|
PS, what's all this about humanity as a whole dying? I thought you said we were ignoring nuclear winter in the thread, thus the states not involved in the nuke-fest will be unscathed? Wouldn't that make it less about "humanity as a species lives or dies" to "the population of the people who nuked you live or die", a significantly different question?
|
On January 13 2010 14:03 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:45 starfries wrote: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/
aha yes that was it! I read it a long time ago so my summary is pretty far off but it was a cool story. I didn't know there was also a movie about it, sounds interesting.
|
On January 13 2010 14:20 cz wrote:
PS, what's all this about humanity as a whole dying? I thought you said we were ignoring nuclear winter in the thread, thus the states not involved in the nuke-fest will be unscathed? Wouldn't that make it less about "humanity as a species lives or dies" to "the population of the people who nuked you live or die", a significantly different question?
Thats dependant on the third parties reaction. The tricky part. Although if you wanted to simplfy you could downsize "humanity" to "millions of russian mothers and children who never hated America but are now in the cross hairs of your vengence".
So how about it? Your dead. Do you want them too?
|
On January 13 2010 14:17 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:16 KwarK wrote: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.
I think that the scenario you need to imagine is a binary world divided between you and your adversary. Your adversary launches and destroys you and all your allies. You somehow still have the ability to make a second strike. Would you wipe out your adversary, given that you and your allies are already gone and your adversary is the last remnant of humanity left.
There's no sacrifice involved here, except potentially sacrificing your lust for revenge. You are already destroyed. There is nothing left to protect. Will you still launch a second strike that destroys what's left of the world?
|
On January 13 2010 14:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:20 cz wrote:
PS, what's all this about humanity as a whole dying? I thought you said we were ignoring nuclear winter in the thread, thus the states not involved in the nuke-fest will be unscathed? Wouldn't that make it less about "humanity as a species lives or dies" to "the population of the people who nuked you live or die", a significantly different question? Thats dependant on the third parties reaction. The tricky part.
So there are third parties that act on their own now? ie if your country has 1 nuke, you can have allies that have large numbers of nukes and will retaliate when you get nuked?
Also why does the third parties even matter? Either we are talking with nuclear winter allowed or not allowed; nobody is going to nuke Chile for the hell of it.
|
On January 13 2010 14:26 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:17 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:16 KwarK wrote: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. I think that the scenario you need to imagine is a binary world divided between you and your adversary. Your adversary launches and destroys you and all your allies. You somehow still have the ability to make a second strike. Would you wipe out your adversary, given that you and your allies are already gone and your adversary is the last remnant of humanity left. There's no sacrifice involved here, except potentially sacrificing your lust for revenge. You are already destroyed. There is nothing left to protect. Will you still launch a second strike that destroys what's left of the world?
Right, well that's different from the initial scenario. That said, it's an interesting question and one I don't have an answer for.
Interesting variation on the question: you are a woman and are viciously raped and beaten, leaving you disfigured and traumatized. Through some new 100%-certain technology, the police determine that the rapist will never re-offend. Your case is also not public; nobody will hear about it. Do you press charges anyway?
|
On January 13 2010 14:28 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:26 Slow Motion wrote:On January 13 2010 14:17 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:16 KwarK wrote: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. I think that the scenario you need to imagine is a binary world divided between you and your adversary. Your adversary launches and destroys you and all your allies. You somehow still have the ability to make a second strike. Would you wipe out your adversary, given that you and your allies are already gone and your adversary is the last remnant of humanity left. There's no sacrifice involved here, except potentially sacrificing your lust for revenge. You are already destroyed. There is nothing left to protect. Will you still launch a second strike that destroys what's left of the world? Right, well that's different from the initial scenario. That said, it's an interesting question and one I don't have an answer for. Interesting variation on the question: you are a woman and are viciously raped and beaten, leaving you disfigured and traumatized. Through some new 100%-certain technology, the police determine that the rapist will never re-offend. Your case is also not public; nobody will hear about it. Do you press charges anyway?
In your scenario there is still a value in punishing him for the purpose of general deterrence. There is no deterrence possible in the nuke scenario, as you are already destroyed.
