EPTA Doomsday Riddle - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
| ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 07:34 Ecrilon wrote: Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't become bad logic when someone decides to launch nukes anyway. It just means that the individual/group that did so probably doesn't ascribe to the Mutually Assured Destruction line of reasoning. The best course now is to 1: Kill them because they have nukes and don't ascribe to Mutually Assured Destruction logic. 2: Convince everyone else that MAD works by acting in the manner laid out by MAD. The convenient thing is that you can accomplish both by nuking the attacker. With the added bonus of wipeing out humanity... | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 07:39 Ecrilon wrote: What? Really? I thought we were just nuking what amounts to 1 other country, "your enemy" in the opening post. I didn't realize that this had escalated to "the world is now our enemy" and we need to nuke everything? Nope you just launched 7000 warheads at the enemy. Combined with the damage from the attack on your country the earth now enters a nuclear winter. All humans soon die. Good job. | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
On January 15 2010 07:50 Archerofaiur wrote: Nope you just launched 7000 warheads at the enemy. Combined with the damage from the attack on your country the earth now enters a nuclear winter. All humans soon die. Good job. Right, nice tone. But moving on, it hardly takes 7000 to destroy all cities in a country but okay, sure, let's go with an estimate like that. What you're essentially doing is doubling, at most the damage to the earth. In fact, if you're nuking one country, it is generally considerably less than the "continent" stated in the opening post. While this is clearly enough to increase the impact of whatever damage the fallout causes, consider the following: The earth will be in a nuclear winter regardless and the effects will always be felt around the world. Increasing the effects will make more people die. This is bad, but if humanity were going to die, it would, in all likelihood, also die if you hadn't sent your nukes as well. You are, after all, not bombing everything else in the world. The benefit, such as it were, of nuking the other country, is actually preventing them from nuking someone else. I mean, if I got away with nuking one guy, I would probably nuke another! Nukes are quite awesome. Also, it discourages other people with nukes because MAD, sound logic as it is, has not actually been put into practice. MAD is not mutual when you don't nuke the other guy. What if other people saw "Hey, if I nuke a country, they probably won't retaliate, therefore MAD is actually wrong and it becomes if I strike first, I win! Sweet." | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 08:08 Ecrilon wrote: I mean, if I got away with nuking one guy, I would probably nuke another! Nukes are quite awesome. What is the enemy a 5 year old? Im just going on record with the ArcherofAiur doctrine which state that "Parental disipline is not a proper tool for determining the fate of species." Hey you better let us investigate your country or else were going to destroy you. What you still wont let us in? Ok now your country is destroyed and we killed you to make an example. Hey you other country. You better let us investigate your country or else were going to..... | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
Clearly the enemy is not a five year old. I merely took that tone to make a point. However, the other country also presumably knew about MAD and committed nukes to an attack regardless. Now that they have apparently NOT been nuked in retaliation, what makes you think that they'd be any less inclined to nuke someone else? Naturally, we don't know their motivation for nuking you. Maybe your country was actually a jerk and in the wrong and this other country is hailed as a saint for wiping you off the map. (That makes the decision to nuke them pretty obvious because you are probably a jerk and enjoy nuking people as a matter of course.) However, if we assume that the other country is the offending party, any motivation that was used against you can readily be applied against another country. That is why I said that they were going to nuke someone else. | ||
|
HeartOfTofu
United States308 Posts
The natural assumption for any reasonable person sitting in a bunker in that given scenario would be that it was a deliberate act of hostility and that's how my reasoning comes into play. If you want me to sit there twiddling my thumbs about all of the non-hostile things that it could POSSIBLY be or all of the hostile acts with mitigating circumstances it could POSSIBLY be, I'm not going to because there would be no end to it. Maybe some sort of alien species contacted Russia and threatened to destroy them if they didn't destroy the United States. Maybe someone had a seizure and somehow armed, aimed, and launched every nuke while flailing about. Maybe the planets aligned and the nukes were set off by some sort of gravitational forces. Maybe there was just some sort of glitch in the entire Russian missile defense system that set off the nukes. Maybe someone somewhere for a moment forgot that we had second strike capabilities. Maybe they were calling our bluff. Nobody in such a situation would realistically sit there and turn it into an academic exercise. It's only here where we're all sitting comfortably in our homes with nothing going wrong that you have some sort of conviction that things need to be fully thought through. I could absolutely guarantee you that if you were really in a situation like this, you wouldn't be sitting down and writing out an equation to calculate the most logical course of action or going through absolutely everything that could have possibly gone wrong. My assumption would be that it's an act of hostility simply because in my brain I could honestly not fathom any other cause. I'm sure smarter people can and have and that's why I'm sure if there is a button somewhere, they'll be the ones to have their hands on it. In truth there doesn't seem to be a real point in all this because it's not really a discussion about anything other than people criticizing each other for the decisions that they will never have to make. This really stopped being an academic exercise the moment America and Russia came into the picture and the moment the question moved away from "What's the difference?" became "What would YOU do?". Or if what you really want to know is a numerous reasons we could think of for a country to be forced to nuke another in the given scenario that wouldn't warrant retaliation, just be direct about it and ask that question. I've been following this thread for 12 pages now, and I honestly don't see where this is supposed to be going... And it's really not a lack of effort on my part. I'm really trying... It's just confusing as hell... | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
the stupid thing is the question. the fact this problem exists. that is the really big fail. destroy the question at first. hard and with no mercy. thats my point. | ||
|
HeartOfTofu
United States308 Posts
On January 15 2010 09:27 Archerofaiur wrote: Im trying to get people to realize that while you are a member of a country you are also a member of a greater group called humanity. You should have just told us all to go watch 2012... that would've been the quicker way to do it.  | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 09:58 Ecrilon wrote: The members of humanity that are really stupid enough to wipe an entire continent need to die, one way or another. But see heres the problem. When they do that they take you and everyone else with them. | ||
|
Zurles
United Kingdom1659 Posts
| ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
I wouldn't | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 10:06 Ecrilon wrote: Actually, seeing as they only nuked one continent, there's still hope! Hurry! Nuke them before they nuke someone else! Then the 10% (random) of humanity still living might not have to die! Ignoring the ecological damage you did to earth, and the innocent millions you just killed, you have now installed China as the dominant nuclear force in the world. | ||
|
canucks12
Canada812 Posts
On January 15 2010 10:06 Ecrilon wrote: Actually, seeing as they only nuked one continent, there's still hope! Hurry! Nuke them before they nuke someone else! Then the 10% (random) of humanity still living might not have to die! You make it sound like a country that launches a nuke would try to kill the world... what do you think your answer would be if the United States was the country doing the nuking? (Assuming that you live in the states) A lot of innocents would be killed just because of a poor choice by the military/government. | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
we both agree to fire 1 nuke at a time, first to give up loses. And instead of plastic gray ships, we can use billons of lives. The stakes would be high...  | ||
| ||
