• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:51
CEST 09:51
KST 16:51
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL61Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?13FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event21Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps Program: SC2 / XSplit / OBS Scene Switcher The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? PiG Sty Festival #5: Playoffs Preview + Groups Recap
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Korean Starcraft League Week 77 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Practice Partners (Official) Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL ASL20 Preliminary Maps SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 524 users

A Doomsday Riddle - Page 2

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 15 16 17 Next All
BloodyC0bbler
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
Canada7875 Posts
January 13 2010 02:43 GMT
#21
the difference is. One nuke leaves a temp nuke icon next to ones name, two leaves a perma nuke icon beside a persons name
#3 Member of the Chill Fanclub / Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaeger died. --Ser Jorah Mormont TL MAFIA FORUM http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=31 go go !
SonuvBob
Profile Blog Joined October 2006
Aiur21549 Posts
January 13 2010 02:58 GMT
#22
Just cleaned out a bunch of worthless posts. I don't know what's wrong with these people, but it's really disheartening as a mod to see so many people shit all over a thread just because they don't deem it worthy.
Administrator
starfries
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada3508 Posts
January 13 2010 03:00 GMT
#23
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.

For the fail-deadly systems like Dead Hand I can see why a bluff would work. I don't think there's any real point beyond deterrence, and if you already got hit there really isn't any point in hitting back because you're already screwed. But in terms of diplomacy there is a need to back up your threats. For conventional war this means countering back with force, since both sides will likely survive (in game theory terms this is a repeated game).

For mutually assured destruction it's different. I think it really depends on the motivation. The attacking nation must prefer launching and getting obliterated by a counterattack to the alternative (not getting obliterated) so there is something huge at stake for them. It's really impossible to say whether 7000 nukes will help or hinder the situation. Maybe the entire US has been infested by Zerg but no one outside knows, and the last commander launched nukes at all the major powers hoping the secondary strike would wipe out the infestation... actually that sounds like a really cool story.
DJ – do you like ramen, Savior? Savior – not really. Bisu – I eat it often. Flash – I’m a maniac! | Foxer Fighting!
Archerofaiur
Profile Joined August 2008
United States4101 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-13 03:04:06
January 13 2010 03:02 GMT
#24
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity
http://sclegacy.com/news/28-scl/250-starcraftlegacy-macro-theorycrafting-contest-winners
blue_arrow
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
1971 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-13 03:06:21
January 13 2010 03:03 GMT
#25
On January 13 2010 11:20 Archerofaiur wrote:
What is the difference between a 7000 nuclear warhead stockpile and a 1 nuclear warhead stockpile with a 6999 bluff?

Game Theory Puzzle
Consider that two states have 7000 nuclear "missles" aimed at each other. One state really has 7000 and the other only has 1 real missle. Both state have secondary strike capabilities and cannot intercept the missles (MIRV). Alliances with other countries are such that all countries bond to a state act as the state does. Together the whole of humanity is bond to one state or the other. What difference does this system have from the scenario where both states have 7000 real missles.



*Ignore the possibility of Nuclear Winter


I think you're just asking for a basic and well-known game theory table here? aka 'the prisoner's dilemma'?

I think you should go here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classical_prisoner.27s_dilemma

substitute your two situations in and compare the differences in benefits

i don't really think there is more to it than that
| MLIA | the weather sucks dick here
Sentient66
Profile Joined July 2009
United States651 Posts
January 13 2010 03:05 GMT
#26
On January 13 2010 11:26 Cpt.beefy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 11:25 Faronel wrote:
that when one country fires due to some insane reason, the other one only has 1 nuke to fire back.

It's like saying what's the difference between a gun and a toy gun spray painted black. Nothing except when they are acutually needed to be used.


1 nuke is pretty powerful me thinks




Psh, 1 nuke won't even take out a nexus without EMP-ing it first.
seNsiX.421
Archerofaiur
Profile Joined August 2008
United States4101 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-13 03:13:18
January 13 2010 03:06 GMT
#27
On January 13 2010 12:03 blue_arrow wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 11:20 Archerofaiur wrote:
What is the difference between a 7000 nuclear warhead stockpile and a 1 nuclear warhead stockpile with a 6999 bluff?

Game Theory Puzzle
Consider that two states have 7000 nuclear "missles" aimed at each other. One state really has 7000 and the other only has 1 real missle. Both state have secondary strike capabilities and cannot intercept the missles (MIRV). Alliances with other countries are such that all countries bond to a state act as the state does. Together the whole of humanity is bond to one state or the other. What difference does this system have from the scenario where both states have 7000 real missles.



*Ignore the possibility of Nuclear Winter


I think you're just asking for a basic and well-known game theory table here? aka 'the prisoner's dilemma'?

I think you should go here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classical_prisoner.27s_dilemma

substitute your two situations in and compare the differences in benefits


I love the prisoners dilemma. But (to my knowledge) it only deals with actions before the percipitating event. This is more of a philosophical dilemma. Would you destroy your destroyer if it also meant destroying the world? Is the continued existence of your enemy better then humanities total extinction?


