|
Annihilating the remainder of humanity for retribution is base and unforgivable. It advances the self in no way and certainly doesn't help humanity either. Only the most vicious and selfless misanthropist would consider anything like this. No matter how rotten human society is, erasing the only known pinch of sentience in the universe is beyond callous.
All it advances is... enforcement of MAD? MAD's goal as a policy instrument is deterrence, and in this scenario it has clearly failed.
Whether the rest of humanity "deserves" to be consigned to oblivion demands investigation. Touring the world's cities and villages to verify everyone's culpability is not an option, so the most likely consequence of launching the attack is the death of innocents to at least some degree. It's terribly irresponsible to throw away our species because of some vague dissatisfactions.
EDIT: The scenario should be clarified for sure, but my inference that the attack is targeted at the remainder of humanity is based on the initial OP. I recall it describing a scenario of complete bipolarization of worldwide political power. I assume that your bloc has been purged, and that retaliation will result in the purging of the other bloc.
Surviving allies or third parties could result in a different story, though I'd still be wary of making the planet inhospitable.
|
On January 14 2010 04:30 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 04:23 NovaTheFeared wrote: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. One is the enviromental damage to the earth (7000 nuclear warheads vs 14000) The other is escalation as alied countries enter the conflict
Unless it can be shown that 8,800 nukes wouldn't destroy the world but 14,000 would I think the point stands. If that is the case, however, I would cede the point.
At first glance of the chart, escalation seems to be a lesser issue. First, because all other countries combined have only a fraction of the nuclear arsenal of the two biggest. Secondly, because among the nuclear countries which is going to come between two countries in a nuclear firefight, risking their own destruction? For example, if Pakistan fired on India does that mean the U.S. will retaliate with a nuclear attack of its own? I think not. There is a strong disincentive for any country to get involved in a nuclear war it hasn't begun.
|
prisonner's dillemma . it is more beneficial to cooperate, however there is an incentive to cheat.
in the end, we all end up cheating..
|
On January 14 2010 04:35 EchOne wrote:
Surviving allies or third parties could result in a different story, though I'd still be wary of making the planet inhospitable.
The fate of third parties is a complicated thing to resolve. Your secondary strike would most likely include other communist countries that could have russian nuclear sites say south america. Russia's secondary responce to your retaliation would most likely include europian cities. I think britian rents american nukes. My money is that Pakistan and India would immediatly fire off at each other regardless of the situation. Having destroyed Russia as the last Super nuclear power china would have a advantage but perhaps a small enough one that any one left alive would seek to cripple immidiatly.
Meanwhile an every growing tens of millions of ash would rise into our stratosphere...
On January 14 2010 04:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Unless it can be shown that 8,800 nukes wouldn't destroy the world but 14,000 would I think the point stands.
Ultimatly you dont know. You can scientifically model it one way or another but there is really no way to know for sure. I mean look at us. Humans can't even agree if humans are making the earth hotter.
What I can tell you with 100% certainty is that 14000 is a bigger number than 7000. And that a bigger number will mean more damage.
|
I'd push the button. I wouldn't want the sons of bitches who fired first salvo to be the ones to carry on the human race. Not out of revenge but to teach any survivors what it means to us nuclear weapons on a large scale and the consequences of mutually assured destruction. I'd like to believe that if we became smart enough to destroy the world, that we would recognize the futility of war.
|
On January 14 2010 04:46 DeathSpank wrote:
I'd push the button. I wouldn't want the sons of bitches who fired first salvo to be the ones to carry on the human race. Not out of revenge but to teach any survivors what it means to us nuclear weapons on a large scale and the consequences of mutually assured destruction. I'd like to believe that if we became smart enough to destroy the world, that we would recognize the futility of war.
Ya, wouldnt it be sad if a country witnessed the destructive power of nuclear weapons and DIDNT abandon war.
|
The initial nuclear strike was probably a product of ~100 men with power that wanted war (Politicians, nuclear arms dealers, religious zealots). Even though millions died because of them (majority of who are innocent), it would be wrong to punish another million of innocent people. If there was a button to kill the initial 100 for their crimes, I'd push that.
|
There's no way on earth a terrorist would be able to launch enough nuclear missiles to destroy either the US or Russia. That scenario in itself is absolutely absurd. Assuming it was a terrorist action and the entire country actually ISN'T a smoldering crater, then there's no need for the man in the bunker to make any decision at all since the nation's command structure would still be operational. Most likely we wouldn't be launching all of our nukes at a nation because a nation launched a single one at us so an appropriate level response would be carried out in that scenario. If the country is actually annihilated, the presumption is that there has to be an enemy state involved and I would not hesitate to wipe the offending state off the face of the earth. The threat of force is meaningless if there isn't a willingness to carry through in the case that someone either ignores the threat or chooses to assume the risk. If a nation assumed the risk of destroying my country knowing full well it would mean the destruction of theirs, I would certainly not reward that nation for ignoring that risk.
