|
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
Original Puzzle 1/12/09
What is the difference between a 7000 nuclear warhead stockpile and a 1 nuclear warhead stockpile with a 6999 bluff?
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?
|
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?
It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war.
Then you lose to giant robots.
|
that when one country fires due to some insane reason, the other one only has 1 nuke to fire back.
It's like saying what's the difference between a gun and a toy gun spray painted black. Nothing except when they are actually needed to be used.
|
On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war.
But the differences between now and WWII couldnt be bigger. Currenlty the outcomes are almost binary. The effect of launching 1 nuclear missle elicits the same responce as 200 missles.
|
On January 13 2010 11:25 Faronel wrote:
that when one country fires due to some insane reason, the other one only has 1 nuke to fire back.
It's like saying what's the difference between a gun and a toy gun spray painted black. Nothing except when they are acutually needed to be used.
1 nuke is pretty powerful me thinks
|
|
|
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.
|
On January 13 2010 11:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. But the differences between now and WWII couldnt be bigger. Currenlty the outcomes are almost binary. The effect of launching 1 nuclear missle elicits the same responce as 200 missles.
Wrong.
Nuke do an LOT more damage them 200 missiles the effects last for decades after detonation.
|
On January 13 2010 11:28 Cpt.beefy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:25 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. But the differences between now and WWII couldnt be bigger. Currenlty the outcomes are almost binary. The effect of launching 1 nuclear missle elicits the same responce as 200 missles. Wrong. Nuke do an LOT more damage them 200 missiles the effects last for decades after deonation.
What he's trying to say is that 1 nuclear missle launch will cause another country to launch MANY MANY more nuclear missiles in retaliation, since at that point MutuallyAssuredDestruction is almost guaranteed.
|
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.
Consider if it was 1 nuke vs 7000. Lets say we have 1.
7000 launched against the united states would undoubtedly anhilate us and perhaps bring about a nuclear winter. However the remaining states would suffer only one lost city. Contrast that with 7000 on both sides.
|
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.
|
On January 13 2010 11:30 Faronel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:28 Cpt.beefy wrote:On January 13 2010 11:25 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. But the differences between now and WWII couldnt be bigger. Currenlty the outcomes are almost binary. The effect of launching 1 nuclear missle elicits the same responce as 200 missles. Wrong. Nuke do an LOT more damage them 200 missiles the effects last for decades after deonation. What he's trying to say is that 1 nuclear missle launch will cause another country to launch MANY MANY more nuclear missiles in retaliation, since at that point MutuallyAssuredDestruction is almost guaranteed.
not if ya nuke the missiles 
|
Is there a punch line here?
Because I need to know the answer.
|
On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back.
The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities.
Now the real question is
Besides defering attack, is their any real use of revenge destruction?
Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?
|
On January 13 2010 11:30 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:27 Faronel wrote: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. Consider if it was 1 nuke vs 7000. Lets say we have 1. 7000 launched against the united states would undoubtedly anhilate us and perhaps bring about a nuclear winter. However the remaining states would suffer only one lost city. Contrast that with 7000 on both sides.
I still remember that movie, WAR Games, at the end the computer learns the only way to win is not too play.
I believe that's what your getting at. 7000 too 1 is a bluff but its a fucking good one, its just to risky
to nuke first.
|
On January 13 2010 11:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. But the differences between now and WWII couldnt be bigger. Currenlty the outcomes are almost binary. The effect of launching 1 nuclear missle elicits the same responce as 200 missles.
What outcomes? The ones from models that have never been tested because the models themselves are so scary that no one bothers to shoot one?
The most important part of an initial strike, if i recall correctly, is that you attempt to destroy your opponent's ability to return fire. If you don't have second strike capabilities, an initial strike is far more viable against you.
If you assume that your bluff will never be called, or otherwise called due to an information leak, then sure, there's no difference. If you assume that someone, at sometime, will eventually find out that your subs are actually holding giant inflatable poker tables instead of nukes, Japan will accept the single nuke as the price to pay for their eventual crushing victory using a new type of mobile suit codenamed GUNDAM.
|
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.
|
1 nuke can cause a lot of dmg. For future generations too =]
|
Eh? This has already happened. If they are all real, no one will attack. If they are all bluffs (and someone finds out) you will be landed upon and destroyed in the name of freedom.
|
Seriously, if someone can't see the blinking red dot and run away in time, they deserve to be nuked.
|
the difference is. One nuke leaves a temp nuke icon next to ones name, two leaves a perma nuke icon beside a persons name
|
Just cleaned out a bunch of worthless posts. I don't know what's wrong with these people, but it's really disheartening as a mod to see so many people shit all over a thread just because they don't deem it worthy.
|
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?
True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.
For the fail-deadly systems like Dead Hand I can see why a bluff would work. I don't think there's any real point beyond deterrence, and if you already got hit there really isn't any point in hitting back because you're already screwed. But in terms of diplomacy there is a need to back up your threats. For conventional war this means countering back with force, since both sides will likely survive (in game theory terms this is a repeated game).
For mutually assured destruction it's different. I think it really depends on the motivation. The attacking nation must prefer launching and getting obliterated by a counterattack to the alternative (not getting obliterated) so there is something huge at stake for them. It's really impossible to say whether 7000 nukes will help or hinder the situation. Maybe the entire US has been infested by Zerg but no one outside knows, and the last commander launched nukes at all the major powers hoping the secondary strike would wipe out the infestation... actually that sounds like a really cool story.
|
On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back.
But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead?
Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity
|
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 possibility of Nuclear Winter
I think you're just asking for a basic and well-known game theory table here? aka 'the prisoner's dilemma'?
I think you should go here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classical_prisoner.27s_dilemma
substitute your two situations in and compare the differences in benefits
i don't really think there is more to it than that
|
On January 13 2010 11:26 Cpt.beefy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:25 Faronel wrote:
that when one country fires due to some insane reason, the other one only has 1 nuke to fire back.
It's like saying what's the difference between a gun and a toy gun spray painted black. Nothing except when they are acutually needed to be used. 1 nuke is pretty powerful me thinks
Psh, 1 nuke won't even take out a nexus without EMP-ing it first.
|
On January 13 2010 12:03 blue_arrow 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 possibility of Nuclear Winter I think you're just asking for a basic and well-known game theory table here? aka 'the prisoner's dilemma'? I think you should go here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_classical_prisoner.27s_dilemmasubstitute your two situations in and compare the differences in benefits
I love the prisoners dilemma. But (to my knowledge) it only deals with actions before the percipitating event. This is more of a philosophical dilemma. Would you destroy your destroyer if it also meant destroying the world? Is the continued existence of your enemy better then humanities total extinction?
The question tries to determine if the only salvation for humanity is for one state to sacrifice itself to repent the nuclear sins of others.
|
1 nuke is better, humanity will survive ^^.
|
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back. But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead? Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity
At that moment in time?
Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you.
I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.
|
On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back. But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead? Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity At that moment in time? Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you. I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity.
But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed.
One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision.
By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Russian Skynet. And you can bet America has an equivalent. Yah F@%#ing scary.
|
On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back. But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead? Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity
The elimination of the Zerg! Think of how our noble sacrifice saved the galaxy from the Swarm! actually I think the Flood would fit better in this analogy. but also why not just have 7000 bluffs? The main question isn't one of vengeance.. I think (hope) most strategic commanders are rational enough to think of the cost/benefit of retaliation. The Dead Hand system was implemented not just as a deterrent but also to keep the commanders from being too trigger-happy - they could launch after the attack hit, instead of having to decide based on radar before their silos were wiped out.
So most commanders wouldn't be thinking vengeance vs survival, it would be survival vs whatever prompted the launch in the first place. The importance of the other thing is more important than the survival of the species (at least in the eyes of the attacking nation) so whether the defenders consider it just as important would determine whether they launch back.
|
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back. But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead? Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity At that moment in time? Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you. I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity. But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed. One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision. By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Skynet. Yah F@%#ing scary.
Well it's not quite Skynet lol, it's human controlled. the US has something like that too, involving constantly flying aircraft and subs that won't be destroyed by nukes. I'm sure there's a huge list of situations too already prepared for too, so most likely the officers wouldn't even have to decide, they'd just look up the appropriate response and follow the instructions.
|
On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back. But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead? Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity At that moment in time? Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you. I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity. But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed. One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision. By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Russian Skynet. And you can bet America has an equivalent. Yah F@%#ing scary.
The system is still human control... the way I like it.
I'd rather not have a computer controlling whether or not 7000 nuclear missiles go off. Wouldn't it be nice to have a bug launch them? :/
|
On January 13 2010 12:27 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back. But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead? Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity At that moment in time? Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you. I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity. But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed. One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision. By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Skynet. Yah F@%#ing scary. Well it's not quite Skynet lol, it's human controlled. the US has something like that too, involving constantly flying aircraft and subs that won't be destroyed by nukes. I'm sure there's a huge list of situations too already prepared for too, so most likely the officers wouldn't even have to decide, they'd just look up the appropriate response and follow the instructions.
Thats the idea of having multiple seperate human controllers deciding whether to fire. But undoubtedly a sufficient number of those controllers will all act the same way and that is to launch (if for no other reason than the possibility of reducing damage inflicted on their side).
So a system with multiple autonomous human controllers also escalates to full retaliation.
The only way out is to disable your own capabilities when you are in a "sane" mind ie make the decision before the event comes up.