The question tries to determine if the only salvation for humanity is for one state to sacrifice itself to repent the nuclear sins of others.

http://sclegacy.com/news/28-scl/250-starcraftlegacy-macro-theorycrafting-contest-winners
canucks12
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada812 Posts
January 13 2010 03:08 GMT
#28
1 nuke is better, humanity will survive ^^.
Jayme
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
United States5866 Posts
January 13 2010 03:16 GMT
#29
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity


At that moment in time?

Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you.

I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.
Python is garbage, number 1 advocate of getting rid of it.
Archerofaiur
Profile Joined August 2008
United States4101 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-13 03:24:11
January 13 2010 03:18 GMT
#30
On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity


At that moment in time?

Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you.

I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.



But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed.

One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision.

By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Russian Skynet. And you can bet America has an equivalent. Yah F@%#ing scary.
http://sclegacy.com/news/28-scl/250-starcraftlegacy-macro-theorycrafting-contest-winners
starfries
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada3508 Posts
January 13 2010 03:21 GMT
#31
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity


The elimination of the Zerg! Think of how our noble sacrifice saved the galaxy from the Swarm! actually I think the Flood would fit better in this analogy. but also why not just have 7000 bluffs? The main question isn't one of vengeance.. I think (hope) most strategic commanders are rational enough to think of the cost/benefit of retaliation. The Dead Hand system was implemented not just as a deterrent but also to keep the commanders from being too trigger-happy - they could launch after the attack hit, instead of having to decide based on radar before their silos were wiped out.

So most commanders wouldn't be thinking vengeance vs survival, it would be survival vs whatever prompted the launch in the first place. The importance of the other thing is more important than the survival of the species (at least in the eyes of the attacking nation) so whether the defenders consider it just as important would determine whether they launch back.
DJ – do you like ramen, Savior? Savior – not really. Bisu – I eat it often. Flash – I’m a maniac! | Foxer Fighting!
starfries
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada3508 Posts
January 13 2010 03:27 GMT
#32
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity


At that moment in time?

Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you.

I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.



But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed.

One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision.

By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Skynet. Yah F@%#ing scary.


Well it's not quite Skynet lol, it's human controlled. the US has something like that too, involving constantly flying aircraft and subs that won't be destroyed by nukes. I'm sure there's a huge list of situations too already prepared for too, so most likely the officers wouldn't even have to decide, they'd just look up the appropriate response and follow the instructions.
DJ – do you like ramen, Savior? Savior – not really. Bisu – I eat it often. Flash – I’m a maniac! | Foxer Fighting!
Jayme
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
United States5866 Posts
January 13 2010 03:32 GMT
#33
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity


At that moment in time?

Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you.

I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.



But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed.

One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision.

By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Russian Skynet. And you can bet America has an equivalent. Yah F@%#ing scary.


The system is still human control... the way I like it.

I'd rather not have a computer controlling whether or not 7000 nuclear missiles go off. Wouldn't it be nice to have a bug launch them? :/
Python is garbage, number 1 advocate of getting rid of it.
Archerofaiur
Profile Joined August 2008
United States4101 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-13 03:34:35
January 13 2010 03:32 GMT
#34
On January 13 2010 12:27 starfries wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity


At that moment in time?

Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you.

I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.



But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed.

One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision.

By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Skynet. Yah F@%#ing scary.


Well it's not quite Skynet lol, it's human controlled. the US has something like that too, involving constantly flying aircraft and subs that won't be destroyed by nukes. I'm sure there's a huge list of situations too already prepared for too, so most likely the officers wouldn't even have to decide, they'd just look up the appropriate response and follow the instructions.



Thats the idea of having multiple seperate human controllers deciding whether to fire. But undoubtedly a sufficient number of those controllers will all act the same way and that is to launch (if for no other reason than the possibility of reducing damage inflicted on their side).
So a system with multiple autonomous human controllers also escalates to full retaliation.


The only way out is to disable your own capabilities when you are in a "sane" mind ie make the decision before the event comes up.

That is ofcourse if you value humanities survival as greater than vengence.
http://sclegacy.com/news/28-scl/250-starcraftlegacy-macro-theorycrafting-contest-winners
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10441 Posts
January 13 2010 03:43 GMT
#35
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is

Besides defering attack, is their any real use of revenge destruction?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


If you're attacked by a nuke you obviously don't retaliate by destroying the entire planet, but of course you retaliate against the state that attacked you because it sends a message for the future that you can't nuke someone without getting nuked yourself.