Edit: Oh shit you edited out the possibility of general deterrence. Nice. Well in that case no, unless you believe in moral retribution and the concept of just deserts.
|
MIRV warheads can still be intercepted. The main thing here is that a MIRV warhead can inflict a nuclear attack on multiple targets. Second strike is irrelevant to the 1 nuke bloc, call it A. A destroys huge area with a single MIRV warhead. B retaliates and turns every square kilometer of A to ashes. Quite a bit of B is left over.
I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. There seems to be a substantial difference between having 1 nuke and 7000 nukes...
|
On January 13 2010 14:05 rei 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. 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 ended this thread, why still arguing?
|
On January 13 2010 14:34 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:05 rei 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. 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 ended this thread, why still arguing?
It wasn't a contest with a possible clear winner or loser. It's just become a mostly random discussion now.
|
On January 13 2010 14:34 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:05 rei 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. 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 ended this thread, why still arguing?
Yeah, it's almost like the whole point of the thread is discussion or something silly like that.
|
On January 13 2010 14:33 thopol wrote:
MIRV warheads can still be intercepted. The main thing here is that a MIRV warhead can inflict a nuclear attack on multiple targets. Second strike is irrelevant to the 1 nuke bloc, call it A. A destroys huge area with a single MIRV warhead. B retaliates and turns every square kilometer of A to ashes. Quite a bit of B is left over.
I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. There seems to be a substantial difference between having 1 nuke and 7000 nukes...
They can't be intercepted with any success rate.
edit: Hell they can't be intercepted at all. If you have a source to prove me wrong, show it.
|
On January 13 2010 14:36 SonuvBob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:34 rei wrote:On January 13 2010 14:05 rei 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. 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 ended this thread, why still arguing? Yeah, it's almost like the whole point of the thread is discussion or something silly like that.
Can't have one of those now can we. Besides there has got to be a clear and obvious solution to Mutually Assured Destruction, I mean right :p
|
I will also add that in the rape example only one man (the man actually responsible for the crime) will suffer if you act on your sense of moral outrage. In the nuke example a lot of innocent people will die and human beings will become extinct.
|
United States42004 Posts
On January 13 2010 14:17 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:16 KwarK wrote: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.
What sacrifice? I'm suggesting the opposite of sacrifice. Blackjack was suggesting that if an evil empire took over the world the best option would be just wiping out humanity. I was suggesting that perhaps waiting it out might be better. A new political system might evolve faster than a completely new sapient species. I'm the one who wants to live, he's the one who wants to sacrifice shit.
And I have no idea which bit of your post was meant to be funny. :S
|
On January 13 2010 14:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:17 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:16 KwarK wrote: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. What sacrifice? I'm suggesting the opposite of sacrifice. Blackjack was suggesting that if an evil empire took over the world the best option would be just wiping out humanity. I was suggesting that perhaps waiting it out might be better. A new political system might evolve faster than a completely new sapient species. I'm the one who wants to live, he's the one who wants to sacrifice shit. And I have no idea which bit of your post was meant to be funny. :S
w/e I WANT BLOOD
|
On January 13 2010 14:37 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:33 thopol wrote:
MIRV warheads can still be intercepted. The main thing here is that a MIRV warhead can inflict a nuclear attack on multiple targets. Second strike is irrelevant to the 1 nuke bloc, call it A. A destroys huge area with a single MIRV warhead. B retaliates and turns every square kilometer of A to ashes. Quite a bit of B is left over.
I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. There seems to be a substantial difference between having 1 nuke and 7000 nukes... They can't be intercepted with any success rate.
OK, well that's the irrelevant part of my post, but while we're on it, the independent sub-warheads cannot be targeted? Is this because they are too small and countermeasures are designed with ICMBs in mind? I mean, MIRV technology has been around for a long time and I know strategic defense has been actively pursued in one form or another for a long time as well. I really don't know, just speculating, so I'd appreciate you replying to set me straight.
|
United States42004 Posts
On January 13 2010 14:28 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:26 Slow Motion wrote:On January 13 2010 14:17 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:16 KwarK wrote: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. I think that the scenario you need to imagine is a binary world divided between you and your adversary. Your adversary launches and destroys you and all your allies. You somehow still have the ability to make a second strike. Would you wipe out your adversary, given that you and your allies are already gone and your adversary is the last remnant of humanity left. There's no sacrifice involved here, except potentially sacrificing your lust for revenge. You are already destroyed. There is nothing left to protect. Will you still launch a second strike that destroys what's left of the world? Right, well that's different from the initial scenario. That said, it's an interesting question and one I don't have an answer for. Interesting variation on the question: you are a woman and are viciously raped and beaten, leaving you disfigured and traumatized. Through some new 100%-certain technology, the police determine that the rapist will never re-offend. Your case is also not public; nobody will hear about it. Do you press charges anyway?