That is ofcourse if you value humanities survival as greater than vengence.
|
On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of revenge destruction?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you?
If you're attacked by a nuke you obviously don't retaliate by destroying the entire planet, but of course you retaliate against the state that attacked you because it sends a message for the future that you can't nuke someone without getting nuked yourself.
It's like when the mob finds a rat that went into the witness protection program. The trial is already over and the mobsters he ratted out are already in jail and that's not going to change if they kill him, is it? No, but they kill him anyway to remind everyone what happens to rats.
|
On January 13 2010 12:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of revenge destruction?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? If you're attacked by a nuke you obviously don't retaliate by destroying the entire planet, but of course you retaliate against the state that attacked you because it sends a message for the future that you can't nuke someone without getting nuked yourself. It's like when the mob finds a rat that went into the witness protection program. The trial is already over and the mobsters he ratted out are already in jail and that's not going to change if they kill him, is it? No, but they kill him anyway to remind everyone what happens to rats.
The catch is that if you have 7000 missles to retaliate and they have 7000 missles to retaliate and all their associated countries have hundreads of warheads...
Then after the dust settles their is no one left to hear that big message you just sent.
|
This thread led me to the whole field of game theory... to say the least, I've been hooked.
Anywho, if any of you ever watched Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb , it brings up this idea at the end of a doomsday machine as to if the USSR were to ever be nuked, a device would destroy all of humanity. So the fate of ALL humanity is literally placed on the shoulders of the country committing the first strike.
|
On January 13 2010 12:46 Faronel wrote:
This thread led me to the whole field of game theory... to say the least, I've been hooked.
Isnt it interesting. I mean aside from the incredibly depressing gravity of it all.
Anywho, if any of you ever watched Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb , it brings up this idea at the end of a doomsday machine as to if the USSR were to ever be nuked, a device would destroy all of humanity. So the fate of ALL humanity is literally placed on the shoulders of the country committing the first strike.
That doomsday machine is real. Its the Dead Hand were talking about. Read this, it will change how you view the world.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all
|
On January 13 2010 12:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 12:27 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 12:16 Jayme wrote:On January 13 2010 12:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 12:00 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 11:32 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 11:31 starfries wrote:
I think he meant 200 nuclear missiles...
and if you're going to be striking first having 7000 means they can't hit back. The other side can always hit back. Almost all the nuclear powers have second strike capabilities. Now the real question is Besides defering attack, is their any real use of second strike capabilities?Is it worth killing all humans if your already dead? Is it worth killing everyone to take out the person who killed you? True but if you're going to launch, 7000 is better than 1. Now it might not be a huge difference for the counter because most of the fail-deadly systems use nuclear subs. But what are you going to do with the rest of your nukes? Wait for the counter and then go all-out? If there's a situation where you are launching nukes at all, you can expect massive retaliation in which case there is no point in holding back. But what is the point of anhilating the other country (and with it the rest of humanity) if your already going to be dead? Which is worth more at that moment in time? Vengence or the continued survival of Humanity At that moment in time? Imagine if you will your entire life goes up in flames along with the country you have lived in for a number of years. Your loved ones are all dead, your life is probably over, all because some country had the audacity to launch a nuclear attack on you. I can say that in a sound state of mind I wouldn't push that red button. I'd no longer be in a sound state of mind knowing that I'm going to die or that all my loved ones are dead. At that point I can honestly tell you I wouldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity. But their are ways around that. And that is to make the decision (and set up the system) while in a sound mind. Then when the terrible happens you can only deal with it as your sound mind perscribed. One "rumored" way that Dead Hand (the soviet fail-deadly nuclear second strike network) works is that retaliation is left to three people in a bunker. Part of the reason the system would be set up this way is so that the soviet leader who is about to die is not the one making the decision. By the way for anyone who didnt know, yes Dead Hand is real. Think of it as a real life Skynet. Yah F@%#ing scary. Well it's not quite Skynet lol, it's human controlled. the US has something like that too, involving constantly flying aircraft and subs that won't be destroyed by nukes. I'm sure there's a huge list of situations too already prepared for too, so most likely the officers wouldn't even have to decide, they'd just look up the appropriate response and follow the instructions. Thats the idea of having multiple seperate human controllers deciding whether to fire. But undoubtedly a sufficient number of those controllers will all act the same way and that is to launch (if for no other reason than the possibility of reducing damage inflicted on their side). So a system with multiple autonomous human controllers also escalates to full retaliation. The only way out is to disable your own capabilities when you are in a "sane" mind ie make the decision before the event comes up. That is ofcourse if you value humanities survival as greater than vengence.
man you missed my other post, on a strategic level like this it's no longer about vengeance. Most situations have been carefully thought out beforehand and the most rational response (at least for the nation if not humanity in general) has been planned. Suppose Russia hits the US and wipes out almost everything. That means that the Russian commander prefers the destruction of the US and the probable obliteration of Russia to the alternative. So the US would have to take into account what could possibly be so important that they would choose to go this route (ignoring random terrorism and stuff for a moment here). Then they'd have to decide whether the destruction of Russia would be preferable to the alternative.
In economic terms, the nuking of the US is a sunk cost for the US commanders. Russia, faced with a choice, has basically sacrificed themselves for something. the decision is just whether destroying Russia (as they fully expect) is the best solution. The Russians think so and if the US agrees then they retaliate.
|
u guys should watch the Dr. Strangelove movie...
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 13 2010 11:58 SonuvBob wrote:
Just cleaned out a bunch of worthless posts. I don't know what's wrong with these people, but it's really disheartening as a mod to see so many people shit all over a thread just because they don't deem it worthy.
Thank you very much, I thought exactly the same thing. You beat me to it because first I wanted to find a worthy reply to the riddle and thus spared everyone from one of my usual patronizing rants about people opting to ruin a thread rather than participate in it just because they are too lazy to think or simply can't.
As for the riddle, to the op, I am probably wrong but it sounds like a version of the hawk-dove game. There is 2 players, two strategies for each, no perfect information, it is sequential (is it? I think it is..), there is no zero-sum, there is no nash equilibrium. I am unsure though, I know little or nothing of game theory. If you came up with the riddle on your own - kudos!
|
ugh, i was gonna type alot of stuff, but then i realized i don't even understand what the point of this thread is anymore
to me, we're now talking about a "what if" scenario in which you've implemented alot of restrictions that are completely hypothetical and unrealistic
for example, the whole point of 2nd strike capabilities is to deter the 1st strike;
for me, 2nd strike = deterrence, and by saying 'other than deterrence' is analogous to "other than 2, what else could 1+1 equal?"
tbh, i don't see what the above has anything to do with what you stated in the OP regarding game theory and 7000 nukes vs 6999 fakes (which in itself is already a ridiculous context to set things in). If you were looking for a topic on game theory instead of cold war philosophy, then you maybe should use an example that doesn't involve nukes.
|
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution".
|
On January 13 2010 12:53 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:58 SonuvBob wrote:
Just cleaned out a bunch of worthless posts. I don't know what's wrong with these people, but it's really disheartening as a mod to see so many people shit all over a thread just because they don't deem it worthy. Thank you very much, I thought exactly the same thing. You beat me to it because first I wanted to find a worthy reply to the riddle and thus spared everyone from one of my usual patronizing rants about people opting to ruin a thread rather than participate in it just because they are too lazy to think or simply can't. As for the riddle, to the op, I am probably wrong but it sounds like a version of the hawk-dove game. There is 2 players, two strategies for each, no perfect information, it is sequential (is it? I think it is..), there is no zero-sum, there is no nash equilibrium. I am unsure though, I know little or nothing of game theory. If you came up with the riddle on your own - kudos!
it's not exactly the hawk-dove game.. in the hawk-dove game being a hawk (nuking) gets you an advantage over being a dove. the payoffs for this is more like:
Player 1
---------------------------nuke-------------------------------------------don't nuke
nuke________ -5000000,-5000000 ______________ -1000000, 1
don't nuke____ 1, -1000000______________________10, 10
nuking someone only gets you a point because everyone hates you and the world goes into nuclear winter. global peace gets 10 points each because things go nicely.
you lose a million points for getting nuked :D. if everyone gets nuked humanity is wiped out and you lose 5 million points.
nash equilibrium is world peace.
Depending on the situation, the 1 (payoff for nuking and not getting nuked) can increase if there's a real advantage. If it's more than 10 (the worth of global peace) then there's no nash equilibrium. On the other hand if you don't care about the destruction of humanity (so -5 million is only -5000 or something) we have the prisoner's dilemma (nash equilibrium is to nuke each other).
edit: well my amazing chart came out amazingly crappy
|
On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution".
Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game?
|
On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game?
I don't die.
For most people though.... continued world peace?
Humanity not ending?
|
On January 13 2010 13:08 Conquest101 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? I don't die. For most people though.... continued world peace? Humanity not ending?
And if you were going to die which is more important, killing those who killed you or having humans left on the planet after? What if that enemy that just killed you will now rule over all the people who are left with nuclear dominance?
|
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world.
Edit: Even if my enemy were all Nazis and had killed all the "good" people, I would not destroy them all. There is no reason to believe that any regime will last forever, and as long as there is some of the human species left, there is also some hope that human beings will someday become better than the scumbags we all are.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote: Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? Winning for each is different. For A (7000 real nukes nation) it is war (attack), total annihilation of threat, B (1 nuke bluffer). For B it is peace (avoid conflict). Of course A does not know if it can get away with it and it can not risk a limited nuclear conflict if it has no information. And B has no choice but to play a waiting game, making it the winner.
|
On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world.
