|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 13 2010 11:58 SonuvBob wrote:
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.
Thank you very much, I thought exactly the same thing. You beat me to it because first I wanted to find a worthy reply to the riddle and thus spared everyone from one of my usual patronizing rants about people opting to ruin a thread rather than participate in it just because they are too lazy to think or simply can't.
As for the riddle, to the op, I am probably wrong but it sounds like a version of the hawk-dove game. There is 2 players, two strategies for each, no perfect information, it is sequential (is it? I think it is..), there is no zero-sum, there is no nash equilibrium. I am unsure though, I know little or nothing of game theory. If you came up with the riddle on your own - kudos!
|
ugh, i was gonna type alot of stuff, but then i realized i don't even understand what the point of this thread is anymore
to me, we're now talking about a "what if" scenario in which you've implemented alot of restrictions that are completely hypothetical and unrealistic
for example, the whole point of 2nd strike capabilities is to deter the 1st strike;
for me, 2nd strike = deterrence, and by saying 'other than deterrence' is analogous to "other than 2, what else could 1+1 equal?"
tbh, i don't see what the above has anything to do with what you stated in the OP regarding game theory and 7000 nukes vs 6999 fakes (which in itself is already a ridiculous context to set things in). If you were looking for a topic on game theory instead of cold war philosophy, then you maybe should use an example that doesn't involve nukes.
|
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution".
|
On January 13 2010 12:53 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:58 SonuvBob wrote:
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. Thank you very much, I thought exactly the same thing. You beat me to it because first I wanted to find a worthy reply to the riddle and thus spared everyone from one of my usual patronizing rants about people opting to ruin a thread rather than participate in it just because they are too lazy to think or simply can't. As for the riddle, to the op, I am probably wrong but it sounds like a version of the hawk-dove game. There is 2 players, two strategies for each, no perfect information, it is sequential (is it? I think it is..), there is no zero-sum, there is no nash equilibrium. I am unsure though, I know little or nothing of game theory. If you came up with the riddle on your own - kudos!
it's not exactly the hawk-dove game.. in the hawk-dove game being a hawk (nuking) gets you an advantage over being a dove. the payoffs for this is more like:
Player 1
---------------------------nuke-------------------------------------------don't nuke
nuke________ -5000000,-5000000 ______________ -1000000, 1
don't nuke____ 1, -1000000______________________10, 10
nuking someone only gets you a point because everyone hates you and the world goes into nuclear winter. global peace gets 10 points each because things go nicely.
you lose a million points for getting nuked :D. if everyone gets nuked humanity is wiped out and you lose 5 million points.
nash equilibrium is world peace.
Depending on the situation, the 1 (payoff for nuking and not getting nuked) can increase if there's a real advantage. If it's more than 10 (the worth of global peace) then there's no nash equilibrium. On the other hand if you don't care about the destruction of humanity (so -5 million is only -5000 or something) we have the prisoner's dilemma (nash equilibrium is to nuke each other).
edit: well my amazing chart came out amazingly crappy
|
On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution".
Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game?
|
On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game?
I don't die.
For most people though.... continued world peace?
Humanity not ending?
|
On January 13 2010 13:08 Conquest101 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? I don't die. For most people though.... continued world peace? Humanity not ending?
And if you were going to die which is more important, killing those who killed you or having humans left on the planet after? What if that enemy that just killed you will now rule over all the people who are left with nuclear dominance?
|
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world.
Edit: Even if my enemy were all Nazis and had killed all the "good" people, I would not destroy them all. There is no reason to believe that any regime will last forever, and as long as there is some of the human species left, there is also some hope that human beings will someday become better than the scumbags we all are.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote: Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? Winning for each is different. For A (7000 real nukes nation) it is war (attack), total annihilation of threat, B (1 nuke bluffer). For B it is peace (avoid conflict). Of course A does not know if it can get away with it and it can not risk a limited nuclear conflict if it has no information. And B has no choice but to play a waiting game, making it the winner.
|
On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world.
Good  Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question
Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
|
LOL i just thought of a weird scenario
imagine actual world, one country starts launching nukes targeted at different cities elsewhere
then the target gets a phone call stating that it is a mistake/computer bug/some kind of error( all of this while more nukes being launched)
what would the response be? Strike back or just wait?
|
On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
They aren't aimed at anything in particular, but I'm sure they can be deployed (at least the ICBM) against any target in the world if necessary.
|
On January 13 2010 13:20 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia? They aren't aimed at anything in particular, but I'm sure they can be deployed (at least the ICBM) against any target in the world if necessary.
But your convinced they exist? And you are convinced there are about that many?
|
It's better to retaliate so the other countries who don't care about your war won't have a tyrant country left to deal with.
I love Canada, no country would nuke woodcutters guys living in a cabin!
|
On January 13 2010 13:10 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:08 Conquest101 wrote:On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? I don't die. For most people though.... continued world peace? Humanity not ending? And if you were going to die which is more important, killing those who killed you or having humans left on the planet after? What if that enemy that just killed you will now rule over all the people who are left with nuclear dominance?
Would you rather destroy all of humanity or leave them with a trigger-happy nuke-laucnhing tyrant country in charge? What's the point of laying down the arms to ensure humanity goes on when the people you're leaving them with is incinerating millions of people? Sure people live on, but only until some Nazi sticks them in an oven.
Also, how does it work out that a country is allowed to destroy your entire country and everyone in it but if you retaliate all of humanity ends? That makes no sense whatsoever. If they can launch a precision attack against you and destroy you and humanity goes on you can do the same to them so none of this makes any sense at all.
|
On January 13 2010 13:18 sassy wrote:
LOL i just thought of a weird scenario
imagine actual world, one country starts launching nukes targeted at different cities elsewhere
then the target gets a phone call stating that it is a mistake/computer bug/some kind of error( all of this while more nukes being launched)
what would the response be? Strike back or just wait?
I remember a story like that, some terrorist in the US launches a nuke at Moscow and there's going to be full-out nuclear war, but the US calls Russia and says stop. Russia agrees, but in return, the US has to let them nuke one of their cities (New York I believe), without telling the civilians since that's what happened to Moscow...
|
On January 13 2010 13:21 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:20 Slow Motion wrote:On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia? They aren't aimed at anything in particular, but I'm sure they can be deployed (at least the ICBM) against any target in the world if necessary. But your convinced they exist? And you are convinced there are about that many?
I think the active number is around 6000, but yeah I believe the US has enough to destroy most of the world.
|
On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
Are you convinced that Russia has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at America?
|
On January 13 2010 13:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:10 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:08 Conquest101 wrote:On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? I don't die. For most people though.... continued world peace? Humanity not ending? And if you were going to die which is more important, killing those who killed you or having humans left on the planet after? What if that enemy that just killed you will now rule over all the people who are left with nuclear dominance? Would you rather destroy all of humanity or leave them with a trigger-happy nuke-laucnhing tyrant country in charge? What's the point of laying down the arms to ensure humanity goes on when the people you're leaving them with is incinerating millions of people? Sure people live on, but only until some Nazi sticks them in an oven. Also, how does it work out that a country is allowed to destroy your entire country and everyone in it but if you retaliate all of humanity ends? That makes no sense whatsoever. If they can launch a precision attack against you and destroy you and humanity goes on you can do the same to them so none of this makes any sense at all.
The idea is that all out attack by both sides and subsequent involvement by alliances eventualy results in death of all or almost all humans. The tricky part is predicting how all states would react.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote: Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question, Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
On January 13 2010 13:21 Archerofaiur wrote: But your convinced they exist? And you are convinced there are about that many?
hum.. maybe the trolls were right lol..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