How is that the same question? The first one is for the future of mankind as a whole. The second one is for a single individual. In one situation revenge is unfortunate but unimportant. In the second revenge is suicide of the species.
|
This is a absolutely great thread. TL needed something like this after all the garbage thats been in the general section. Thank you Archerofaiur.
I'm not sure if I'm approaching this problem the right way but, can't we just run through all the scenarios and assign probabilities? Perhaps that would help. I mean, theres clearly no winner in a nuclear war. The winner is the one who isn't participating. But in reality all of us are in the game even if we don't want to be.
Ok so..."A" has 7000 nukes, "B" has 1 nuke and 6999 Bluff
Events in which A fires the first nuke:
1. A fires all 7000 nukes, obliterating B completely.
2. A fires 1 nuke. B fires its only nuke. A retaliates by firing the rest of its 6999 nukes, obliterating B.
3. A fires 1 nuke. B fires its only nuke. A retaliates by firing a nuke back. B has no more nukes and stops firing.
Events in which B fires the first nuke:
1. B fires its only nuke. A retaliates by firing all 7000 nukes, obliterating B completely.
2. B fires its only nuke. A retaliates by firing 1 nuke. B has no more nukes.
I think those are all the possible scenarios. If I missed one then please correct me. Now let's do some analysis. This is assuming that we know all information from both sides. In reality though, we will have missing information.
- Only A has the capability to obliterate B. If B has a fail-destroy system, it does not consist of nukes, but the system is still capable of doing minor damage back to A.
- B gains nothing from firing its only nuke first. It can only play defense. Thus we can assume that initiation will be caused by A.
- If we assume that B will not fire first (probability of that happening is really low, because B gains nothing from firing), then A is in control of all possible scenarios. A has the choice if initiating first strike, and deciding whether or not to strike again after B retaliates with its only nuke.
- A's fail-destroy system has nukes, while B's does not. The irony is that A will never reach a point of being able to use its fail-destroy system.
In a scenario like this, you clearly want to be A. I know I haven't assigned probabilities to everything (like the chance of one side firing a nuke and other other side doing absolutely nothing about it, but that is very unlikely to happen), but its very clear that the most optimal strategy to have in this game is to have more nukes than your opponent.
In real life, you wouldn't know how many nukes your opponent has. But that doesn't change the optimal strategy at all. You just keep buildings nukes and more nukes while keeping other nations from building nukes themselves, hoping that if nuclear war does occur, you have the most nukes. Actually I think this the core of American foreign policy when it comes to nukes lol.
In conclusion, the most logical thing to do in this riddle is to keep building nukes nonstop.
I'm going to run through 7000 nukes vs 7000 nukes in my next post to see if theres a difference.
|
On January 13 2010 14:41 thopol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:37 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:33 thopol wrote:
MIRV warheads can still be intercepted. The main thing here is that a MIRV warhead can inflict a nuclear attack on multiple targets. Second strike is irrelevant to the 1 nuke bloc, call it A. A destroys huge area with a single MIRV warhead. B retaliates and turns every square kilometer of A to ashes. Quite a bit of B is left over.
I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. There seems to be a substantial difference between having 1 nuke and 7000 nukes... They can't be intercepted with any success rate. OK, well that's the irrelevant part of my post, but while we're on it, the independent sub-warheads cannot be targeted? Is this because they are too small and countermeasures are designed with ICMBs in mind? I mean, MIRV technology has been around for a long time and I know strategic defense has been actively pursued in one form or another for a long time as well. I really don't know, just speculating, so I'd appreciate you replying to set me straight.
I don't know the exact reasons on why successful interception has not been developed, I just know that it hasn't (unless I missed something...) The United States has had some "successful" tests, but only in highly restricted and unrealistic scenarios in which the interception vehicle is given a ton of unrealistic advantages. And even then it's a low success rate.
I'm not talking about theory, just what has actually happened. Don't need to know how to service a car to say that the engine won't start when you turn the key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
