|
On January 13 2010 13:55 rei 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 ecological effects of a possible Nuclear Winter
The question asks for the difference between "7k nuke for both sides", and "7k nuke vs 1 nuke +buff". It didn't ask what and how leaders of which ever side will react, and think. The question does not care about ppl's opinion on the annihilation of the human race if these 2 scenario plays out. OP's question did not state what kind of differences he's looking for in the answer. One can argue that the difference between the 2 scenario literally is difference between the total destructive power of 14k nuke and 7001 nuke. Unless OP will kindly change his question, the difference in destructive power is the most logical answer. and there is no puzzle. Could OP have worded this thing wrong. OP, maybe you need to define what kind of difference you are referring to, Could you mean the difference of how ppl would react when one nation fires their shits? Could you mean the difference of how shits will end up which also depend on how the leader of these 2 nation will react? Maybe you mean the differences between the available war strategies before the first nuke attacks? you ask for the difference, but what kind of differences are you looking for?
This is one of those real questions where the answer isn't known. The purpose of the thought experiment and this discussion to find answers if they exists.
|
On January 13 2010 14:00 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:55 rei wrote: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 ecological effects of a possible Nuclear Winter
The question asks for the difference between "7k nuke for both sides", and "7k nuke vs 1 nuke +buff". It didn't ask what and how leaders of which ever side will react, and think. The question does not care about ppl's opinion on the annihilation of the human race if these 2 scenario plays out. OP's question did not state what kind of differences he's looking for in the answer. One can argue that the difference between the 2 scenario literally is difference between the total destructive power of 14k nuke and 7001 nuke. Unless OP will kindly change his question, the difference in destructive power is the most logical answer. and there is no puzzle. Could OP have worded this thing wrong. OP, maybe you need to define what kind of difference you are referring to, Could you mean the difference of how ppl would react when one nation fires their shits? Could you mean the difference of how shits will end up which also depend on how the leader of these 2 nation will react? Maybe you mean the differences between the available war strategies before the first nuke attacks? you ask for the difference, but what kind of differences are you looking for? This is one of those real questions where the answer isn't known. The purpose of the thought experiment and this discussion to find answers if they exists.
And the purpose of his question was to ask what exactly your question was. I personally found it hard to understand.
|
On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:29 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:27 L 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? Are you convinced that Russia has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at America? Yes. Which is why the system works. Why do you believe that? More importantly, is the amount of uncertainty in that Yes greater than the uncertainty needed for you to launch a nuclear attack? Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me 1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy). and 2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind). Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed.
and is that risk worth the salvation of the world?
On January 13 2010 14:01 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:00 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:55 rei wrote: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 ecological effects of a possible Nuclear Winter
The question asks for the difference between "7k nuke for both sides", and "7k nuke vs 1 nuke +buff". It didn't ask what and how leaders of which ever side will react, and think. The question does not care about ppl's opinion on the annihilation of the human race if these 2 scenario plays out. OP's question did not state what kind of differences he's looking for in the answer. One can argue that the difference between the 2 scenario literally is difference between the total destructive power of 14k nuke and 7001 nuke. Unless OP will kindly change his question, the difference in destructive power is the most logical answer. and there is no puzzle. Could OP have worded this thing wrong. OP, maybe you need to define what kind of difference you are referring to, Could you mean the difference of how ppl would react when one nation fires their shits? Could you mean the difference of how shits will end up which also depend on how the leader of these 2 nation will react? Maybe you mean the differences between the available war strategies before the first nuke attacks? you ask for the difference, but what kind of differences are you looking for? This is one of those real questions where the answer isn't known. The purpose of the thought experiment and this discussion to find answers if they exists. And the purpose of his question was to ask what exactly your question was. I personally found it hard to understand.
Maybe its better not to think of it as a question. Think of it as an avenue of thought. If you need a more formal question I've bolded several in the discussion.
|
On January 13 2010 13:45 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:35 sassy wrote:On January 13 2010 13:26 starfries wrote: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... HAH was that some sci fi novel? or a movie? Sounds awesome i wish i could remember... sadly google and wikipedia brings up nothing relevant. but I did find out that the peace symbol (the chicken foot in a circle) was originally the symbol for nuclear disarmament... gotta love wikipedia.
