|
Are we assuming Russia/USA are the ones that died? I'm willing to try China over Russia, personally. America's no saint either. But this is more a political issue. If we can assume that China lives, humanity isn't dead and this is better than the alternative where it is dead because this other country is nuke-happy. Innocent millions are dying because we need to make sure they don't kill more people. Yeah it's sad.
Canucks, as I said,
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.
Thus, if America decided that nuking is their only solution (a stupid solution by the country with the strongest conventional military in the world, whose aircraft carrier taskforces possess more actual power than several nukes) they should be retaliated against in such a way that MAD still works. Nuking should never go unretaliated. It sends the wrong message about MAD. It sends the wrong message to other countries with nukes.
On January 15 2010 10:13 bumatlarge wrote:nuclear battleships 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... 
lol Every single shot is a "HIT. You sunk Atlantis."
|
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.
Then don't pretend it's a poll and solicit other people's points of view. Trying to convert everyone who has a different point of view in the guise of an open conversation is intellectually dishonest. It's like when Christians invite you to discuss God with them.
|
Im shocked that this is still going on this long. I dont believe many of these people have some sort of amazing allegiance to their country as much as you cant let assholes get away with anything they want especially if it involves nukes. Not to mention is there any data that specifies how many/where the nukes would have to be sent for a nuclear winter to occur?
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do.
|
On January 15 2010 10:22 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +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. Then don't pretend it's a poll and solicit other people's points of view. Trying to convert everyone who has a different point of view in the guise of an open conversation is intellectually dishonest. It's like when Christians invite you to discuss God with them.
depends on you! i dont think so, if christians invite me to a discussion, afterwards some of them are convinced of some of my random ideas eventually. good ideas btw. 
topic: take that automatic backup launch from russia out, and the automatic defense system newly going to be installed in europe by usa called starwars. thx
humans dont kill mankind unless they are coninced the other side is inhuman.
so if you dont want to be called like it, push down your danger to kill everyone, it rises your chances to survive
|
On January 15 2010 10:23 Sadist wrote:
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do.
Question: How long do you think MAD logic can work? A 100 years? 1000? 10000?
|
On January 15 2010 12:05 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 10:23 Sadist wrote:
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do. Question: How long do you think MAD logic can work? A 100 years? 1000? 10000?
as long as we are around and there are nuclear weapons in the world. Not nuking someone back when they launch a nuke sets a precedent that you can nuke whoever you want and no one will do anything about it.
Hopefully there wont be nuclear weapons forever in the world but MAD is the best solution we have and so far its worked.
|
Logic works forever in most cases really. MAD logic works as long as its assumptions are correct, that is, as long as no one is able to completely defend against a nuclear attack.
|
On January 15 2010 13:03 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 12:05 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:23 Sadist wrote:
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do. Question: How long do you think MAD logic can work? A 100 years? 1000? 10000? as long as we are around and there are nuclear weapons in the world.
I dont think theres a facepalm in the world big enough for this quote.
Not nuking someone back when they launch a nuke sets a precedent that you can nuke whoever you want and no one will do anything about it.
No it sets the precedent that, against all human nature, a second attrocity was averted and millions of lives were saved along with countless human animal and plant lives from a 'less severe' ecological consequences. It would be single handedly the greatest act done by humans....ever.
On January 15 2010 13:21 Ecrilon wrote:
Logic works forever in most cases really. MAD logic works as long as its assumptions are correct, that is, as long as no one is able to completely defend against a nuclear attack.
Or any of the many other flaws with MAD logic which I was kind enough to post even though people apparently didnt read.
|
On January 15 2010 10:08 travis wrote:the soldier would probably have been trained to press the button and would do exactly that I wouldn't 
Not entirely true... only like 67% of people would press the button... and that's the optimal situation :
white Caucasian male, unmarried, mid 40's.
The US government did experiments back in the Cold War to find the optimal personality so that they would press the button on command, knowing they would probably wipe out humanity.
The movie "War Games" plays with this concept... it stars Matthew Broderick when he was still good.
|
I don't think any amount of blind, heat of the moment rage could forever overshadow the eventual guilt that I would feel, knowing what I'd done. I wouldn't push the button.
Speaking of logic, I think it's pretty clear two wrongs don't make a right, so there :p
|
I don't see the point of wiping out humanity just because "my side" has lost. The whole idea seems childish to me. Eye for an eye etc. Whats the point of making sure MAD applies if everyone is dead?
|
The thing is that a second atrocity would not be avoided at all. First, the country in question is more than likely going to launch more nukes. Second, other countries now realize that there will be no retaliation for launching nukes. This sets the precedent that nukes are not things that, if used, result in MAD, it sets the precedent that nukes are a valid weapon to use, much like conventional bombs.
|
On January 15 2010 13:33 Ecrilon wrote:
The thing is that a second atrocity would not be avoided at all. First, the country in question is more than likely going to launch more nukes.
You have no way of knowing that.
Second, other countries now realize that there will be no retaliation for launching nukes.
Where exactly are you getting this from? Like Im honestly at a loss how your coming up with this. So one country goes up in smoke and miraculously there is no retaliation. So all the other countrys look around and say "hey cool if you fire nukes nobody will fire back at you!"
