Sarge034 said:
That's the funny thing about the "worst case scenario". It is supposed to represent the "perfect storm". It does not matter if it is plausible of not, only that it is the worst posible outcome to the situation. I don't know about you, but nuclear war is pretty high on my "we're boned" meater.
Well, nuclear war is one of the best things that could possibly happen.
See, the biggest threat to the planet, and all life on it, are the crap humans can do, right?
Well, there are theoretical inventions, such as self replicating nanites, that if unleashed in weapon format, will guarantee extinction of all life as we know it.
Nuclear war, in contrast, will devastate mostly human populations, and even if sufficient nukes were simultaneously launched to cause a nuclear winter, it will not cause the extinction of all life.
Therefore, if it comes down to a choice between nanobot war, and
actively and deliberately causing an all out nuclear war in order to prevent further technological advancements if there comes a time where humans are still proven to be idiotic when it comes to weaponisation of everything we invent, then
nuking everyone is the noble and right thing to do.
Edit: I typed nuclear instead of nanobot