Good  Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question
Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
|
LOL i just thought of a weird scenario
imagine actual world, one country starts launching nukes targeted at different cities elsewhere
then the target gets a phone call stating that it is a mistake/computer bug/some kind of error( all of this while more nukes being launched)
what would the response be? Strike back or just wait?
|
On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
They aren't aimed at anything in particular, but I'm sure they can be deployed (at least the ICBM) against any target in the world if necessary.
|
On January 13 2010 13:20 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia? They aren't aimed at anything in particular, but I'm sure they can be deployed (at least the ICBM) against any target in the world if necessary.
But your convinced they exist? And you are convinced there are about that many?
|
It's better to retaliate so the other countries who don't care about your war won't have a tyrant country left to deal with.
I love Canada, no country would nuke woodcutters guys living in a cabin!
|
On January 13 2010 13:10 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:08 Conquest101 wrote:On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? I don't die. For most people though.... continued world peace? Humanity not ending? And if you were going to die which is more important, killing those who killed you or having humans left on the planet after? What if that enemy that just killed you will now rule over all the people who are left with nuclear dominance?
Would you rather destroy all of humanity or leave them with a trigger-happy nuke-laucnhing tyrant country in charge? What's the point of laying down the arms to ensure humanity goes on when the people you're leaving them with is incinerating millions of people? Sure people live on, but only until some Nazi sticks them in an oven.
Also, how does it work out that a country is allowed to destroy your entire country and everyone in it but if you retaliate all of humanity ends? That makes no sense whatsoever. If they can launch a precision attack against you and destroy you and humanity goes on you can do the same to them so none of this makes any sense at all.
|
On January 13 2010 13:18 sassy wrote:
LOL i just thought of a weird scenario
imagine actual world, one country starts launching nukes targeted at different cities elsewhere
then the target gets a phone call stating that it is a mistake/computer bug/some kind of error( all of this while more nukes being launched)
what would the response be? Strike back or just wait?
I remember a story like that, some terrorist in the US launches a nuke at Moscow and there's going to be full-out nuclear war, but the US calls Russia and says stop. Russia agrees, but in return, the US has to let them nuke one of their cities (New York I believe), without telling the civilians since that's what happened to Moscow...
|
On January 13 2010 13:21 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:20 Slow Motion wrote:On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia? They aren't aimed at anything in particular, but I'm sure they can be deployed (at least the ICBM) against any target in the world if necessary. But your convinced they exist? And you are convinced there are about that many?
I think the active number is around 6000, but yeah I believe the US has enough to destroy most of the world.
|
On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
Are you convinced that Russia has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at America?
|
On January 13 2010 13:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:10 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:08 Conquest101 wrote:On January 13 2010 13:04 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:03 B1nary wrote:
Is there a definite answer to this in terms of game theory or is this more of a philosophical topic about revenge vs. survival of mankind? The discussion seems steered towards to latter but I'm curious if there's a clear-cut "solution". Depends on what you want your solution to be. How would you define winning the game? I don't die. For most people though.... continued world peace? Humanity not ending? And if you were going to die which is more important, killing those who killed you or having humans left on the planet after? What if that enemy that just killed you will now rule over all the people who are left with nuclear dominance? Would you rather destroy all of humanity or leave them with a trigger-happy nuke-laucnhing tyrant country in charge? What's the point of laying down the arms to ensure humanity goes on when the people you're leaving them with is incinerating millions of people? Sure people live on, but only until some Nazi sticks them in an oven. Also, how does it work out that a country is allowed to destroy your entire country and everyone in it but if you retaliate all of humanity ends? That makes no sense whatsoever. If they can launch a precision attack against you and destroy you and humanity goes on you can do the same to them so none of this makes any sense at all.
The idea is that all out attack by both sides and subsequent involvement by alliances eventualy results in death of all or almost all humans. The tricky part is predicting how all states would react.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote: Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question, Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia?
On January 13 2010 13:21 Archerofaiur wrote: But your convinced they exist? And you are convinced there are about that many?
hum.. maybe the trolls were right lol..
|
On January 13 2010 13:27 L wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 13:17 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 13 2010 13:13 Slow Motion wrote:
There is no actual value or logic in retaliation against the enemy if your country has already been destroyed by nukes. However, for the purpose of MAD, it is imperative that the adversary believes that there will be retaliation.
It's kinda paradoxical, but it comes down to the fact that, for example, the US has to understand that USSR will retaliate even when it's already been destroyed and there is no point in retaliation. Without this understanding there can be no MAD.
Personally, as a leader of the US I will give the adversary no doubt that I would retaliate even if my country were completely destroyed. But when the moment actually came that every American is nuked to death, I would not retaliate. There is no reason at that point to destroy every human life in the world. Good Now we are ready for the billion dollar (or life) question Are you convinced that America has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at Russia? Are you convinced that Russia has 7000 nuclear warheads aimed at America?
Yes. Which is why the system works.
Suppose one of the states decided that it was the threat of nuclear anhilation, and not actual nuclear anhilation that they most desired. Suppose they decided that should they die it would be better for the enemy to live then all to die.
|
On January 13 2010 13:26 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
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?
On a personal note, I would wipe out all of mankind along with me in that scenario just because I'm a selfish bastard...
This seems less like game theory and more like philosophy... But then again, I suppose the two come together in that there's inevitably philosophy involved in defining certain aspects of the game such as the definition of winning..
|
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?
|
On January 13 2010 13:38 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 13 2010 13:41 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +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 either you have the real deal or you have almost the real deal and hid say a tiny but crucial part.
|
On January 13 2010 13:42 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
On January 13 2010 13:35 sassy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 13 2010 13:29 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
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.
I remember this one about Taiwanese terrorists, and nuclear brinkmanship between the US and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_Command_(film)
|
On January 13 2010 13:46 L wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
On January 13 2010 13:44 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 13 2010 13:48 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think he's assuming a binary system for his scenarios, aka Cold War era.
|
On January 13 2010 13:51 L wrote:Show nested quote +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" (btw not a religous thing, just think it fits with the theme).
|
What we talking bout btw? Read entire thread and can't understand a thing.
edit: Someone trying to argue than in the case of a nuclear attack the United States shouldn't return fire, because then humanity overall loses? And that all that is necessary is the threat that you will retaliate rather than the actual action?
|
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?
|
On January 13 2010 13:53 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
United States4796 Posts
That's what the cold war is, really. Until anyone starts firing, it's all the same. But when the country who threatens to fire doesn't fire...then the other country knows the first one is bluffing and wins.
|
On January 13 2010 13:57 L wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 States42567 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.
|
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 States42567 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 States42567 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.
|
On January 13 2010 14:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:28 cz wrote: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.
Yeah that's why I called it a variation of the question, rather than a simple, accurate analogous rephrasing.
|
On January 13 2010 14:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:41 thopol wrote: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.
It's kind of like the arms race of the 21st century. One side develops a missile defense system (sort of) and the other side finds a way to penetrate that system. From the little that I know, my impression is that technology that penetrates missile defense systems is currently a lot cheaper and easier to develop than actual effective missile defense technology.
|
Side with 7000 real nukes has more power. This is because they can initiate or they can respond. They have both options. Side with the fakes on their side has only "responsive" power; they lack the initiative power.
|
On January 13 2010 14:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:41 thopol wrote: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.
Right. Well I guess my source is just wiki, though I suppose I could dig around a bit (though I really have no conviction that I am right about this).
From wiki, describing the advantages of a MIRV warhead:
Reduces the effectiveness of an anti-ballistic missile system that relies on intercepting individual warheads. While a MIRVed attacking missile can have multiple (3–12 on United States missiles and 12-24 on Russians) warheads, interceptors can only have one warhead per missile. Thus, in both a military and economic sense, MIRVs render ABM systems less effective, as the costs of maintaining a workable defense against MIRVs would greatly increase, requiring multiple defensive missiles for each offensive one. Decoy reentry vehicles can be used alongside actual warheads to minimize the chances of the actual warheads being intercepted before they reach their targets. A system that destroys the missile earlier in its trajectory (before MIRV separation) is not affected by this but is more difficult, and thus more expensive to implement.
Now, I don't know the source of this as it's not cited on wiki, and I also know that even if it were cited wiki is not the most reliable source, but it's something.
|
On January 13 2010 14:46 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:43 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 14:41 thopol wrote: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. It's kind of like the arms race of the 21st century. One side develops a missile defense system (sort of) and the other side finds a way to penetrate that system. From the little that I know, my impression is that technology that penetrates missile defense systems is currently a lot cheaper and easier to develop than actual effective missile defense technology.
Yeah but what I'm saying is that the interception hasn't even been successfully developed.
|
That wiki doesn't say that the ABM systems targetting MIRV warheads work.
|
From the ABM wiki page:
"In general short-range tactical ABMs cannot intercept ICBMs, even if within range. The tactical ABM radar and performance characteristics do not allow it, as an incoming ICBM warhead moves much faster than a tactical missile warhead. However it is possible the better-performance Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile could be upgraded to intercept ICBMs."
|
|
|
On January 13 2010 14:42 ktp wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
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.
The thing is A thinks B has 7000 nukes. It's the difference between having maphack and not.