Fail Safe?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235376/
|
On January 13 2010 14:02 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:29 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:27 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:[quote] 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? Yes. Which is why the system works. Why do you believe that? More importantly, is the amount of uncertainty in that Yes greater than the uncertainty needed for you to launch a nuclear attack? Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me 1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy). and 2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind). Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed. and is that risk worth the salvation of the world? Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:01 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:00 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:55 rei wrote: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 ecological effects of a possible Nuclear Winter
The question asks for the difference between "7k nuke for both sides", and "7k nuke vs 1 nuke +buff". It didn't ask what and how leaders of which ever side will react, and think. The question does not care about ppl's opinion on the annihilation of the human race if these 2 scenario plays out. OP's question did not state what kind of differences he's looking for in the answer. One can argue that the difference between the 2 scenario literally is difference between the total destructive power of 14k nuke and 7001 nuke. Unless OP will kindly change his question, the difference in destructive power is the most logical answer. and there is no puzzle. Could OP have worded this thing wrong. OP, maybe you need to define what kind of difference you are referring to, Could you mean the difference of how ppl would react when one nation fires their shits? Could you mean the difference of how shits will end up which also depend on how the leader of these 2 nation will react? Maybe you mean the differences between the available war strategies before the first nuke attacks? you ask for the difference, but what kind of differences are you looking for? This is one of those real questions where the answer isn't known. The purpose of the thought experiment and this discussion to find answers if they exists. And the purpose of his question was to ask what exactly your question was. I personally found it hard to understand. Maybe its better not to think of it as a question. Think of it as an avenue of thought.
Answer to first question: no. Country comes first.
Second answer: Doesn't matter what it's called if it's worded poorly. I, and apparently at least one other, had a hard time understanding it. It is not written clearly.
|
On January 13 2010 14:00 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:55 rei wrote: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 ecological effects of a possible Nuclear Winter
The question asks for the difference between "7k nuke for both sides", and "7k nuke vs 1 nuke +buff". It didn't ask what and how leaders of which ever side will react, and think. The question does not care about ppl's opinion on the annihilation of the human race if these 2 scenario plays out. OP's question did not state what kind of differences he's looking for in the answer. One can argue that the difference between the 2 scenario literally is difference between the total destructive power of 14k nuke and 7001 nuke. Unless OP will kindly change his question, the difference in destructive power is the most logical answer. and there is no puzzle. Could OP have worded this thing wrong. OP, maybe you need to define what kind of difference you are referring to, Could you mean the difference of how ppl would react when one nation fires their shits? Could you mean the difference of how shits will end up which also depend on how the leader of these 2 nation will react? Maybe you mean the differences between the available war strategies before the first nuke attacks? you ask for the difference, but what kind of differences are you looking for? This is one of those real questions where the answer isn't known. The purpose of the thought experiment and this discussion to find answers if they exists.
Dude, I ask you to clarify your question, if you don't clarify your question, then my answer has won your thread, and you are wrong about "real questions where the answer isn't known". 14k nuke's total destructive power > 7001 nuke's total destructive power. That is the difference!
|
I have a question, are the bluffs actual nukes (like duds?), or did one country just tell the other they had 7000 nukes when they really had 1.
|
On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:29 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:27 L 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? Are you convinced that Russia has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at America? Yes. Which is why the system works. Why do you believe that? More importantly, is the amount of uncertainty in that Yes greater than the uncertainty needed for you to launch a nuclear attack? Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me 1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy). and 2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind). Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed.
No, see you don't. You need to be worried that your opponent finds out that you have one warhead, or under enough warheads post initial strike to make a first strike viable.
|
On January 13 2010 14:06 L wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:29 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:27 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:[quote] 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? Yes. Which is why the system works. Why do you believe that? More importantly, is the amount of uncertainty in that Yes greater than the uncertainty needed for you to launch a nuclear attack? Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me 1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy). and 2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind). Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed. No, see you don't. You need to be worried that your opponent finds out that you have one warhead, or under enough warheads post initial strike to make a first strike viable.
??
Someone with only 1 nuke has to worry that if that fact gets out it's effectively game-over for him. Someone with actual ability to defeat a first-strike doesn't have to deal with that.
|
Opponent finds out you have 1 nuke. Opponent decides NOT to launch 7000 nuclear missles at you for several reasons (cmon you guys can figure out why).
|
I can't believe we've had a whole thread about nukes and no one has made a joke about saving up scans or science vessels yet.