In regard to the callousness of such a decision, I don't see why exactly compassion should be a factor in deciding the fate of the surviving nation if that nation had no compassion when they destroyed all the innocent civilians in my own. Essentially it's not me judging the offending nation so much as the offending nation judging itself by launching an attack despite knowing of the backlash. It's not as if there's some intrinsic value to human life or sentience that demands to be preserved in the universe above all else either. Even if we were to destroy the earth today, however miniscule the chance for life to form, given that the universe is an infinite system, it will likely happen again anyway at some point in the future. As for whether one person has the right to judge another, that's debatable, but the fact is we do it all the time to different degrees anyway. There is not a single person alive that is in full control of his own fate.
|
8748 Posts
On January 14 2010 04:30 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
How can you fathom the existence of all the weapons that exist without seeing the world in such a way?
|
On January 14 2010 05:16 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 04:30 Archerofaiur wrote: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. How can you fathom the existence of all the weapons that exist without seeing the world in such a way?
Because nuclear bombs are used as deterrence weapons ? ( yea not for the two first i know ).
Anyway i think that this thread is kinda uninteresting. I mean yes / no type of questions are always bad, especially with nuclear weapons involved lol.
I mean all the nationalists, eye for eye haters or people who would seek revenge will push the button but guess what that won't revive your family. The damage has already been done and pushing the button is useless ... like this thread.
|
On January 14 2010 05:15 HeartOfTofu wrote:
There's no way on earth a terrorist would be able to launch enough nuclear missiles to destroy either the US or Russia.
They only need to launch one. One nuclear missle headed at Russia would most likely trigger a full responce. Actually, I just read something about that where it said that the Russians expect a lone nuclear missle to come first and explode causing a Electromagnetic wave to distrupt communication. This would be shortly followed by the American's full salvo.
On January 14 2010 05:15 HeartOfTofu wrote:
I don't see why exactly compassion should be a factor in deciding the fate of the surviving nation if that nation had no compassion when they destroyed all the innocent civilians in my own.
A nation isnt one person. Your compassion isnt the same as your leaders.
On January 14 2010 05:15 HeartOfTofu wrote:
The threat of force is meaningless if there isn't a willingness to carry through in the case that someone either ignores the threat or chooses to assume the risk.
The threat of force is meaningless if the end result is the destruction of everyone. Your talking about teaching people a lesson when there is going to be no one left to learn that message.
Besides do you really think humans need to learn the lesson of retaliation. I think the entire history of humanity teachs that we have the capacity to retaliate. If we havnt learned it yet what makes you sure that your "super armagedon that will show them" lesson will do it. You think people wont be shoken up by just one continent blowing up. They need two continents to get the picture that "Kids, nukes are bad, m'kay"?
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
nony, i get what you're saying but you're trying to make one point thats interconnected with many other things that require full explanation to fully grasp to an audience of internet kids reading your 1 liners
don't expect anyone to think you make sense
|
bah i'm against nukes T_T I mean once North Korea strikes some country, probably usa with a nuke, (and they will) we will all be dead in a matter of days lol :O
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 14 2010 04:07 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +
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.
I appreciate his wisdom and am thankful that he, and not some random radical, was in charge of something of such importance. This is a totally different situation. The supposed attack was a relatively small one, which made no sense AND the system is known to be unreliable. His actions were right. Your hypothetical situation is very different.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 14 2010 03:49 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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?
There's a difference between natural disasters and created ones.
The people never have a say in these big decisions. The best we can do is keep up our sham of a democracy, hope that the politicians we were given do well and that our daily activities will be more or less unaffected by their decisions. Did the people who were drafted in World War 2 have a choice? They fought because the leaders decided that they would fight. Sure, the atrocities perpetrated by the Axis powers were worth fighting against, but most people weren't even aware that they were taking place and didn't find out until after the war. Did all the soldiers who "died for their country" deserve to die? Did all the civilians that died have a say in the matter? This is what war is all about. It's not fair, just or right for them to die, but tough shit. Life isn't fair.