So from A's perspective they can launch 7000 nukes, and get hit back with 7000 nukes (of course everyone has fail-deadly systems or the person to nuke first has no reason not to).
Or they can launch 1 nuke, and get hit back with 7000, and then launch the rest. No matter how you do it, if A launches, it gets hit with 7000 nukes.
The alternative for A is to not launch any nukes. They don't get nuked in return.
So the choice for A is pretty clear - get nuked 7000 times or don't get nuked. In most cases it's not worth getting nuked, so they don't launch. So B's bluff works.
Of course, if A launches, B is screwed because they only have one nuke to fire back. That's how bluffs work - if your bluff gets called, you lose. You just have to (as B) make the perceived risk (getting nuked 7000 times) too great for A to take.
|
On January 13 2010 11:40 Cloud wrote:
Eh? This has already happened. If they are all real, no one will attack. If they are all bluffs (and someone finds out) you will be landed upon and destroyed in the name of freedom.
this sounds right
|
On January 13 2010 11:25 Faronel wrote:
that when one country fires due to some insane reason, the other one only has 1 nuke to fire back.
It's like saying what's the difference between a gun and a toy gun spray painted black. Nothing except when they are actually needed to be used.
Well not quite, a gun with one bullet is not equal to a toy gun. One nuke can still do a ton of damage and you can always say you got more where that came from, and if a country has one it's very believable they have more unless there is intelligence that the one nuke was stolen or something I guess.
|
On January 13 2010 14:53 cz wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_AgencyHas a bunch of links to the multiple phases where an ICBM can be intercepted and the contracts awarded in each possible phase. Doesn't seem to be anything that works on my brief overview.
Yeah, it seems like MIRV technology thwarts missile defense just by virtue of the high cost required to intercept individual projectiles (From reading the MIRV section of the ABM wiki article). There are also other technical concerns, which this interesting blog entry explores: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_and_minorities/50076
That article also seems to indicate that the technology is there, but there are practical concerns in the case of a state launching multiple MIRV warheads, and technical concerns in any case centering around cost.
Another thing worth considering is other forms of missile defense, for example from the national missile defense wiki page (we're just tossing these wiki citations back and forth, lol):
'Several airborne systems are being examined, which would then be utilized by the US Air Force. One major object of study is a boost-phase defense, meaning a system to intercept missiles while they are in their boost phase. One potential system for this use might be an airborne laser, being tested on the Boeing YAL-1.'
That just sounds cool.
You can just edit your post instead of posting consecutively btw.
|
On January 13 2010 15:09 thopol wrote:Yeah, it seems like MIRV technology thwarts missile defense just by virtue of the high cost required to intercept individual projectiles (From reading the MIRV section of the ABM wiki article). There are also other technical concerns, which this interesting blog entry explores: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_and_minorities/50076That article also seems to indicate that the technology is there, but there are practical concerns in the case of a state launching multiple MIRV warheads, and technical concerns in any case centering around cost. Another thing worth considering is other forms of missile defense, for example from the national missile defense wiki page (we're just tossing these wiki citations back and forth, lol): 'Several airborne systems are being examined, which would then be utilized by the US Air Force. One major object of study is a boost-phase defense, meaning a system to intercept missiles while they are in their boost phase. One potential system for this use might be an airborne laser, being tested on the Boeing YAL-1.' That just sounds cool. You can just edit your post instead of posting consecutively btw.
Skimmed the article, didn't see anything about any repeated, real-world like successful tests. There's a lot of potential but so far, from what I understand, nothing has been developed to actually beat an ICBM and shown to do so repeatedly in real-world tests.
|
On January 13 2010 15:12 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 15:09 thopol wrote:On January 13 2010 14:53 cz wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_AgencyHas a bunch of links to the multiple phases where an ICBM can be intercepted and the contracts awarded in each possible phase. Doesn't seem to be anything that works on my brief overview. Yeah, it seems like MIRV technology thwarts missile defense just by virtue of the high cost required to intercept individual projectiles (From reading the MIRV section of the ABM wiki article). There are also other technical concerns, which this interesting blog entry explores: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_and_minorities/50076That article also seems to indicate that the technology is there, but there are practical concerns in the case of a state launching multiple MIRV warheads, and technical concerns in any case centering around cost. Another thing worth considering is other forms of missile defense, for example from the national missile defense wiki page (we're just tossing these wiki citations back and forth, lol): 'Several airborne systems are being examined, which would then be utilized by the US Air Force. One major object of study is a boost-phase defense, meaning a system to intercept missiles while they are in their boost phase. One potential system for this use might be an airborne laser, being tested on the Boeing YAL-1.' That just sounds cool. You can just edit your post instead of posting consecutively btw. Skimmed the article, didn't see anything about any repeated, real-world like successful tests. There's a lot of potential but so far, from what I understand, nothing has been developed to actually beat an ICBM and shown to do so repeatedly in real-world tests.
Well ICBM, yes. MIRV, no. That's what I've gathered from this evening's research.
It's been fun though .
|
On January 13 2010 14:56 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:42 ktp wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
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.
The thing is A thinks B has 7000 nukes. It's the difference between having maphack and not. So from A's perspective they can launch 7000 nukes, and get hit back with 7000 nukes (of course everyone has fail-deadly systems or the person to nuke first has no reason not to). Or they can launch 1 nuke, and get hit back with 7000, and then launch the rest. No matter how you do it, if A launches, it gets hit with 7000 nukes. The alternative for A is to not launch any nukes. They don't get nuked in return. So the choice for A is pretty clear - get nuked 7000 times or don't get nuked. In most cases it's not worth getting nuked, so they don't launch. So B's bluff works. Of course, if A launches, B is screwed because they only have one nuke to fire back. That's how bluffs work - if your bluff gets called, you lose. You just have to (as B) make the perceived risk (getting nuked 7000 times) too great for A to take.
Very good point, I had totally forgot how each nation perceives the other. With all the information in place its easy to make the most optimal choice. But in reality we don't know everything. What then, is the most optmial decision? If you don't have nukes and another country does, you will get bullied around. If you both have nukes, then nuclear war means you are both dead. Perhaps both having nukes, but agreeing to never fire? Maybe deterrence works after all? Its so damn complicated yo.
|
On January 13 2010 15:14 thopol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 15:12 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 15:09 thopol wrote:On January 13 2010 14:53 cz wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_AgencyHas a bunch of links to the multiple phases where an ICBM can be intercepted and the contracts awarded in each possible phase. Doesn't seem to be anything that works on my brief overview. Yeah, it seems like MIRV technology thwarts missile defense just by virtue of the high cost required to intercept individual projectiles (From reading the MIRV section of the ABM wiki article). There are also other technical concerns, which this interesting blog entry explores: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_and_minorities/50076That article also seems to indicate that the technology is there, but there are practical concerns in the case of a state launching multiple MIRV warheads, and technical concerns in any case centering around cost. Another thing worth considering is other forms of missile defense, for example from the national missile defense wiki page (we're just tossing these wiki citations back and forth, lol): 'Several airborne systems are being examined, which would then be utilized by the US Air Force. One major object of study is a boost-phase defense, meaning a system to intercept missiles while they are in their boost phase. One potential system for this use might be an airborne laser, being tested on the Boeing YAL-1.' That just sounds cool. You can just edit your post instead of posting consecutively btw. Skimmed the article, didn't see anything about any repeated, real-world like successful tests. There's a lot of potential but so far, from what I understand, nothing has been developed to actually beat an ICBM and shown to do so repeatedly in real-world tests. Well ICBM, yes. MIRV, no. That's what I've gathered from this evening's research. It's been fun though .
Do you have a link to something that shows repeated success at beating an MIRV in real-world conditions? To my knowledge that does not exist.
|
It does not matter if the state has one or 7000 cause the entire world is in an alliance with one of he countries bombs the other the whole world will follow suit. So in conclusion the end of the world
|
On January 13 2010 15:15 ktp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 14:56 starfries wrote:On January 13 2010 14:42 ktp wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
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.
The thing is A thinks B has 7000 nukes. It's the difference between having maphack and not. So from A's perspective they can launch 7000 nukes, and get hit back with 7000 nukes (of course everyone has fail-deadly systems or the person to nuke first has no reason not to). Or they can launch 1 nuke, and get hit back with 7000, and then launch the rest. No matter how you do it, if A launches, it gets hit with 7000 nukes. The alternative for A is to not launch any nukes. They don't get nuked in return. So the choice for A is pretty clear - get nuked 7000 times or don't get nuked. In most cases it's not worth getting nuked, so they don't launch. So B's bluff works. Of course, if A launches, B is screwed because they only have one nuke to fire back. That's how bluffs work - if your bluff gets called, you lose. You just have to (as B) make the perceived risk (getting nuked 7000 times) too great for A to take. Very good point, I had totally forgot how each nation perceives the other. With all the information in place its easy to make the most optimal choice. But in reality we don't know everything. What then, is the most optmial decision? If you don't have nukes and another country does, you will get bullied around. If you both have nukes, then nuclear war means you are both dead. Perhaps both having nukes, but agreeing to never fire? Maybe deterrence works after all? Its so damn complicated yo.