Edit: nvm i just saw the red dot joke lol
|
On January 13 2010 14:08 Archerofaiur wrote:
Opponent finds out you have 1 nuke. Opponent decides not to launch 7000 nuclear missles at you for several reasons.
Why do you think countries have such large nuclear systems in the first place? If you get found out as not having nukes while you pretend to, and there are no other nuclear armed states but the enemy (as written in the OP), you are going to be massively bullied - at least - by your enemy.
|
On January 13 2010 14:08 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:06 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:29 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:27 L wrote:
[quote]
Are you convinced that Russia has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at America? Yes. Which is why the system works. Why do you believe that? More importantly, is the amount of uncertainty in that Yes greater than the uncertainty needed for you to launch a nuclear attack? Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me 1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy). and 2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind). Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed. No, see you don't. You need to be worried that your opponent finds out that you have one warhead, or under enough warheads post initial strike to make a first strike viable. ?? Someone with only 1 nuke has to worry that if that fact gets out it's effectively game-over for him. Someone with actual ability to defeat a first-strike doesn't have to deal with that.
That's not true. Both parties need to worry about information and information only. Even if you have 7000 nuclear warheads, if your believe your opponent has 7000, but also believe that he believes you have few, you are risking being attacked.
Remember; you two aren't the only parties at play.
|
On January 13 2010 14:11 L wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:08 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:06 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:29 Archerofaiur wrote:
[quote]
Yes. Which is why the system works.
Why do you believe that? More importantly, is the amount of uncertainty in that Yes greater than the uncertainty needed for you to launch a nuclear attack? Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me 1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy). and 2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind). Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed. No, see you don't. You need to be worried that your opponent finds out that you have one warhead, or under enough warheads post initial strike to make a first strike viable. ?? Someone with only 1 nuke has to worry that if that fact gets out it's effectively game-over for him. Someone with actual ability to defeat a first-strike doesn't have to deal with that. That's not true. Both parties need to worry about information and information only. Even if you have 7000 nuclear warheads, if your believe your opponent has 7000, but also believe that he believes you have few, you are risking being attacked. Remember; you two aren't the only parties at play.
Whatever. The person with only one nuke always has to be afraid that that might get out, then he's fucked. The person with 7000 nukes doesn't have to worry about that part. And it's kind of hard to keep a secret like that safely hidden. Yes, the person with 7000 has to believe that the other person will somehow underestimate his strength and go for a first strike, but one of the avenues to that conclusion is much riskier for the person with 1 nuke vs the person with 7000 nukes; ie the 1 nuke person actually has to keep a big secret, 7000 person doesn't.
And you are the only two parties at play, per the OP.
|
for the civilians, it'll be the same whether they both have 7000 or if one has just 1 but for the country who has just one, they'd be crapping their pants whilest the one with 7000 will just be waiting to retaliate
|
I'm sort've lost in regard to what the actual question being asked is. First we're talking about a hypothetical scenario with a set of rules that aren't even close to reality and we're somehow applying that logic to the real world where we have other factors to consider (intelligence agencies being a major player here). It just doesn't translate for me.
Having actual firepower is just as crucial as the threat of firepower in the real world simply because you have to be able to back what you say and if you only had 1 nuke, people would undoubtedly find out one way or another. Also after a certain threshold, the precise number of nukes one nation possesses is irrelevant in a real world scenario simply because unlike the hypothetical situation, we have to deal with the issue of environmental impact. One side could have 6000 nukes and the other side could have 50,000 and it would still be a stalemate so long as both sides have enough firepower to overwhelm eachother's defenses.
As for any equation, the definition of victory is something we're presuming. In reality, we don't know what the US or Russia would define as winning in such a scenario and I don't think we can assume that the survival of the human race or world peace is automatically at the top of the nation's priority list... The difference between the two scenarios you suggested comes to light when intelligence capabilities come into play. In the real world, a threat cannot exist for long without the firepower to back it up. In the hypothetical scenario where we cut out intelligence and defense capabilities, I suppose it's all the same..
At any rate, I really still don't get exactly what this thread is about, but it doesn't really seem like a riddle to me in that there isn't a real solution. It's more of a "what would you do?" hypothetical.
|
On January 13 2010 14:13 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:11 L wrote:On January 13 2010 14:08 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:06 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:
[quote]
Why do you believe that?
