|
On January 13 2010 16:47 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:50 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 13:44 Slow Motion wrote:On January 13 2010 13:42 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:41 Slow Motion wrote:On January 13 2010 13:38 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:37 HeartOfTofu wrote:
America has enough sheer firepower to destroy the world more than once over and so does Russia... It's really not a question. As for whether it's specifically 7000 nukes, who knows and more importantly, why does it matter?
The question is which is more important (and desired) the threat of 7000 nukes or actually having 7000 nukes? The threat is more important of course. But in the real world countries are able to obtain enough info on one another that the threat must in effect be roughly equivalent to actuality. Yes! Great point. Which means? Which means for the logic of MAD to work, a country can only assure its safety by actually having enough of a stockpile of nukes for second strike, or at least being very closely allied to a country with such capabilities. However, I think the logic of MAD is less important in the 21st century (at least until world war 3 is fought over energy resources). Second strike isn't necessary if your enemy doesn't have real first-strike capability. Unless you are defining your terms differently. And MAD is extremely important in the 21st century. Nuclear weapons are still the final arbiters in warfare. Joke countries like Iraq/Afghanistan get limited war treatment. There will be no 'energy wars' between nuclear-armed countries that don't involve a massive nuclear exchange; limited warfare between nuclear-armed states has always been impossible. India and Pakistan have gone to war; both are nuclear-armed. Much of it is likely to depend on what the goal is in the war. For a realistic modern situation, war between the United States and the PRC over Taiwan's status. I don't see that war going nuclear; the goal is clearly defined. China wants Taiwan to be reunited with the mainland, the US wants to preserve democracy in Taiwan. It isn't worth nuking each other to pieces over. Probably isn't worth fighting over in the first place with both countries relying on each other economically so much.
India and Pakistans wars predate their nuclear armament except for the brief 1999 class which was very limited and contained.
|
The unthinkable has happened. In the past 3 minutes you have watched your entire country destroyed. Everyone you ever knew is now ash and an entire continent reduced to a smouldering radioactive wasteland. You are a soldier stationed in a bunker offshore. The secondary strike system activates allowing you (and only you) to destroy your enemy. All you have to do is push the button and millions will die.
Poll: Do you push the button?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
On January 13 2010 11:27 Faronel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:26 Cpt.beefy wrote:
1 nuke is pretty powerful me thinks
well, 1 nuke can't destroy the world, only a city. 7000 nukes on the other hand, can.
When I was taking my upper physics courses one of my instructors talked about how much time they've had to refine their technique and payload and that a modern nuke could cause a much greater impact than the two preivously dropped. I don't remember the specifics of how much more powerful he speculated, but you gotta think that the last bomb was dropped over 60 years ago... that's a huge amount of time in the scheme of technology.
As for missile defense systems all they have to do is launch 7000 identical missiles with different payloads at once and make them scramble to determine which are real and which aren't. Maybe 2% of them are real, but that's enough for some good lolz.
|
Yes. If I got attacked and I have the capability to respond, I would do so. It seems that they attacked first, so they were aware that they would be assuring their own destruction as well. Attacking first means that they're implying their acceptance of their own destruction, not to mention the fact that they deserve it.
I wouldn't shoot first though. I'd rather have both of us alive than both of us dead.
|
Yes i would push that button its fair to do so.
|
On January 14 2010 03:43 ghostWriter wrote:
Yes. If I got attacked and I have the capability to respond, I will do so. It seems that they attacked first, so they were aware that they would be assuring their own destruction as well. Attacking first means that they're implying their acceptance of their own destruction, not to mention the fact that they deserve it.
I wouldn't shoot first though. I'd rather have both of us alive than both of us dead.
Who is "they"? If the American President orders a strike on Russia then US civilians like you certainly didnt have a say in it. Do you and your family "deserve" to die if your leaders initiate a strike?
How about if it was an accident but your country just nuked Russia? Do you still "deserve" to die?