I think from a defense point of view, the best thing for one country would be to build some nukes to toss around in tests and so on, and back up their statements. Then claim to have more nukes than the other guy. Whatever they say they have, triple it
edit: this also makes disarmament easy. free diplomacy brownie points!
|
On January 13 2010 15:15 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 15:14 thopol wrote:On January 13 2010 15:12 cz wrote:On January 13 2010 15:09 thopol wrote:On January 13 2010 14:53 cz wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_AgencyHas a bunch of links to the multiple phases where an ICBM can be intercepted and the contracts awarded in each possible phase. Doesn't seem to be anything that works on my brief overview. Yeah, it seems like MIRV technology thwarts missile defense just by virtue of the high cost required to intercept individual projectiles (From reading the MIRV section of the ABM wiki article). There are also other technical concerns, which this interesting blog entry explores: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_and_minorities/50076That article also seems to indicate that the technology is there, but there are practical concerns in the case of a state launching multiple MIRV warheads, and technical concerns in any case centering around cost. Another thing worth considering is other forms of missile defense, for example from the national missile defense wiki page (we're just tossing these wiki citations back and forth, lol): 'Several airborne systems are being examined, which would then be utilized by the US Air Force. One major object of study is a boost-phase defense, meaning a system to intercept missiles while they are in their boost phase. One potential system for this use might be an airborne laser, being tested on the Boeing YAL-1.' That just sounds cool. You can just edit your post instead of posting consecutively btw. Skimmed the article, didn't see anything about any repeated, real-world like successful tests. There's a lot of potential but so far, from what I understand, nothing has been developed to actually beat an ICBM and shown to do so repeatedly in real-world tests. Well ICBM, yes. MIRV, no. That's what I've gathered from this evening's research. It's been fun though . Do you have a link to something that shows repeated success at beating an MIRV in real-world conditions? To my knowledge that does not exist.
Yeah, I'm saying you can intercept and ICBM with some level of success, and there have been real world tests of that. It is possible to intercept MIRVed warheads, but it has not been tested in the real world.
|
On January 13 2010 13:50 cz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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
|
Ok did everyone else who voted "Yes" also secretly hate humanity?
|
I chose yes to nuking the initiators in the poll simply due to the fact that I know I'd probably be angry/depressed enough to be irrational about my decision. I think it's easy for people to talk about holding true to their beliefs about mercy and justice, but when it comes down to it, this is the type of situation where you can't know how you'd react until you've faced it. Of course that's not to say that everyone would walk the same path as me, but it's something to be considered.
|
On January 14 2010 06:10 InsideTheBox wrote:
I chose yes to nuking the initiators in the poll simply due to the fact that I know I'd probably be angry/depressed enough to be irrational about my decision. I think it's easy for people to talk about holding true to their beliefs about mercy and justice, but when it comes down to it, this is the type of situation where you can't know how you'd react until you've faced it. Of course that's not to say that everyone would walk the same path as me, but it's something to be considered.
This is true... it's easy to be rational and think long term when it's all just an exercise on paper. Reality is quite different and rational thinking rarely comes into play.
|
Wow this thread is depressing. I thought I was morally bankrupt, but even I find the amount of support for nuking in this thread shocking. I've already harped on about how ridiculous the notion of vengeful mass destruction is, so instead of harping some more I'd like to ask those who would press the button: what are your reasons? What are you trying to accomplish? Why is this the best course of action?
I'd like to understand the motivations better, because all I'm seeing right now is "Humanity sucks, therefore extermination of humanity is perfectly acceptable."
EDIT: On being irrational at the moment: the effects of this are so unpredictable that we can't really discuss it. I doubt any one of us knows how it would feel to have our society erased, so it's silly to guess. Whether or not we'd feel justified afterwards is a more reasonable speculation.
|
On January 14 2010 04:51 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
ya it is sad you jackass
|
On January 14 2010 06:15 DeathSpank wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 04:51 Archerofaiur wrote: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. ya it is sad you jackass
Wasnt me man. I didnt drop no a bomb. It was my country.
|
On January 13 2010 11:20 Archerofaiur wrote:
[...]You are a soldier [...]
then yes
|
On January 14 2010 06:15 EchOne wrote:
Wow this thread is depressing. I thought I was morally bankrupt, but even I find the amount of support for nuking in this thread shocking. I've already harped on about how ridiculous the notion of vengeful mass destruction is, so instead of harping some more I'd like to ask those who would press the button: what are your reasons? What are you trying to accomplish? Why is this the best course of action?
I'd like to understand the motivations better, because all I'm seeing right now is "Humanity sucks, therefore extermination of humanity is perfectly acceptable."
I don't see it as a better or worse course of action and to me, it has nothing to do with morality... What part of war is moral to begin with anyway? It's not vengeance; it's inevitable judgment. While it's ultimately a few individuals with their hands on the trigger, it all represents the human race. We're the ones that created the system, we're the ones that perpetuate it. We're the ones that squabble and fight and we're the ones that ultimately destroy each other and in doing so, destroy ourselves. War and violence isn't the exception, it is the norm. While it isn't always carried out with weapons, we fight everyday with one and the human existence is really one long power struggle. There's really not a lot that we as a species tend to value in this world.
However, there is at least the glimmer of hope in that we value our own existence somewhat, and that is really the only hope I see in humanity. Despite all the conflict and all of our lack of long term thinking, our own individual existence is the one thing that we hold sacred and so long as there is indeed something that we value, there is maybe some hope that we could value something else or at very least progress as a species even if it's just for the sake of our own personal survival.
However launching an attack knowing full well that it means your own guaranteed destruction along with the destruction of your nation to me pretty much represents that it's possible for an entire group of perfectly logical human beings that represent a major country to hold nothing valuable, not even their own lives or the country and people they represent. What further hope is there for humanity then, if this was ever the case? If there's no hope, then what's the point of continuing to exist? If there's no point in the continued existence of humanity, why hesitate to erase it? We would have essentially brought about our own end... Or would you suggest that I reward people for holding absolutely nothing in this world (not even their own lives) valuable? If I did that, do you think the world would be a better place should people survive anyway? I could not bear to live in a world where people actually benefit from valuing nothing, not even their own existence or their neighbors, and if such world were to exist the outcome would be inevitable and ultimately the same outcome that I would be bringing about by pushing the button in front of me.
I don't have a total lack of faith in humanity right now, but if the given scenario occurred, what little faith I do have would be dissolved pretty quickly to say the least... Is it a depressing scenario? Absolutely, but not because a lot of people would die, but because it would be the death of hope when we can't even care about ourselves.
|
Would I press it?
No I wouldn't. I'm not a soldier and I don't believe in killing innocent people, regardless of the political climate
|
We get it HeartofTofu, you have a god-complex and/or want attention and/or are depressed. Regardless I dont think we really need to spend time explaining to you the merits and redemptive qualities of humanity. We have enough Disney movies for that :p
|
I was merely responding to echone's question as to why I would push the button and explaining why it wouldn't take a "morally bankrupt" person to do so. I don't recall answering a question being an indicator of a depressed person, a person with a god-complex, or someone starved for attention either...
TBH, If anything, I'm just bored...
|
On January 14 2010 07:16 HeartOfTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 06:15 EchOne wrote:
Wow this thread is depressing. I thought I was morally bankrupt, but even I find the amount of support for nuking in this thread shocking. I've already harped on about how ridiculous the notion of vengeful mass destruction is, so instead of harping some more I'd like to ask those who would press the button: what are your reasons? What are you trying to accomplish? Why is this the best course of action?
I'd like to understand the motivations better, because all I'm seeing right now is "Humanity sucks, therefore extermination of humanity is perfectly acceptable." I don't see it as a better or worse course of action and to me, it has nothing to do with morality... What part of war is moral to begin with anyway? It's not vengeance; it's inevitable judgment. While it's ultimately a few individuals with their hands on the trigger, it all represents the human race. We're the ones that created the system, we're the ones that perpetuate it. We're the ones that squabble and fight and we're the ones that ultimately destroy each other and in doing so, destroy ourselves. War and violence isn't the exception, it is the norm. While it isn't always carried out with weapons, we fight everyday with one and the human existence is really one long power struggle. There's really not a lot that we as a species tend to value in this world. However, there is at least the glimmer of hope in that we value our own existence somewhat, and that is really the only hope I see in humanity. Despite all the conflict and all of our lack of long term thinking, our own individual existence is the one thing that we hold sacred and so long as there is indeed something that we value, there is maybe some hope that we could value something else or at very least progress as a species even if it's just for the sake of our own personal survival. However launching an attack knowing full well that it means your own guaranteed destruction along with the destruction of your nation to me pretty much represents that it's possible for an entire group of perfectly logical human beings that represent a major country to hold nothing valuable, not even their own lives or the country and people they represent. What further hope is there for humanity then, if this was ever the case? If there's no hope, then what's the point of continuing to exist? If there's no point in the continued existence of humanity, why hesitate to erase it? We would have essentially brought about our own end... Or would you suggest that I reward people for holding absolutely nothing in this world (not even their own lives) valuable? If I did that, do you think the world would be a better place should people survive anyway? I could not bear to live in a world where people actually benefit from valuing nothing, not even their own existence or their neighbors, and if such world were to exist the outcome would be inevitable and ultimately the same outcome that I would be bringing about by pushing the button in front of me. I don't have a total lack of faith in humanity right now, but if the given scenario occurred, what little faith I do have would be dissolved pretty quickly to say the least... Is it a depressing scenario? Absolutely, but not because a lot of people would die, but because it would be the death of hope when we can't even care about ourselves.
