|
On January 17 2010 01:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 17:42 EmeraldSparks wrote:
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes. The more people who believe they would push the button, the less safer the world becomes. MAD logic is a ticking timebomb. It cannot last forever and anyone who believes it can hasn't read history well. Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust, Fixed
The only flaw in MAD logic is the existence of the people voting no.
|
On January 17 2010 02:38 Ecrilon wrote:
Or you could launch 7000 conventional missiles. I'm not picky.
Button doesn't activate 7000 conventional missiles unfortunately.
On January 17 2010 02:39 L wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 01:25 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 16 2010 17:42 EmeraldSparks wrote:
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes. The more people who believe they would push the button, the less safer the world becomes. MAD logic is a ticking timebomb. It cannot last forever and anyone who believes it can hasn't read history well. On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust, Fixed The only flaw in MAD logic is the existence of the people voting no.
That is not the only flaw in MAD logic. I posted a huge list of the flaws with MAD logic in this thread and you ignored it. You have to accept the fact that humans are not always logical. If they were they wouldn't have built a system to destroy thier entire species. People dont always act in self-preservation.
|
On January 13 2010 11:27 Faronel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:26 Cpt.beefy wrote:
1 nuke is pretty powerful me thinks
well, 1 nuke can't destroy the world, only a city. 7000 nukes on the other hand, can.
1 nuke physically can't destroy the world. but the path it starts to create can. as in, never ending war. unforgiving actions, alliances, etc.
if humanity is really that savagelike
|
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible.
|
On January 17 2010 01:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust, Fixed
Which would essentially be moral principle because that nuclear holocaust never actually affected you directly... Don't get me wrong, there are certainly people that would act out. I'm just pointing out that it would most likely be nowhere near the massive amount that you believe.
|
Yeah I'd nuke the other guys, else a nation willing to nuke his enemies off the face of the planet is allowed to exist.
|
On January 17 2010 03:00 Ecrilon wrote:
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible.
Do you realize that your logic (nuke to prevent more nukes) is the same logic that would lead them to nuke others?
You are your enemy. Or better yet human 'logic' is its own worst enemy.
To point out even more how illogical your viewpoint is, the enemy has just launched the majority if not all of his nuclear weapons. He might not even have any left over in which case nukeing him prevents nothing other. You are fufilling your own worst nightmare.
|
I can't realize that because it's false. That's preemptive nuking, which is definitely not what I just suggested.
|
On January 17 2010 04:57 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 03:00 Ecrilon wrote:
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible. Do you realize that your logic (nuke to prevent more nukes) is the same logic that would lead them to nuke others? You are your enemy. Or better yet human 'logic' is its own worst enemy. To point out even more how illogical your viewpoint is, the enemy has just launched the majority if not all of his nuclear weapons. He might not even have any left over in which case nukeing him prevents nothing other. You are fufilling your own worst nightmare.
How does that point out illogical viewpoints? That's just a single situation that you assume will happen with no proof at all.
It could be just as likely that the nation that launched first is now the only one with enough nukes to cause harm. Thus allowing a single country to become tyrant over the rest of the world. If only they were counter nuked and stopped allowing the rest of the world to live peacefully.
|
On January 17 2010 05:52 randombum wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 04:57 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 17 2010 03:00 Ecrilon wrote:
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible. Do you realize that your logic (nuke to prevent more nukes) is the same logic that would lead them to nuke others? You are your enemy. Or better yet human 'logic' is its own worst enemy. To point out even more how illogical your viewpoint is, the enemy has just launched the majority if not all of his nuclear weapons. He might not even have any left over in which case nukeing him prevents nothing other. You are fufilling your own worst nightmare. How does that point out illogical viewpoints? That's just a single situation that you assume will happen with no proof at all. It could be just as likely that the nation that launched first is now the only one with enough nukes to cause harm. Thus allowing a single country to become tyrant over the rest of the world. If only they were counter nuked and stopped allowing the rest of the world to live peacefully.
There is always going to be someone with the most nukes. Nuking the other country doesnt stop that.
|
Yes, but how many of those countries left with nukes will be willing to use them? If nobody is willing to nuke back the nuker he will just nuke anybody he feels like. Once counter nuked, then people will be like oh shit maybe we shouldn't nuke somebody if we don't want to die. Vs the nuking countries mentality, hahahah I can nuke everybody I want and nobody will retaliate.
