A Doomsday Riddle - Page 11

On January 14 2010 09:11 Shizuru~ wrote:
imagine if (god forbids) Sarah Palin is the one that gets to push the big red button...

On January 14 2010 08:55 Archerofaiur wrote:
He called my species bad!

On January 14 2010 07:16 HeartOfTofu wrote:


I don't see it as a better or worse course of action and to me, it has nothing to do with morality... What part of war is moral to begin with anyway? It's not vengeance; it's inevitable judgment. While it's ultimately a few individuals with their hands on the trigger, it all represents the human race. We're the ones that created the system, we're the ones that perpetuate it. We're the ones that squabble and fight and we're the ones that ultimately destroy each other and in doing so, destroy ourselves. War and violence isn't the exception, it is the norm. While it isn't always carried out with weapons, we fight everyday with one and the human existence is really one long power struggle. There's really not a lot that we as a species tend to value in this world.

However, there is at least the glimmer of hope in that we value our own existence somewhat, and that is really the only hope I see in humanity. Despite all the conflict and all of our lack of long term thinking, our own individual existence is the one thing that we hold sacred and so long as there is indeed something that we value, there is maybe some hope that we could value something else or at very least progress as a species even if it's just for the sake of our own personal survival.

However launching an attack knowing full well that it means your own guaranteed destruction along with the destruction of your nation to me pretty much represents that it's possible for an entire group of perfectly logical human beings that represent a major country to hold nothing valuable, not even their own lives or the country and people they represent. What further hope is there for humanity then, if this was ever the case? If there's no hope, then what's the point of continuing to exist? If there's no point in the continued existence of humanity, why hesitate to erase it? We would have essentially brought about our own end... Or would you suggest that I reward people for holding absolutely nothing in this world (not even their own lives) valuable? If I did that, do you think the world would be a better place should people survive anyway? I could not bear to live in a world where people actually benefit from valuing nothing, not even their own existence or their neighbors, and if such world were to exist the outcome would be inevitable and ultimately the same outcome that I would be bringing about by pushing the button in front of me.

I don't have a total lack of faith in humanity right now, but if the given scenario occurred, what little faith I do have would be dissolved pretty quickly to say the least... Is it a depressing scenario? Absolutely, but not because a lot of people would die, but because it would be the death of hope when we can't even care about ourselves.

On January 14 2010 08:20 HeartOfTofu wrote:
people are ultimately responsible for the government that represents them, whether they have a say in it or not. We as a people created these governments and we as a people perpetuate them. There is not a single person removed from the system and we all bear responsibility for it.

If they haven't consigned themselves to destruction, they've at very least assumed a risk that they have obviously calculated and they will be tested for it. Should the aggressor survive, this discussion is moot since we're not talking about the end of humanity anyway. Should the aggressor not survive, they took a gamble with the one thing that I would presume they value and lost which brings me back to my first argument since the gamble itself shows a lack of value for their own lives. A person doesn't gamble what he truly values if there is an alternative option that allows him to guarantee that he will keep it.

Then you lose to giant robots.

On January 14 2010 21:18 igotmyown wrote:
It's still not a puzzle...

Yes, but not for vengeance or because people I knew died. Why put people in jail if it makes them suffer?
Somehow some pretty bad decision maker got put into power, and they're evidently willing to let two populations die to get what they want. Given what they did, they're too dangerous to let survive. It's not like the people not involved wouldn't expect it or would blame you. It's a more extreme version of collateral damage from two countries at war.

On January 14 2010 14:23 T-P-S wrote:
There are some reasonable arguments that support this, but I have to go back to the tired example of a young child. Do you consider a child barely capable of speech without any knowledge of the situation to be responsible for the actions of the government in his country? Better yet, don't think of it in terms of countries or governments. One person some physical distance away from a child makes a choice. The child is completely unaware of this choice or its consequences. Does that child bear responsibility for this act?

On January 14 2010 14:23 T-P-S wrote:
Gambling with your life doesn't imply that your life has no value; maybe gambling is unavoidable. To me, not attacking seems like a gamble as well. If there is a chance to wipe them out and you expect to be attacked, it can be a logical alternative in protecting their own lives. In this scenario they aren't lashing out nihilistically, they're only valuing themselves. The chance of death by inaction is calculated to be greater than the chance of death by retaliation.