It's like when the mob finds a rat that went into the witness protection program. The trial is already over and the mobsters he ratted out are already in jail and that's not going to change if they kill him, is it? No, but they kill him anyway to remind everyone what happens to rats.
Archerofaiur
Profile Joined August 2008
United States4101 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-13 03:47:18
January 13 2010 03:46 GMT
#36
On January 13 2010 12:43 BlackJack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is

Besides defering attack, is their any real use of revenge destruction?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


If you're attacked by a nuke you obviously don't retaliate by destroying the entire planet, but of course you retaliate against the state that attacked you because it sends a message for the future that you can't nuke someone without getting nuked yourself.

It's like when the mob finds a rat that went into the witness protection program. The trial is already over and the mobsters he ratted out are already in jail and that's not going to change if they kill him, is it? No, but they kill him anyway to remind everyone what happens to rats.


The catch is that if you have 7000 missles to retaliate and they have 7000 missles to retaliate and all their associated countries have hundreads of warheads...

Then after the dust settles their is no one left to hear that big message you just sent.
http://sclegacy.com/news/28-scl/250-starcraftlegacy-macro-theorycrafting-contest-winners
Faronel
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States658 Posts
January 13 2010 03:46 GMT
#37
This thread led me to the whole field of game theory... to say the least, I've been hooked.

Anywho, if any of you ever watched Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb , it brings up this idea at the end of a doomsday machine as to if the USSR were to ever be nuked, a device would destroy all of humanity. So the fate of ALL humanity is literally placed on the shoulders of the country committing the first strike.
C'est la vie...
Archerofaiur
Profile Joined August 2008
United States4101 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-13 03:54:23
January 13 2010 03:49 GMT
#38
On January 13 2010 12:46 Faronel wrote:
This thread led me to the whole field of game theory... to say the least, I've been hooked.


Isnt it interesting. I mean aside from the incredibly depressing gravity of it all.

Anywho, if any of you ever watched Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb , it brings up this idea at the end of a doomsday machine as to if the USSR were to ever be nuked, a device would destroy all of humanity. So the fate of ALL humanity is literally placed on the shoulders of the country committing the first strike.


That doomsday machine is real. Its the Dead Hand were talking about. Read this, it will change how you view the world.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all
http://sclegacy.com/news/28-scl/250-starcraftlegacy-macro-theorycrafting-contest-winners
starfries
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada3508 Posts
January 13 2010 03:50 GMT
#39
On January 13 2010 12:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2010 12:27 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...

and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.



The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.


Now the real question is


Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?


Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?


True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.


But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?


Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity


At that moment in time?

Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you.

I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.



But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed.

One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision.

By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Skynet. Yah F@%#ing scary.


Well it's not quite Skynet lol, it's human controlled. the US has something like that too, involving constantly flying aircraft and subs that won't be destroyed by nukes. I'm sure there's a huge list of situations too already prepared for too, so most likely the officers wouldn't even have to decide, they'd just look up the appropriate response and follow the instructions.



Thats the idea of having multiple seperate human controllers deciding whether to fire. But undoubtedly a sufficient number of those controllers will all act the same way and that is to launch (if for no other reason than the possibility of reducing damage inflicted on their side).
So a system with multiple autonomous human controllers also escalates to full retaliation.


The only way out is to disable your own capabilities when you are in a "sane" mind ie make the decision before the event comes up.

That is ofcourse if you value humanities survival as greater than vengence.


man you missed my other post, on a strategic level like this it's no longer about vengeance. Most situations have been carefully thought out beforehand and the most rational response (at least for the nation if not humanity in general) has been planned. Suppose Russia hits the US and wipes out almost everything. That means that the Russian commander prefers the destruction of the US and the probable obliteration of Russia to the alternative. So the US would have to take into account what could possibly be so important that they would choose to go this route (ignoring random terrorism and stuff for a moment here). Then they'd have to decide whether the destruction of Russia would be preferable to the alternative.

In economic terms, the nuking of the US is a sunk cost for the US commanders. Russia, faced with a choice, has basically sacrificed themselves for something. the decision is just whether destroying Russia (as they fully expect) is the best solution. The Russians think so and if the US agrees then they retaliate.
DJ – do you like ramen, Savior? Savior – not really. Bisu – I eat it often. Flash – I’m a maniac! | Foxer Fighting!
Shizuru~
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
Malaysia1676 Posts
January 13 2010 03:53 GMT
#40
u guys should watch the Dr. Strangelove movie...
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 15 16 17 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 9m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
trigger 39
Crank 32
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 440
Leta 201
TY 186
Barracks 54
HiyA 51
NotJumperer 1
Dota 2
XaKoH 775
XcaliburYe170
League of Legends
JimRising 703
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1696
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor230
Other Games
WinterStarcraft698
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH341
• Hupsaiya 90
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2274
League of Legends
• Lourlo1422
• Stunt518
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
2h 9m
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
4h 9m
WardiTV European League
4h 9m
BSL: ProLeague
10h 9m
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
1d 16h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
RSL Revival
4 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
FEL
6 days
FEL
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 2v2 Season 3
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.