EPTA Doomsday Riddle - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 17 2010 15:49 Ecrilon wrote: I'm not telling you that de-escalation is a bad idea. I'm telling you that given your own situation, it has stopped being a solution because somebody is already nuking people. You're going to need to nuke them back, not pray that they don't nuke anyone else after nuking a continent. They might not have any nuclear weapons left. They might not have any desire or reason to nuke anyone else. Another country might have nuclear superiority now. Another country may have the most reason to launch for their own self interests. One launch completly destroys the equilibrium. You cant 'reset' it by launching back. You've completly changed the game and proven that MAD does not work. | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
One, it affirms that destruction is in fact mutually assured in the event of nuclear launch. This is your message to the rest of the world. Two, it destroys any chance that this other country will launch more nukes. You certainly didn't tell me that I was sure they had no more nukes. Maybe you're willing to take that risk and pray that they don't/can't launch more nukes, but that's certainly not a logical assumption. You're not resetting an equilibrium, you're making a historical example of MAD, not just a thought experiment. This actually makes it much LESS likely that someone else will launch a nuke. Maybe when people have something tangible, like continent-wide destruction, the remainder of humanity will be more willing to de-escalate their nuclear capabilities. This, while by no means certain, is a more logical assumption than "they probably won't nuke anyone else" or "that was probably all the nukes they had and they can't make more." | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 17 2010 15:58 Ecrilon wrote: Actually, launching does two things. One, it affirms that destruction is in fact mutually assured in the event of nuclear launch. This is your message to the rest of the world. See this is where your getting it wrong. Its not that MAD works. Its that MAD merely provides the appearance of working. All MAD really does is delay the inevitable launch of stockpiled nukes. Eventually, for one reason or another those nukes will be launched. If anything massive amount of horded nuclear weapons eventually reached is worse then the sum of thier parts. So frankly, your whole goal of "preserving MAD as a viable course of action" is merely setting humanity up for another cataclysmic incident. One that, if anything, will be even worse. | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8551 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 18 2010 03:29 Avidkeystamper wrote: Why would they eventually be launched? Allow me to turn the question. How long do you think MAD logic can last? 100 years? 1000 years? 10000 years? By the way I cannot believe that the question is still split so evenly. 178 Yes. 178 No. Ive never seen a poll this dead even before. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Revenge is not going to prevent the deaths. Fucked either way. Might end up doing even more harm to humanity/earth. Possibly gain something out of controlling the threat of nuke launches. | ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
This is not something I could do in an ordinary situation, but people are talking about this in a detached, rational sense - but the truth is that when surrounded by death, the only logic is "this world is shit". | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
And if not MAD, WHAT? You're ALREADY saying that "oh look nukes have been launched." We can do NOTHING then but rely on MAD. You don't seem to understand that the alternative you are offering (pray that the enemy isn't going to nuke anymore) is definitely not a valid alternative to following the MAD course. I'm not telling you, "I love launching nukes at people for my amusement and the amusement of spectators" I'm telling you that your decision to not launch is a far worse decision, and certainly not "logical". | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
On January 18 2010 06:21 Ecrilon wrote: Both the United States and Russia have already disabled much of their nuclear arsenal. MAD logic prevented them from blowing each other up in the meantime. There are still nukes today. MAD logic is still doing pretty damn well at preventing anyone from launching nukes. A thousand years? Who knows? Nuclear technology may have given way to antimatter technology by then. But it's worked for the last 60 years. I don't see any reason for it to break any time soon. And if not MAD, WHAT? You're ALREADY saying that "oh look nukes have been launched." We can do NOTHING then but rely on MAD. You don't seem to understand that the alternative you are offering (pray that the enemy isn't going to nuke anymore) is definitely not a valid alternative to following the MAD course. I'm not telling you, "I love launching nukes at people for my amusement and the amusement of spectators" I'm telling you that your decision to not launch is a far worse decision, and certainly not "logical". Man... the US should have just nuked everybody, while they were the sole nuclear power, FFS to show the world "yeah... We're boss like that." Then all subsequent war would be avoided because the US empire would encompass every person on the globe! :D Go America! | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
 | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
191 to 190. Neck and neck :p | ||
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
On January 18 2010 06:27 love1another wrote: Man... the US should have just nuked everybody, while they were the sole nuclear power, FFS to show the world "yeah... We're boss like that." Then all subsequent war would be avoided because the US empire would encompass every person on the globe! :D Go America! hm if the world wasnt in shambles and at war already, out of a peace situation producing nukes and having no opponent who do so, at some point you would use them to rule the world. only by threat. this lets me think of nukes beeing the reason for america to join the second world war. since not joining and destroying germany quickly it would be germany who would have had nukes threatening the whole world and dominate. so 2 opposing huge farly seperated countrys developing nukes and running a race of construction had been some good coincidence for the world because it has been balanced. this also could be a reason for americas agressiveness so far, because the nukes somehow are the threat in the backhands. america knows they have the most, though they just dont attack someone with nukes, knowing those will not firststrike because of the more nukes dilemma in favour of the usa. but they are sure the one with only 1 nuke will attack if he gets attacked first because its the only option. (sidenote i think russia expired on paper like this dilemma points out, information gathering got so good that both sides counted the missiles, russia saw "ok we are not in favour, what shall we do?" usa: "open your lands, get a democratic country." ru: "ok." (but at closed doors all of us stay in power and we rule all, like we want, eco, media, resources and so on) usa: "we heard that(echolon), we do the same, no problem there.") today the naive bad/good separation is fading away and changed from an enemy country to a blur. a blur nukes are pretty worthless to. but at least you can use the nuke power to give in your resource hunger overwhelming nukeless country in interest. at least the attitude is changing at the moment from "we over all" to more global one world thinking. since the terrorist supporting evil axes failed on try and by trying to gather what evil is, like people were used to, nothing exact can be found. so you are forced to think or believe what you are told, sadly for the dumb, media is not precise in forecasting anything for their freedom. to the dilemma in todays situation, this worked calmly until now, so i would know the otherside knows the dilemma. nukes fly in so something has changed. i also know we are not enemies anymore, and todays most important resource is money at stock exchanged based on producing capabilities (that are hungry for energy). those are in my country and totally wiped out so no longer of worth. no demands were put or threats were made by the country firing. had to be a system error so i would not push the button. it actually destroyed worlds market and will suffer itself so much, more than it can ever gain by any possible scenario nuking me and risking nuklear winter. what do you think about these thaughts? also lets me think globalisation and conform worlds markets has been a strategy to assure nuklear first strike not to hapen by making vulnerable everyone to big losses of working production facilities. maybe it has been russian free decision or just another "lucky coincidence". (btw i dont believe in the fairy-tale udssr gone bankrupt, i never heard an old person live experienced it talking bad about basic needs there, today there so much hunger.. north korea people die of hunger, do you thing that will change anything at the one at arms :/ ) just some thought that came around concerning that problem. sorry for my english btw, im totally not used to write than talk, i use so many words talking i never saw in written form. i also eat up words xD | ||
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
| ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
Assuming I believe my country was "on the good side" of the war, yes. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 21 2010 15:19 Grobyc wrote: Depends on the cause of the war. If this was WWII and I was on the allies side I would. If I was only in the military cause I got drafted as a nazi or something I wouldn't. Assuming I believe my country was "on the good side" of the war, yes. When has anyone not believed they were "on the good side" of a war? | ||
|
Ecrilon
501 Posts
| ||
|
iD.NicKy
France767 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7182 Posts
On January 22 2010 00:32 Archerofaiur wrote: When has anyone not believed they were "on the good side" of a war? all the time? WW1? | ||
| ||