The doctrine of nuclear deterrence depends on many assumptions, which may be unresolved:

Second-strike capability
A first strike must not be capable of preventing a retaliatory second strike or else mutual destruction is not assured. In this case, a state would have nothing to lose with a first strike; or might try to preempt the development of an opponent's second-strike capability with a first strike (i.e., decapitation strike).
Perfect detection

No false positives (errors) in the equipment and/or procedures that must identify a launch by the other side. The implication of this is that an accident could lead to a full nuclear exchange. During the Cold War there were several instances of false positives, as in the case of Stanislav Petrov.
No possibility of camouflaging a launch. The use of stealth technology in aircraft such as the B-2 bomber makes this assumption less likely to be fulfilled.
No means of delivery that does not have the characteristics of a long range missile delivery, i.e. detectable far ahead of detonation. Again this assumption is challengeable with for instance stealth aircraft but also with other means, such as smuggling weapons to the target undetected (as demonstrated in The Sum of All Fears). A close range missile attack from a submarine would also negate this assumption, as would positioning the weapons close to the intended target (exemplified in the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Perfect attribution. If there is a launch from the Sino-Russian border, it could be difficult to distinguish which nation is responsible and, hence, against which nation retaliation should occur.
Perfect rationality

No "rogue states" will develop nuclear weapons. Or, if they do, they will stop behaving as rogue states and subject themselves to the logic of MAD.
No rogue commanders will have the ability to corrupt the launch decision process (this is demonstrated with Dr. Strangelove).
All leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects (for example, a leader with religious ideas about the end of the world might launch regardless).
No leader with launch capability would strike first and gamble that the opponent's response system would fail.
Inability to defend

No shelters sufficient to protect population and/or industry.
No development of anti-missile technology or deployment of remedial protective gear.

Deterrence theory is criticized for its assumptions about opponent rationales: first, it is argued that suicidal or psychotic opponents may not be deterred by either forms of deterrence. Second, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a subsequent arms race which elevates the risk of actual war (this scenario is illustrated in the movies WarGames and Dr. Strangelove). An arms race is inefficient in its optimal output; all countries involved expend resources on armaments which would not have been expended if the others had not expended resources. This is a form of positive feedback.

Finally, a military build-up increases a country's risks of budget deficits, restrictions on civil liberties, the creation of a military-industrial complex, and other such potentially-undesirable measures. See Garrison State.

[edit] Psychology and deterrence
A new form of criticism emerged in the late 1980s with detailed analyses of the actions of individual leaders and groups of leaders in crisis situations (historical and theoretical).

A number of new or nuanced criticisms of "traditional" deterrence theory emerged. One was that deterrence theory assumed that both sides had common rational peaceful goals. In some real-life situations, such as the Yom Kippur War, leaders felt that internal or external political considerations forced a conflict. One of the essays in,[4] regarding the internal military and political discussions within the Egyptian high command in 1973, indicates that senior civilian leaders (including Anwar Sadat) believed that they had to fight a war in order to have enough internal political support to negotiate for peace.

In another miscalculation, Israel rationalized that the Israeli military dominance would deter any attack, and believed that no rational Syrian or Egyptian leader would attempt such an attack. Sadat felt unable to avoid a war, and Syria's leadership misjudged the military situation and believed they could be victorious. Israel assumed rational and well-informed opponents with clear objectives, and its deterrence failed.

Another observation is that crisis situations can reach a point that formerly stabilizing actions (such as keeping military units at bases, and low alert levels) can be seen as a sign of weakness, and that perceived weakness can then induce an opponent to attack during the perceived time of advantage. Thus, an inversion point exists, after which some formerly stabilizing actions become destabilizing, and some formerly destabilizing actions become stabilizing.

Finally, studies of the specific group psychology of several leaders and leader groups, including the Israeli and Arab leaders in 1973 and the Kennedy Administration during the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis, indicated that in many cases executive groups use poor decision-making techniques and improperly assess available information. These errors can and often do preclude truly rational end-behavior in deterrence situations.

On January 14 2010 09:11 Shizuru~ wrote:
imagine if (god forbids) Sarah Palin is the one that gets to push the big red button...

On January 14 2010 06:15 EchOne wrote:
Wow this thread is depressing. I thought I was morally bankrupt, but even I find the amount of support for nuking in this thread shocking. I've already harped on about how ridiculous the notion of vengeful mass destruction is, so instead of harping some more I'd like to ask those who would press the button: what are your reasons? What are you trying to accomplish? Why is this the best course of action?

I'd like to understand the motivations better, because all I'm seeing right now is "Humanity sucks, therefore extermination of humanity is perfectly acceptable."