Furthermore what do you mean by "deserve it"? Whats the goal your trying to achieve?
Realize that you will be killing millions of civilians who played absolutely no part in the event. Additionally you will be doubling the nuclear fallout and its damage to the earth.In doing so you are possibly bringing about the extinction of the human race. Is that fair, just or right?
On January 14 2010 03:45 Altair wrote:
Yes i would push that button its fair to do so.
How is it fair? Haiti just had a earthquake that killed thousands. Would the fair thing be for other countries to also have thousands killed?
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
|
If i can still get on Iccup TL i would not push the button.
|
|
|
8748 Posts
I'd judge civilization and if I found it lacking, I'd push the button. It'd be hard to imagine a civilization that is willing to kill millions that isn't lacking.
|
On January 14 2010 04:03 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I'd judge civilization and if I found it lacking, I'd push the button. It'd be hard to imagine a civilization that is willing to kill millions that isn't lacking.
See thats the catch. You can never no for certain what the circumstances for the attack were. Here read this
1983 incident
On September 26, 1983, Stanislav Petrov, an Air Defence lieutenant colonel, was the officer on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow which housed the command center of the Soviet early warning system, code-named Oko. Petrov's responsibilities included observing the satellite early warning network and notifying his superiors of any impending nuclear missile attack against the Soviet Union. If notification was received from the early warning systems that inbound missiles had been detected, the Soviet Union's strategy was an immediate nuclear counter-attack against the United States (launch on warning), specified in the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.
Shortly after midnight, the bunker's computers reported that an intercontinental ballistic missile was heading toward the Soviet Union from the US. Petrov considered the detection a computer error, since a United States first-strike nuclear attack would be likely to involve hundreds of simultaneous missile launches, in order to disable any Soviet means for a counterattack. Furthermore, the satellite system's reliability had been questioned in the past. Petrov dismissed the warning as a false alarm, though accounts of the event differ as to whether he notified his superiors or not after he concluded that the computer detections were false and that no missile had been launched. Later, the computers identified four additional missiles in the air, all directed towards the Soviet Union. Petrov again suspected that the computer system was malfunctioning, despite having no other source of information to confirm his suspicions. The Soviet Union's land radar was incapable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, and waiting for it to positively identify the threat would limit the Soviet Union's response time to minutes.
Had Petrov reported incoming American missiles, his superiors might have launched an assault against the United States, precipitating a corresponding nuclear response from the United States. Petrov declared the system's indications a false alarm. Later, it was apparent that he was right: no missiles were approaching and the computer detection system was malfunctioning. It was subsequently determined that the false alarms had been created by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds and the satellites' Molniya orbits, an error later corrected with cross-reference to a geostationary satellite.
Petrov later indicated the influences in this decision included: that he had been told a US strike would be all-out, so that five missiles seemed an illogical start; that the launch detection system was new and, in his view, not yet wholly trustworthy; and that ground radars were still failing to pick up any corroborative evidence, even after minutes of delay.
You've never even heard of that Soviet soldier but he single handedly could have saved yours and every other human's life.
|
8748 Posts
On January 14 2010 03:49 Archerofaiur wrote:
Realize that you will be killing millions of civilians who played absolutely no part in the event.
If they knew about the possibility of the event happening and did not (try to) stop it, then they played a part.
|
On January 14 2010 04:07 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 03:49 Archerofaiur wrote:
Realize that you will be killing millions of civilians who played absolutely no part in the event. If they knew about the possibility of the event happening and did not (try to) stop it, then they played a part.
You know about the possibility of the event happening. Since your not doing anything to stop it do you deserve to die?
Lets bring Sodom and Gomorra. Lets say half the civilians wanted your country dead and the other half didnt? Do they deserve to die? What if it was a half of a half that wanted your country dead? What if it was a half of a half of a half that wanted your country dead?