Hm this seems to align with what I gathered from your previous posts. I don't know if this attitude is the norm, and it's a pity no one else will clarify themselves. So you feel that the desire to exist is humanity's last hope? You feel this connects to the scenario in that this act of war is one with suicidal intent? Just trying to make sure I understand you here.
This ignores the separation of people and government. Those who advanced the decision may have suicidal intent, and are definitely culpable, but that by no means guarantees that those they govern are similarly suicidal. NonY mentioned the peoples' responsibilities' to check the government, which may be fair in a select few modern governments. However governments with centralized and military backed power that will brook no argument have been the norm throughout history and are really nowhere near going extinct. A citizen choosing not to oppose such a government (one that would slaughter his family for opposing a national security decision) is in fact indulging in his own desire for survival.
Furthermore, there's no guarantee that an aggressor government has simply consigned itself to self-destruction. With sufficient coverage, it could be aiming to preclude retaliation by having a perfect first blow. A lot of Cold War military development revolved around approaching yet avoiding this. Delivery danced with detection and we should all be thankful that there were always early warning systems capable of triggering retaliation before all delivery systems are crippled.
Actual defense capabilities in this scenario notwithstanding, the aggressor government could harbor this, or other, motivations even if the aren't justified in truth, since it likely has imperfect information. It's not necessarily aware that you can retaliate. Sure, you can assure the enemy that retaliation is the only consequence, but lies are the bread and butter of politics, and the enemy can't afford to be gullible while being responsible for billions of lives.
|
On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
Hm this seems to align with what I gathered from your previous posts. I don't know if this attitude is the norm, and it's a pity no one else will clarify themselves. So you feel that the desire to exist is humanity's last hope? You feel this connects to the scenario in that this act of war is one with suicidal intent? Just trying to make sure I understand you here.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head so far as my position.
On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
This ignores the separation of people and government. Those who advanced the decision may have suicidal intent, and are definitely culpable, but that by no means guarantees that those they govern are similarly suicidal. NonY mentioned the peoples' responsibilities' to check the government, which may be fair in a select few modern governments. However governments with centralized and military backed power that will brook no argument have been the norm throughout history and are really nowhere near going extinct. A citizen choosing not to oppose such a government (one that would slaughter his family for opposing a national security decision) is in fact indulging in his own desire for survival.
It absolutely ignores the separation because people are ultimately responsible for the government that represents them, whether they have a say in it or not. We as a people created these governments and we as a people perpetuate them. There is not a single person removed from the system and we all bear responsibility for it. The reality that policy created and applied by our leaders affects us, not them. If they decide to go to war, the people who suffer are all people who didn't have a direct say in that decision. The soldiers who fight are all people that didn't decide to fight. We've created a system where the nation becomes the instrument of those we decide to put into power and in creating that system, we have made ourselves accountable when it comes time to pay for our government's actions. This is the path that we've chosen, not as individuals, but as an entire race and we're all culpable because of it.
On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
Furthermore, there's no guarantee that an aggressor government has simply consigned itself to self-destruction. With sufficient coverage, it could be aiming to preclude retaliation by having a perfect first blow. A lot of Cold War military development revolved around approaching yet avoiding this. Delivery danced with detection and we should all be thankful that there were always early warning systems capable of triggering retaliation before all delivery systems are crippled.
If they haven't consigned themselves to destruction, they've at very least assumed a risk that they have obviously calculated and they will be tested for it. Should the aggressor survive, this discussion is moot since we're not talking about the end of humanity anyway. Should the aggressor not survive, they took a gamble with the one thing that I would presume they value and lost which brings me back to my first argument since the gamble itself shows a lack of value for their own lives. A person doesn't gamble what he truly values if there is an alternative option that allows him to guarantee that he will keep it.
On January 14 2010 07:53 EchOne wrote:
Actual defense capabilities in this scenario notwithstanding, the aggressor government could harbor this, or other, motivations even if the aren't justified in truth, since it likely has imperfect information. It's not necessarily aware that you can retaliate. Sure, you can assure the enemy that retaliation is the only consequence, but lies are the bread and butter of politics, and the enemy can't afford to be gullible while being responsible for billions of lives.
What motivation would lead you to a point where you knowingly bring about the end of the world by attacking a nation that has the capability to end you even when it's gone? In this scenario if the enemy places value on its own existence, it can't afford NOT to believe the other side unless they are 100% certain, which they will never be. This is why cold wars will never escalate between nuclear superpowers unless one side is willing to assume the risk by attacking and hoping that the other side really can't end the world after they're gone, in which case I go back to the argument that if we truly valued our own existence, such a gamble would be senseless since the only way to guarantee that continued existence is to NOT take the gamble. Essentially in attacking, there's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost and if a cold war between two nuclear superpowers can actually escalate into a full blown nuclear war knowing this full well, then that itself shows that we as a species cannot survive.
|
I guess this is more in regards to the original question, but the person with the finger on the button would have to be someone who would have picked yes here. If two superpowers were at each others throats with the threat of MAD over their heads, and one of them let slip that the person in charge of second strike capacities seriously doubted their ability to follow through, then that may very well be too tasty a morsel for the other superpower to resist.
In a sense, it's the absolute willingness to respond with apocalyptic force that stops it from being used in the first place. Humans have a tendency to want to survive. Even the fanatics and zealots wouldn't want everyone they know and love to be annihilated, let alone the politicians in charge. Without both sides being very willing to follow through, the chance of getting away with a first strike may be too high for a superpower to ignore.
And even if god knows how many ICBMs were launched, chances are that somewhere, humanity would probably still survive somewhere, whether in a tribe in the amazon that has never had contact with civilization, or someone forgets to nuke New Zealand. Humanity has come back from pretty long odds before.
|
I wouldn't call it a puzzle or a riddle, since you haven't specified how much damage one nuke would do, how many nukes it would take to "destroy" someone/everyone. A riddle implies you can reason out a solution, which you cannot do without knowing the damage potential.
|
On January 14 2010 07:24 Archerofaiur wrote:
We get it HeartofTofu, you have a god-complex and/or want attention and/or are depressed. Regardless I dont think we really need to spend time explaining to you the merits and redemptive qualities of humanity. We have enough Disney movies for that :p
Starting a thread in order to generate discussion and then attempting to quiet that discussion with personal insults is not the best course of action.
|
On January 14 2010 08:50 igotmyown wrote:
I wouldn't call it a puzzle or a riddle, since you haven't specified how much damage one nuke would do, how many nukes it would take to "destroy" someone/everyone. A riddle implies you can reason out a solution, which you cannot do without knowing the damage potential.
The question implies that your entire "side" is dead - all of it, and that by pushing this button you get to kill all of their side. Would you push it knowing that you get vengeance, but in doing so end humanity.
|
On January 14 2010 08:51 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 07:24 Archerofaiur wrote:
We get it HeartofTofu, you have a god-complex and/or want attention and/or are depressed. Regardless I dont think we really need to spend time explaining to you the merits and redemptive qualities of humanity. We have enough Disney movies for that :p Starting a thread in order to generate discussion and then attempting to quiet that discussion with personal insults is not the best course of action.
He called my species bad!
|
I'd rather decide this when I'm in the situation, which is of course gonna happen at some point.
|
Sorry, I don't see how this is a puzzle or riddle at all. I would probably have pushed the button before they fired. As they station me next to the button, the conversation would be as follows:
"Now listen, this is important, this button can destroy entire- WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?!"
|
imagine if (god forbids) Sarah Palin is the one that gets to push the big red button...
|
On January 14 2010 09:11 Shizuru~ wrote:
imagine if (god forbids) Sarah Palin is the one that gets to push the big red button...
I think she would just at the chance to send loads of people to heaven. (In her mind, that is...)
On January 14 2010 08:55 Archerofaiur wrote:
He called my species bad!
Yes, I'm a racist. The human race is just awful. Now let's sit back and imagine how wonderful a world it would be if it were ruled by cats.:D
|
I don't see any logical reason for pressing the button. I see plenty of emotional reasoning for doing it though...vengeance, justice, anger, etc. I'd rather not trust my emotions, it leads to poor judgment. I wouldn't push the button.
|
Send those fuckers straight to hell.
|
I like the dichotomy between the two above posters.
|
On January 14 2010 07:16 HeartOfTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 06:15 EchOne wrote:
Wow this thread is depressing. I thought I was morally bankrupt, but even I find the amount of support for nuking in this thread shocking. I've already harped on about how ridiculous the notion of vengeful mass destruction is, so instead of harping some more I'd like to ask those who would press the button: what are your reasons? What are you trying to accomplish? Why is this the best course of action?