There's no end goal. If they annihilated our country, their country deserve to die as well. It's simple. It's not like the universe will miss us. There are billions of stars in each galaxy and billions of galaxies. Chances are, we're not the only sentient beings in the universe, not that this matters anyway.
|
On January 13 2010 11:34 arb wrote:
they only do 500 damage so aslong as your buildings are well constructed you should be able to survive 1 nuke.
however 2 will always destroy a building.
|
|
|
On January 14 2010 05:19 Archerofaiur wrote:
They only need to launch one. One nuclear missle headed at Russia would most likely trigger a full responce. Actually, I just read something about that where it said that the Russians expect a lone nuclear missle to come first and explode causing a Electromagnetic wave to distrupt communication. This would be shortly followed by the American's full salvo.
No it wouldn't. One nuclear missile headed toward Russia would quickly be shot down in a real life scenario. Also a single nuclear missile even if it landed would me incapable of disrupting the entire nation's ability to communicate. Neither Russia or the US would immediately and automatically launch its entire arsenal over a single nuke.
On January 14 2010 05:19 Archerofaiur wrote:
A nation isnt one person. Your compassion isnt the same as your leaders.
No, it's not, but it doesn't matter. Your leaders represent the nation and what happens to your nation is based on their decisions. The random kid eating a lollipop on the street is a non-factor in this scenario. If we started thinking about all of the innocent civilians that get caught up in the messes our leaders would create, there would be world peace because no soldier on earth could possibly function out of fear that they might kill someone that had nothing to do with the conflict at hand. If you're in a bunker with control of the nation's nuclear arsenal, you're probably not a person that would get hung up over the concept of innocent casualties and in such a scenario I certainly wouldn't.
On January 14 2010 05:19 Archerofaiur wrote:
The threat of force is meaningless if the end result is the destruction of everyone. Your talking about teaching people a lesson when there is going to be no one left to learn that message.
I'm not talking about teaching people a lesson. I'm talking about carrying through a judgment that the offending parties brought upon themselves rather than rewarded them for their offense. If A=B and you choose A, then you're going to get B. The fate of humanity or whatever else is irrelevant so far as I would be concerned.
On January 14 2010 05:19 Archerofaiur wrote:
Besides do you really think humans need to learn the lesson of retaliation. I think the entire history of humanity teachs that we have the capacity to retaliate. If we havnt learned it yet what makes you sure that your "super armagedon that will show them" lesson will do it.
It wouldn't, but why is there a lesson that needs to be taught at all? If humanity ceases to exist, the fact that you wiped it out would be irrelevant anyway? The question I'd like to ask is what lesson is there to be gained from not bringing about judgment or what is there to be gained at all? Is the continued existence of the human race somehow significant in this universe?
|
On January 14 2010 05:41 HeartOfTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 05:19 Archerofaiur wrote:
The threat of force is meaningless if the end result is the destruction of everyone. Your talking about teaching people a lesson when there is going to be no one left to learn that message. I'm not talking about teaching people a lesson. I'm talking about carrying through a judgment that the offending parties brought upon themselves rather than rewarded them for their offense. If A=B and you choose A, then you're going to get B. The fate of humanity or whatever else is irrelevant so far as I would be concerned.
You are a very interesting person.
On January 14 2010 05:41 HeartOfTofu wrote:
Is the continued existence of the human race somehow significant in this universe?
The human race happens to be my home team. Im rooting for them even if they are having a bad season.
|
I'm just not a person hung up on the idea that the human race holds some sort of intrinsic value that must absolutely be protected at all costs... Once you rid yourself of that notion, the decision becomes quite simple, actually. The universe is infinite and we are but of speck of dust in it.
The notion that there would somehow be world peace because I failed to bring about judgment is laughable. So long as there are human beings, there will be no world peace. There will always be conflicts, oppression, subjugation, and somewhere down the line should I fail to destroy humanity, you will see two superpowers in the same exact situation again anyway. Why? Because that's what humanity is... So if I don't do it, someone else will or we'll end up doing it to ourselves. Whatever the case is, judgment for the entire human race will never be up to the entire human race. The fate of humanity will always be in the hands of a few select individuals who couldn't care less that Billy Bob just wants to work his 9-5 job and live life with his family. Since to me, then, it's all the same, I wouldn't hesitate to push the button to fast forward us to where we're already headed anyway.
I suppose most people can take solace in the fact that the fate of the world will never be up to me.
|
Depends what country would I be nuking. I love some countries and don't like others...voted NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m0mPyxZes7U/SX-Qz5RBZEI/AAAAAAAAAS0/bj9P0s7fV4s/s400/nuclear_states_and_oil.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.douglasgillies.com/images/hiroshima1945.jpg)