Right now countries have the most nukes aren't tyrants over the world (well, the US sorta tries), but if once country realized it could anybody else and not get nuked in return, it wouldn't take long for them to start just taking over the world.
|
I posted a huge list of the flaws with MAD logic in this thread and you ignored it. You have to accept the fact that humans are not always logical. I didn't ignore anything. History vindicates my position.
While instruments and the particulars of the system might vary, your question was based on the situation werein you knew your entire nation had been completely obliterated and you were the only one left. Regardless of any of your 'qualms' about the logic, a strike has already been issued and your entire country is demolished. For some reason, you've assumed someone has already decided to take a first strike, but now push us to assume that the retaliatory second strike shouldn't take place at all.
If someone wouldn't react to a first strike by ordering a retaliatory second strike, a nation that DOES have more nukes has the incentive to launch a first strike because they can be certain that their opponent's reactionary second strike will not come. The deterrent against the creation circumstances amounting to the one in your question is removed by your preferred answer to it, which is why I simply don't see how one can support it rationally.
I think you should read Hobbes and his description of a state of nature, then apply the said state to a group of leviathans. If physical force and the fear of impending death is the cause of states, civilization and all of its niceties, then state-level lethality begets the creation of a supra-national arbitration system, instead of the continuation of unlimited conventional warfare just the way that human mortality causes us to band together for self interested reasons.
That isn't to say that limited disarmament should be off the table, but that really wasn't one of the options you gave when you assumed half the world was already a smoldering crater.
|
On January 17 2010 14:01 L wrote:
If someone wouldn't react to a first strike by ordering a retaliatory second strike, a nation that DOES have more nukes has the incentive to launch a first strike because they can be certain that their opponent's reactionary second strike will not come.
No. They cannot. Your entire arguement is based on this idea of "if they didnt fire back then that means they will never fire back". Thats wrong. If something doesnt happen one time that doesnt mean it wont happen the next time.
|
You're going to take that risk? What if everyone thought like you, like you apparently want them to? Then that one country will in fact go around nuking everyone because if it happened once, people like you will make sure it does happen again. Clearly you have to be in the minority, mainly because you're wrong about MAD logic, and you're wrong about what we need to do.
|
On January 17 2010 14:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 14:01 L wrote:
If someone wouldn't react to a first strike by ordering a retaliatory second strike, a nation that DOES have more nukes has the incentive to launch a first strike because they can be certain that their opponent's reactionary second strike will not come. No. They cannot. Your entire arguement is based on this idea of "if they didnt fire back then that means they will never fire back". Thats wrong. If something doesnt happen one time that doesnt mean it wont happen the next time.
Uh, what next time? The world was polarized into 2 camps in your example and one camp is now a crater.
Are you postulating that some form of crater people would redevelop relations with the nuking nation, refurbish their nuclear arsenal from its post-strike state, then somehow work themselves into another nuclear stalemate?
If so, I will again suggest that Japan wins with robots because we're clearly off into fantasy land.
|
On January 17 2010 14:38 Ecrilon wrote:
What if everyone thought like you, like you apparently want them to?
Lucky for you not everyone thinks as logically as me (or half of tl apparently). People know this which is why even if you didnt launch your precious and flawed MAD logic deterence would still quasi apply. People wouldnt automatically assume that if you fire missles at someone there was no chance theyd fire back. Thats ludacris.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On January 17 2010 15:29 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 14:38 Ecrilon wrote:
What if everyone thought like you, like you apparently want them to? Lucky for you not everyone thinks as logically as me (or half of tl apparently). People know this which is why even if you didnt launch your precious and flawed MAD logic deterence would still quasi apply. People wouldnt automatically assume that if you fire missles at someone there was no chance theyd fire back. Thats ludacris.
|
Funny enough he perfectly sums up the oppositions logic. You can bet he'd push the button :p
|
It is ludicrous. It's also an idiotic thing to think or do. And the last time I checked, being an idiot wasn't all that logical. If you had half the reasoning ability you claim to have, you might be able to note that your idea of logic leads to nuclear annihilation, which clearly means your logic is pretty bad.
|
On January 17 2010 15:44 Ecrilon wrote:
It is ludicrous. It's also an idiotic thing to think or do. And the last time I checked, being an idiot wasn't all that logical. If you had half the reasoning ability you claim to have, you might be able to note that your idea of logic leads to nuclear annihilation, which clearly means your logic is pretty bad.
Mine definatly does not further the chances of nuclear annihilation. Nuclear annihilation could still happen but a path of de-escalation is possibly the only way to break that chain of events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oVtVHo_28fw/SqSbCBSm0TI/AAAAAAAAARc/51FU0w6Xs8I/s400/ludacris.jpg)