Like is that really whats going on in your head?
|
It's not about winning as a whole, its about being ahead of everyone else (or atleast on par). *pushes button*
|
I have no way of knowing that? Can you guarantee that a country that nuked another won't do it again? Sure I don't know that a murderer is strictly going to murder again, but I'm certainly not taking the path where I don't do anything about the guy because killing him is wrong.
Every country knows that other countries with nuclear capabilities have submarines loaded with nuclear weapons patrolling the oceans for the purpose of engaging in MAD. When these are not launched, there will be questions as to why this was. There is no reason apparently except "we are better than that." Great, everyone must be above MAD logic. So yes, that is what is going through my head, mainly because that is the way MAD logic WORKS.
|
On January 15 2010 13:42 Ecrilon wrote:
I have no way of knowing that? Can you guarantee that a country that nuked another won't do it again? No thats the point. You dont know whether there will be more nukes used in the future. But you do know whether their will be more nukes that day.
Explain how your stacking up
Possibility of future nuclear attacks
vs
Certainty of 7000 nuclear attacks
Every country knows that other countries with nuclear capabilities have submarines loaded with nuclear weapons patrolling the oceans for the purpose of engaging in MAD. When these are not launched, there will be questions as to why this was. There is no reason apparently except "we are better than that." Great, everyone must be above MAD logic. So yes, that is what is going through my head, mainly because that is the way MAD logic WORKS.
Illogicity aside. Hasnt that day proven enough that MAD doesnt work?
|
I am saying that after the 7000 nuclear attacks are over, that's IT. We've proven that MAD works and the 10% of humanity remaining has learned a lesson about nuclear weapons that it will never forget. Future nuclear attacks will easily wipe out the last remnants of humanity if there is no MAD to check them.
The day has not proven that MAD doesn't work. It has proven that there is a certain reasoning capable of overriding MAD, which clearly there is. (For example, if a country does not care if it dies, it no longer cares about MAD. This can happen in cases in which the global community has completely cut off economic ties with a country, leaving it in a stranglehold which will slowly starve the country. Nuclear weapons are deemed to be the only solution, nukes are launched. If no return nukes are launched, the country is more than likely to launch more.)
It's your question. If you want to be more specific, by all means, be more specific. However, as much as you claim that I am being illogical, there is no more evidence to support your ideas than mine.
You're caught in a logic loop.
If MAD works, you claim, this situation never happens. Therefore, MAD must have failed and there is no longer any reason to follow MAD logic. Therefore, we save the most lives by not launching nukes. However, that means that any time nukes are launched, MAD has failed and there should be no counter nukes launched. This would in turn imply that MAD never works because in reality, any time you launch nukes, there is no mutually assured destruction because nukes will never be launched in retaliation.
|
On January 15 2010 13:57 Ecrilon wrote:
The day has not proven that MAD doesn't work. It has proven that there is a certain reasoning capable of overriding MAD, which clearly there is.
Hey guess what. That, what you just said, that is proving it doesnt work.
On January 15 2010 13:57 Ecrilon wrote:
You're caught in a logic loop.
If MAD works, you claim, this situation never happens. Therefore, MAD must have failed and there is no longer any reason to follow MAD logic. Therefore, we save the most lives by not launching nukes.
So far good.
However, that means that any time nukes are launched, MAD has failed and there should be no counter nukes launched.
Nope thats where you jumped the logic tracks. Either your trying to say there would be no counter nukes launched in the future (which is unknowable, frankly its incredibly unlikely that should nukes be launched again a retaliation wouldnt occur) or your trying to say that counter nukes should never be launched (in which case I think we both agree any nukes should never be launched).
You see how you tried to turn a should into a would. One implies whats right and the other implies what happens.
|
Then you're telling us that if we all do what's right MAD logic doesn't work because the right thing is to not launch nukes in retaliation in your opinion.
Honestly, I think we SHOULD go with the path where MAD logic does work because it seems to be the only nuclear deterrent.
The fact that there are overrides for MAD like the one I just listed means that we should prevent those situations, not rid ourselves of MAD. What do you think is preventing nukes from being used in warfare?
|
On January 15 2010 13:36 Archerofaiur wrote:
Where exactly are you getting this from? Like Im honestly at a loss how your coming up with this. So one country goes up in smoke and miraculously there is no retaliation. So all the other countrys look around and say "hey cool if you fire nukes nobody will fire back at you!"
Like is that really whats going on in your head?
I think the problem here is that you're responding to uncertainty with uncertainty. To you, he's being unreasonable because his decision is based on the uncertain assumption that the lack of retaliation would be seen as an incentive for future generations to use nukes.
However, you're responding to that with the equal uncertainty that maybe they won't see it as an incentive, but rather look at the destruction and learn from it as well as be thankful that there was in fact, no retaliation.
The issue with this kind of response is that it assumes that his way of thinking is unreasonable because he can't be certain of it while yours is despite the fact that you can't be certain of it... Along his path of thinking, the destruction of the world due to the increased incentive to use nuclear arms is an inevitability. So to him, it's not a matter of one POSSIBLE scenario vs. a guaranteed one. It's a matter of one guaranteed scenario vs. another guaranteed one. Really, your thinking is not that much different because you believe it's unreasonable to believe that people might see an incentive despite the lack of retaliation. You two are never going to see eye to eye simply because you believe his analysis is unreasonable... You need to understand that not all people have as much faith in humanity as you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