I'd like to understand the motivations better, because all I'm seeing right now is "Humanity sucks, therefore extermination of humanity is perfectly acceptable." I don't see it as a better or worse course of action and to me, it has nothing to do with morality... What part of war is moral to begin with anyway? It's not vengeance; it's inevitable judgment. While it's ultimately a few individuals with their hands on the trigger, it all represents the human race. We're the ones that created the system, we're the ones that perpetuate it. We're the ones that squabble and fight and we're the ones that ultimately destroy each other and in doing so, destroy ourselves. War and violence isn't the exception, it is the norm. While it isn't always carried out with weapons, we fight everyday with one and the human existence is really one long power struggle. There's really not a lot that we as a species tend to value in this world. However, there is at least the glimmer of hope in that we value our own existence somewhat, and that is really the only hope I see in humanity. Despite all the conflict and all of our lack of long term thinking, our own individual existence is the one thing that we hold sacred and so long as there is indeed something that we value, there is maybe some hope that we could value something else or at very least progress as a species even if it's just for the sake of our own personal survival. However launching an attack knowing full well that it means your own guaranteed destruction along with the destruction of your nation to me pretty much represents that it's possible for an entire group of perfectly logical human beings that represent a major country to hold nothing valuable, not even their own lives or the country and people they represent. What further hope is there for humanity then, if this was ever the case? If there's no hope, then what's the point of continuing to exist? If there's no point in the continued existence of humanity, why hesitate to erase it? We would have essentially brought about our own end... Or would you suggest that I reward people for holding absolutely nothing in this world (not even their own lives) valuable? If I did that, do you think the world would be a better place should people survive anyway? I could not bear to live in a world where people actually benefit from valuing nothing, not even their own existence or their neighbors, and if such world were to exist the outcome would be inevitable and ultimately the same outcome that I would be bringing about by pushing the button in front of me. I don't have a total lack of faith in humanity right now, but if the given scenario occurred, what little faith I do have would be dissolved pretty quickly to say the least... Is it a depressing scenario? Absolutely, but not because a lot of people would die, but because it would be the death of hope when we can't even care about ourselves.
damm your like that emo kid from evangelion.
this whole shit about hoping humans are gonna change is indeed hopeless. we are in the end just a bunch of really smart animals. and no nuclear war is gonna make the human race extinct. all your gonna do is destroy everything that humanity has achieved including everything that is "valuable". that is, most records of human achievement, experiences along with countless other species of animals that you can't justify killing from the point of view that you are coming from.
even living in a country that is centuries behind the advanced ones and having experienced nearly 30 years of non-stop war, my hope for humanity is always high because it is during these times of crisis that we actually see it and live it. im talking at the ground level not watching news 1000s of miles away on your TV pitying our race when in reality, all the things you desire in humans are just as present as the things you don't desire.
|
On January 14 2010 08:20 HeartOfTofu wrote:
people are ultimately responsible for the government that represents them, whether they have a say in it or not. We as a people created these governments and we as a people perpetuate them. There is not a single person removed from the system and we all bear responsibility for it.
There are some reasonable arguments that support this, but I have to go back to the tired example of a young child. Do you consider a child barely capable of speech without any knowledge of the situation to be responsible for the actions of the government in his country? Better yet, don't think of it in terms of countries or governments. One person some physical distance away from a child makes a choice. The child is completely unaware of this choice or its consequences. Does that child bear responsibility for this act?
If they haven't consigned themselves to destruction, they've at very least assumed a risk that they have obviously calculated and they will be tested for it. Should the aggressor survive, this discussion is moot since we're not talking about the end of humanity anyway. Should the aggressor not survive, they took a gamble with the one thing that I would presume they value and lost which brings me back to my first argument since the gamble itself shows a lack of value for their own lives. A person doesn't gamble what he truly values if there is an alternative option that allows him to guarantee that he will keep it.
Gambling with your life doesn't imply that your life has no value; maybe gambling is unavoidable. To me, not attacking seems like a gamble as well. If there is a chance to wipe them out and you expect to be attacked, it can be a logical alternative in protecting their own lives. In this scenario they aren't lashing out nihilistically, they're only valuing themselves. The chance of death by inaction is calculated to be greater than the chance of death by retaliation.
|
Then you lose to giant robots.
That made me laugh so hard I had tears. Thank you.
Dr. Dealgood:"This is the truth of it! Fighting leads to killing. And killing leads to warring! And that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now! Busted up and everyone talking about hard rain. But we've learned by the dust of them all, Bartertowns learned. Now when men get to fighting, it happens here... and it finishes here! Two men enter... one man leaves."
Crowd:"Two men enter! One man leaves! Two men enter! One man leaves!"
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/byghrcpvsb--Two-men-enter…one-man-leavesMad-Max-Beyond-Thunderdome-Edwin-Hodgeman-Dr-Dealgood-
|
I think people voting no are just being hypocritical or cannot put themselves into this situation.
Image your family, friends, everyone you ever met, liked or loved was killed, your whole life destroyed along with millions or billions of others and the only way you can get back at the people who did this is by pushing that button. In this particular moment I don't think anyone will care about how many innocent people he kills along with them (especially because they are strangers).
I do not consider myself a vengeful person by any means, but I think everyone has a limit. If someone killed your parents or children, can anyone here honestly say that he would not wish that person the worst punishment he can imagine?
|
Jaedong would use his scourge micro to intercept all the nukes. Jaedong 1. Everyone else 0.
|
Why build missiles when you can build ...
1 IRON MAN lol
|
It's still not a puzzle...
Yes, but not for vengeance or because people I knew died. Why put people in jail if it makes them suffer?
Somehow some pretty bad decision maker got put into power, and they're evidently willing to let two populations die to get what they want. Given what they did, they're too dangerous to let survive. It's not like the people not involved wouldn't expect it or would blame you. It's a more extreme version of collateral damage from two countries at war.
|
On January 14 2010 21:18 igotmyown wrote:
It's still not a puzzle...
Yes, but not for vengeance or because people I knew died. Why put people in jail if it makes them suffer?
Somehow some pretty bad decision maker got put into power, and they're evidently willing to let two populations die to get what they want. Given what they did, they're too dangerous to let survive. It's not like the people not involved wouldn't expect it or would blame you. It's a more extreme version of collateral damage from two countries at war.
Maybe they attacked first with the fear that you would be the initiator, and would kill their country's populace. Maybe they attacked with the defense of their people in mind, instead of with a willingness to sacrifice both populations.
And even if you deem them 'too dangerous to let survive', what's the worst that they could do if you let them and their entire country live? If they continue on they might kill every innocent person still left on the planet to achieve their goals. That's a worst case scenario, but you'd rather skip right to that instead of giving innocent people the chance to dethrone this madman or madmen without such an unnecessary and colossal loss of life. Or even give the possibility a chance that this person losses power with their death or any number of other potential outcomes. Almost very worst that this evil person can do, you're going to immediately do for them instead of letting other possibilities play out.
|
On January 14 2010 14:23 T-P-S wrote:
There are some reasonable arguments that support this, but I have to go back to the tired example of a young child. Do you consider a child barely capable of speech without any knowledge of the situation to be responsible for the actions of the government in his country? Better yet, don't think of it in terms of countries or governments. One person some physical distance away from a child makes a choice. The child is completely unaware of this choice or its consequences. Does that child bear responsibility for this act?
Yes and no. No, the child has done nothing as an individual, I believe that when it comes to matters such as this, it is not an issue of individual decision so much as a question of human nature. The child represents just another generation of a race that is bent on self-destruction and war. If a nuclear war were to go off, it's not the fault of any individual, but the fault of the entire human race for having taken the path that we did. Responsibility doesn't begin or die with individuals, but it is passed down and inherited. That child, whether he likes it or not (or whether it's fair or not) inherits the responsibility of dealing with the world his parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and all the generations of ancestors before him created. Along with that responsibility comes consequence. Is it fair? Of course not. But neither is being born into a war torn land. Nobody starts off with a clean slate because there's no such thing. That's why we as a generation need to start thinking about what we pass on to the generations that come after. Even if we may not feel the consequences of our decisions today, but the responsibilities that we shrug off today and the consequences of the decisions we make will be inherited by our children and their children. Maybe as a species, we need to start thinking about that... And maybe if we do, we won't have to play these games because entire scenario would seem so absurd.
On January 14 2010 14:23 T-P-S wrote:
Gambling with your life doesn't imply that your life has no value; maybe gambling is unavoidable. To me, not attacking seems like a gamble as well. If there is a chance to wipe them out and you expect to be attacked, it can be a logical alternative in protecting their own lives. In this scenario they aren't lashing out nihilistically, they're only valuing themselves. The chance of death by inaction is calculated to be greater than the chance of death by retaliation.
In this scenario where both sides have second strike capabilities, it means that the chance of annihilation for both sides should a conflict actually occur is 100%. So the fact that you even acted would suggest that you somehow calculated your chance of death by not acting at over 100%, which is nonsense. If you valued your own life and knew that attacking would mean a 100% chance that you yourself were destroyed you would never attack. In the event that you don't happen to attack and instead, your enemy attacks you first, your second strike capability would ensure a 100% chance that your enemy would also be annihilated and you would come to the same result with both sides annihilated. So long as both sides know this and both sides value their own lives, neither side will ever attack and if one of the two sides doesn't in fact, value their lives, death is assured for both sides anyway. There's nothing to gain from attacking in this scenario and everything to be lost for doing so.
|
HeartofTofu there are many exceptions to the MAD logic for how a launch could happen. Several have already been brought up and your ignoral of them is noted.
|
Mutually Assured Destruction stops being a deterrent when the other side, with the capability of counterattack, does not actually counterattack. I mean, what kind of message do you send if you fail to push the button? Oh, we're so beyond sending counternukes to your country? Make sure that people know that destruction is actually mutually assured; Not, occasionally we will counternuke a country that nuked us, but probably not because that would be wrong.
|
Can we stop acting like the only way nukes could be launched is if the deterence failed. There are a thousand other scenarios. Here actually ill just lay out several of them.
The doctrine of nuclear deterrence depends on many assumptions, which may be unresolved:
Second-strike capability
A first strike must not be capable of preventing a retaliatory second strike or else mutual destruction is not assured. In this case, a state would have nothing to lose with a first strike; or might try to preempt the development of an opponent's second-strike capability with a first strike (i.e., decapitation strike).