More importantly, is the amount of uncertainty in that Yes greater than the uncertainty needed for you to launch a nuclear attack? Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me 1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy). and 2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind). Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed. No, see you don't. You need to be worried that your opponent finds out that you have one warhead, or under enough warheads post initial strike to make a first strike viable. ?? Someone with only 1 nuke has to worry that if that fact gets out it's effectively game-over for him. Someone with actual ability to defeat a first-strike doesn't have to deal with that. That's not true. Both parties need to worry about information and information only. Even if you have 7000 nuclear warheads, if your believe your opponent has 7000, but also believe that he believes you have few, you are risking being attacked. Yes, the person with 7000 has to believe that the other person will somehow underestimate his strength and go for a first strike, but one of the avenues to that conclusion is much riskier for the person with 1 nuke vs the person with 7000 nukes; ie the 1 nuke person actually has to keep a big secret, 7000 person doesn't. Remember; you two aren't the only parties at play. Whatever. The person with only one nuke always has to be afraid that that might get out, then he's fucked. The person with 7000 nukes doesn't have to worry about that part. And it's kind of hard to keep a secret like that safely hidden. And you are the only two parties at play, per the OP.
The OP said there were allied countries with (presumably nuclear capabilities).
When the 7000 country finds out you have 1 nuke what you have lost is the nuclear advantage. But if the inevitable consequence of both sides seeking nuclear advantage is eventual extinction than the enemy finding out you have 1 nuke and deciding not to attack may be more desirable than both sides having 7000.
|
United States43803 Posts
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.
Humanity would survive. Regimes cannot last forever. Empires crumble and ultimately human nature triumphs. Humanity is the gem in the crown of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Wiping it out in a fit of pique would be absurd. We must survive, we're too good to waste ourselves.
|
On January 13 2010 14:15 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:13 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:11 L wrote:On January 13 2010 14:08 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:06 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:59 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:
[quote]
Well theres two ways the uncertainty effects me
1) How I react to BEFORE the event (including what I try to convince the other guy).
and
2) How I prepare the system to react AFTER the event (what kind of world I leave behind).
Its more than that; The system isn't binary. Your reaction prior to the event isn't simply coloured by your opponent, its coloured by other currently involved parties. Like I said thats where it gets tricky. Other parties can interfere with what im going to call the "Christ Option". But what I'm saying is that it isn't actually tricky; It isn't the actual ability to be able to fulfill MAD, but rather the presentation that you can above a certain level of doubt, that matters. So the real issue isn't the amount of warheads being faked or the reactions afterwards; its the amount of information both sides have and how trustworthy it is. Except if you know you have 7000 actual warheads, you only have to worry about your opponent firing. If you have only 1 actual warhead you have to be constantly afraid that, should that info be leaked out, you will likely be destroyed. No, see you don't. You need to be worried that your opponent finds out that you have one warhead, or under enough warheads post initial strike to make a first strike viable. ?? Someone with only 1 nuke has to worry that if that fact gets out it's effectively game-over for him. Someone with actual ability to defeat a first-strike doesn't have to deal with that. That's not true. Both parties need to worry about information and information only. Even if you have 7000 nuclear warheads, if your believe your opponent has 7000, but also believe that he believes you have few, you are risking being attacked. Yes, the person with 7000 has to believe that the other person will somehow underestimate his strength and go for a first strike, but one of the avenues to that conclusion is much riskier for the person with 1 nuke vs the person with 7000 nukes; ie the 1 nuke person actually has to keep a big secret, 7000 person doesn't. Remember; you two aren't the only parties at play. Whatever. The person with only one nuke always has to be afraid that that might get out, then he's fucked. The person with 7000 nukes doesn't have to worry about that part. And it's kind of hard to keep a secret like that safely hidden. And you are the only two parties at play, per the OP. The OP said there were allied countries with (presumably nuclear capabilities).
"Alliances with other countries are such that all countries bond to a state act as the state does."
I thought that meant that we were reducing it to a two state situation. If not, what did you mean by "all countries bond to a state act as the state does"
|
On January 13 2010 14:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:26 BlackJack wrote: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. Humanity would survive. Regimes cannot last forever. Empires crumble and ultimately human nature triumphs. Humanity is the gem in the crown of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Wiping it out in a fit of pique would be absurd. We must survive, we're too good to waste ourselves.
Back to your bong poetry book, hippy. (edit: that's funny, i don't care what you say)
If you want to be the one to make the sacrifice, go for it. But not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
