EPTA Doomsday Riddle - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
| ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21552 Posts
| ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote: 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. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote: 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 | ||
|
blue_arrow
1971 Posts
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 | ||
|
Sentient66
United States651 Posts
Psh, 1 nuke won't even take out a nexus without EMP-ing it first. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:03 blue_arrow wrote: 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. | ||
|
canucks12
Canada812 Posts
| ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote: 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. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote: 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. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote: 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. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote: 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. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote: 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? :/ | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:27 starfries wrote: 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. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote: 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
United States4101 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:43 BlackJack wrote: 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. | ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
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. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
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 | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On January 13 2010 12:32 Archerofaiur wrote: 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. | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
| ||
| ||
