word.

Kinetic Bombardment

>>1554344
Not a whole lot changes, except more tanks are produced, and Russia/the Coalition field massive tank/artillery armies in the Middle East to squash ISIS. ISIS lasts a few more months than it is going to in our timeline.