What if it was just one guy who happened to be at the top?
|
8748 Posts
I think we live in a very shitty world in some ways, and I accept that. I'd push the button and I'd expect the enemies of the US to push the button.
|
Of course I'd push the button. By making an attack of that kind, the country reveals a willingness or propensity to further use nuclear attacks. This reformulates the question to would you kill millions to save billions.
|
On January 14 2010 04:12 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Of course I'd push the button. By making an attack of that kind, the country reveals a willingness or propensity to further use nuclear attacks. This reformulates the question to would you kill millions to save billions.
How would you be saving billions? There would be no one left.
|
You've never even heard of that Soviet soldier but he single handedly could have saved yours and every other human's life.
He only had to make that decision because the policy of hair-trigger secondary response. That is, to fire back before it's confirmed you're being fired upon. That's not the case now, and it's not the case in the hypothetical presented where you know your entire continent is a smoking crater. If the hypothetical introduced uncertainty to the question, my answer of pushing the button would be different.
|
On January 14 2010 04:15 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 04:12 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Of course I'd push the button. By making an attack of that kind, the country reveals a willingness or propensity to further use nuclear attacks. This reformulates the question to would you kill millions to save billions. How would you be saving billions? There would be no one left.
Oh well. If I can't live, neither can you.
|
On January 14 2010 04:15 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 04:12 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Of course I'd push the button. By making an attack of that kind, the country reveals a willingness or propensity to further use nuclear attacks. This reformulates the question to would you kill millions to save billions. How would you be saving billions? There would be no one left.
Your hypothetical posits your country/continent was destroyed. Not the entire world. If they've already destroyed the entire world and killed everyone why is there a question to push or not push? Let's take USSR/USA. If they had gone mad and were planning to destroy us, and then, likely, the rest of the world with nukes our option to destroy them completely as a secondary response would save the rest of the world. That is unless these attacks killed everyone or made the planet completely uninhabitable anyway, in which case we're back to the start, our choice making no difference.
|
On January 14 2010 04:23 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 04:15 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 14 2010 04:12 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Of course I'd push the button. By making an attack of that kind, the country reveals a willingness or propensity to further use nuclear attacks. This reformulates the question to would you kill millions to save billions. How would you be saving billions? There would be no one left. Your hypothetical posits your country/continent was destroyed. Not the entire world. If they've already destroyed the entire world and killed everyone why is there a question to push or not push? Let's take USSR/USA. If they had gone mad and were planning to destroy us, and then, likely, the rest of the world with nukes our option to destroy them completely as a secondary response would save the rest of the world. That is unless these attacks killed everyone or made the planet completely uninhabitable anyway, in which case we're back to the start, our choice making no difference.
There are two big factor which I mentioned to ignore but actually play a big part. While nothing is certain what I can say for sure is this. Humanity will have much less of a chance if you escalate the damage.
One is the enviromental damage to the earth (7000 nuclear warheads vs 14000)
The other is escalation as alied countries enter the conflict
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m0mPyxZes7U/SX-Qz5RBZEI/AAAAAAAAAS0/bj9P0s7fV4s/s400/nuclear_states_and_oil.JPG)
On January 14 2010 04:18 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 04:07 Archerofaiur wrote:
1983 incident...
You've never even heard of that Soviet soldier but he single handedly could have saved yours and every other human's life. He only had to make that decision because the policy of hair-trigger secondary response. That is, to fire back before it's confirmed you're being fired upon. That's not the case now, and it's not the case in the hypothetical presented where you know your entire continent is a smoking crater. If the hypothetical introduced uncertainty to the question, my answer of pushing the button would be different.
And how do you know it wasn't a terrorist or just a out of control general that didnt launch the attack. You'll condemn everyone for one mans actions? What if the ruling party is only a small fraction of the people.
On January 14 2010 04:12 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I think we live in a very shitty world in some ways, and I accept that. I'd push the button and I'd expect the enemies of the US to push the button.
I am very sad that you see the world that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/2/26/2X02-LockeCumputer.jpg)
