I tend to agree with You now that I have a better grasp of where this ongoing, and coming from.
The attainment of the nuclear.age did not come about haphazardly by chance, it has had a 2000 year history of development. The development was predicated by no then knowledge of the future.
The philosophical swrivatiob is complex , but the general rationale can be primordially described. It is a fairly acceptable presumption to say, that a consensus of moral people in soxiwry5, may not wish to start a new world war, given that moat.probably every one on earth would be wiped out, in the event of large scale hostilities.
The containment of free will by the upper classes not a continuation of Greek Philosophy of intent, or a secret positing of am Oracle which foresaw the state of technological prowess, by which, supposedly, control down the line could be sustained.
If that above is fairly convincing, then the will, can to describe the superpositioning of objectives related to control. Control to sustain such an oracle , would need the intentionality below a transcendental unity for it’s sustenance or so imply the Philosophers , arguably understood at least among themselves.
The just of it is, that technological development , did not come about in a manner of planning it, and developing it, with knowledge of objective criteria; in mind.
So, the only conclusion that could be supported , is, that Natural determination was at.play, in atomism, or, in superimposing the Aristotelian method unto Platonic ideas.
Atomism is an early form of reductionism, which bypasses progressively complex forms, however this could not have happened a-priori, and neither aposteriori; by using the will to choose among the two possible routes to development .
Therefore it is safe.to say, that the nuclear.age, the atomic and.hydrogen and neutron bombs.were determined by other then non determinate means.
Since the atom bomb represents an either use it peacefully or perish scenario, the promise of not using it destructively has been a built in determinedly.
If this argument is wrong, then an ultimate premise of it, may be defeated. And that premise has been around for thousands of years!
Incidentally , the argument can not be defeated by a list of terrible events signifying intervening variables , because they are merely only that, and can not connect the the two ultimate.of Crearion with Extinction, whereby the whole reason of human survival would be reduced to absurdity.
Existence would really have no sense, and as life would seem to reduce to it’s ultimate self prescribed destructive. Essence- nuclear destruction would become inevitable.
It is unlikely that Natural Selection of natural selection could have been begun to operate under that kind of premise, and not in the sense of.self valuing, either.