I think a subtext of this, which remained unsaid, is that this kind of oversight would be most effective by an overarching organization having dominion over all suborganizations. That is to say, i don't think it would be as effective if this is instituted nation-by-nation.
But the conclusion of this, brings up a dystopian, at least in many minds, idea of a one world government.
But, if you want to place controls, and it's in effect voluntary by from the point of view of each nation-state, why would one state which wants to overcome any other state subject itself to this kind of embargo?
Let's say you're Japan. China poses an economic (and thus, arguably, an existential) threat, why would Japan feel obliged to put their research to sleep?
To me, unless everyone agrees, and we have verification mechanisms, and violations have severe consequences exceeding any benefits from this technology, there will always be an actor who thinks they can sneak by and pounce on the others.
But the conclusion of this, brings up a dystopian, at least in many minds, idea of a one world government.
But, if you want to place controls, and it's in effect voluntary by from the point of view of each nation-state, why would one state which wants to overcome any other state subject itself to this kind of embargo?
Let's say you're Japan. China poses an economic (and thus, arguably, an existential) threat, why would Japan feel obliged to put their research to sleep?
To me, unless everyone agrees, and we have verification mechanisms, and violations have severe consequences exceeding any benefits from this technology, there will always be an actor who thinks they can sneak by and pounce on the others.