Perfect detection
No false positives (errors) in the equipment and/or procedures that must identify a launch by the other side. The implication of this is that an accident could lead to a full nuclear exchange. During the Cold War there were several instances of false positives, as in the case of Stanislav Petrov.
No possibility of camouflaging a launch. The use of stealth technology in aircraft such as the B-2 bomber makes this assumption less likely to be fulfilled.
No means of delivery that does not have the characteristics of a long range missile delivery, i.e. detectable far ahead of detonation. Again this assumption is challengeable with for instance stealth aircraft but also with other means, such as smuggling weapons to the target undetected (as demonstrated in The Sum of All Fears). A close range missile attack from a submarine would also negate this assumption, as would positioning the weapons close to the intended target (exemplified in the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Perfect attribution. If there is a launch from the Sino-Russian border, it could be difficult to distinguish which nation is responsible and, hence, against which nation retaliation should occur.
Perfect rationality
No "rogue states" will develop nuclear weapons. Or, if they do, they will stop behaving as rogue states and subject themselves to the logic of MAD.
No rogue commanders will have the ability to corrupt the launch decision process (this is demonstrated with Dr. Strangelove).
All leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects (for example, a leader with religious ideas about the end of the world might launch regardless).
No leader with launch capability would strike first and gamble that the opponent's response system would fail.
Inability to defend
No shelters sufficient to protect population and/or industry.
No development of anti-missile technology or deployment of remedial protective gear.
Deterrence theory is criticized for its assumptions about opponent rationales: first, it is argued that suicidal or psychotic opponents may not be deterred by either forms of deterrence. Second, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a subsequent arms race which elevates the risk of actual war (this scenario is illustrated in the movies WarGames and Dr. Strangelove). An arms race is inefficient in its optimal output; all countries involved expend resources on armaments which would not have been expended if the others had not expended resources. This is a form of positive feedback.
Finally, a military build-up increases a country's risks of budget deficits, restrictions on civil liberties, the creation of a military-industrial complex, and other such potentially-undesirable measures. See Garrison State.
[edit] Psychology and deterrence
A new form of criticism emerged in the late 1980s with detailed analyses of the actions of individual leaders and groups of leaders in crisis situations (historical and theoretical).
A number of new or nuanced criticisms of "traditional" deterrence theory emerged. One was that deterrence theory assumed that both sides had common rational peaceful goals. In some real-life situations, such as the Yom Kippur War, leaders felt that internal or external political considerations forced a conflict. One of the essays in,[4] regarding the internal military and political discussions within the Egyptian high command in 1973, indicates that senior civilian leaders (including Anwar Sadat) believed that they had to fight a war in order to have enough internal political support to negotiate for peace.
In another miscalculation, Israel rationalized that the Israeli military dominance would deter any attack, and believed that no rational Syrian or Egyptian leader would attempt such an attack. Sadat felt unable to avoid a war, and Syria's leadership misjudged the military situation and believed they could be victorious. Israel assumed rational and well-informed opponents with clear objectives, and its deterrence failed.
Another observation is that crisis situations can reach a point that formerly stabilizing actions (such as keeping military units at bases, and low alert levels) can be seen as a sign of weakness, and that perceived weakness can then induce an opponent to attack during the perceived time of advantage. Thus, an inversion point exists, after which some formerly stabilizing actions become destabilizing, and some formerly destabilizing actions become stabilizing.
Finally, studies of the specific group psychology of several leaders and leader groups, including the Israeli and Arab leaders in 1973 and the Kennedy Administration during the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis, indicated that in many cases executive groups use poor decision-making techniques and improperly assess available information. These errors can and often do preclude truly rational end-behavior in deterrence situations.
|
On January 14 2010 09:11 Shizuru~ wrote:
imagine if (god forbids) Sarah Palin is the one that gets to push the big red button...
russia's fucked
|
On January 14 2010 06:15 EchOne wrote:
Wow this thread is depressing. I thought I was morally bankrupt, but even I find the amount of support for nuking in this thread shocking. I've already harped on about how ridiculous the notion of vengeful mass destruction is, so instead of harping some more I'd like to ask those who would press the button: what are your reasons? What are you trying to accomplish? Why is this the best course of action?
I'd like to understand the motivations better, because all I'm seeing right now is "Humanity sucks, therefore extermination of humanity is perfectly acceptable."
Like I said, the entire question revolves around perceptions and intelligence. My answer is a moral tool in and of itself which, while it might appear abhorent, is likely to reduce the chance that such an event occurs in the first place.
If I can construct a predictable code of operation for myself, both parties reduce their uncertainty and thus are more able to engage in disputes without resorting to the nuclear option.
|
Sarah Palin is a perfectly good example of why MAD logic is a stupid thing to bet the world on.
L the question asks what you would do after MAD has failed. Your answer can't go back in time and make things better.
|
I doubt a country would attack first (launch a preemptive strike) in order to "protect" themselves, because an assault on another country because an attack will, with dead certainty, procure a response. even if in theory you did "nuke" every major city. I'm pretty sure if a nuke was launched, the defending country would have some way to identify it, or at least detect a (or a ton of) high speed objects heading towards major cities.
|
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't become bad logic when someone decides to launch nukes anyway. It just means that the individual/group that did so probably doesn't ascribe to the Mutually Assured Destruction line of reasoning. The best course now is to 1: Kill them because they have nukes and don't ascribe to Mutually Assured Destruction logic. 2: Convince everyone else that MAD works by acting in the manner laid out by MAD. The convenient thing is that you can accomplish both by nuking the attacker.
|
On January 15 2010 07:34 Ecrilon wrote:
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't become bad logic when someone decides to launch nukes anyway. It just means that the individual/group that did so probably doesn't ascribe to the Mutually Assured Destruction line of reasoning. The best course now is to 1: Kill them because they have nukes and don't ascribe to Mutually Assured Destruction logic. 2: Convince everyone else that MAD works by acting in the manner laid out by MAD. The convenient thing is that you can accomplish both by nuking the attacker.
With the added bonus of wipeing out humanity...
|
What? Really? I thought we were just nuking what amounts to 1 other country, "your enemy" in the opening post. I didn't realize that this had escalated to "the world is now our enemy" and we need to nuke everything?
|
On January 15 2010 07:39 Ecrilon wrote:
What? Really? I thought we were just nuking what amounts to 1 other country, "your enemy" in the opening post. I didn't realize that this had escalated to "the world is now our enemy" and we need to nuke everything?
Nope you just launched 7000 warheads at the enemy. Combined with the damage from the attack on your country the earth now enters a nuclear winter. All humans soon die. Good job.
|
On January 15 2010 07:50 Archerofaiur wrote:
Nope you just launched 7000 warheads at the enemy. Combined with the damage from the attack on your country the earth now enters a nuclear winter. All humans soon die. Good job.
Right, nice tone. But moving on, it hardly takes 7000 to destroy all cities in a country but okay, sure, let's go with an estimate like that.
What you're essentially doing is doubling, at most the damage to the earth. In fact, if you're nuking one country, it is generally considerably less than the "continent" stated in the opening post. While this is clearly enough to increase the impact of whatever damage the fallout causes, consider the following: The earth will be in a nuclear winter regardless and the effects will always be felt around the world. Increasing the effects will make more people die. This is bad, but if humanity were going to die, it would, in all likelihood, also die if you hadn't sent your nukes as well. You are, after all, not bombing everything else in the world.
The benefit, such as it were, of nuking the other country, is actually preventing them from nuking someone else. I mean, if I got away with nuking one guy, I would probably nuke another! Nukes are quite awesome.
Also, it discourages other people with nukes because MAD, sound logic as it is, has not actually been put into practice. MAD is not mutual when you don't nuke the other guy. What if other people saw "Hey, if I nuke a country, they probably won't retaliate, therefore MAD is actually wrong and it becomes if I strike first, I win! Sweet."
|
Which is greater 75 Teragrams of ash or 150 Teragrams of ash?
On January 15 2010 08:08 Ecrilon wrote:
I mean, if I got away with nuking one guy, I would probably nuke another! Nukes are quite awesome.
What is the enemy a 5 year old? Im just going on record with the ArcherofAiur doctrine which state that "Parental disipline is not a proper tool for determining the fate of species."
Hey you better let us investigate your country or else were going to destroy you. What you still wont let us in? Ok now your country is destroyed and we killed you to make an example.
Hey you other country. You better let us investigate your country or else were going to.....
|
Certainly 150 teragrams of ash. However, in terms of the damage to humanity, 150 teragrams honestly doesn't do nearly twice the damage. If humanity could be wiped out by 150, 75 would do it just as well.
Clearly the enemy is not a five year old. I merely took that tone to make a point. However, the other country also presumably knew about MAD and committed nukes to an attack regardless. Now that they have apparently NOT been nuked in retaliation, what makes you think that they'd be any less inclined to nuke someone else? Naturally, we don't know their motivation for nuking you. Maybe your country was actually a jerk and in the wrong and this other country is hailed as a saint for wiping you off the map. (That makes the decision to nuke them pretty obvious because you are probably a jerk and enjoy nuking people as a matter of course.) However, if we assume that the other country is the offending party, any motivation that was used against you can readily be applied against another country. That is why I said that they were going to nuke someone else.
|
The entire question presumes that I am a person in a bunker. Obviously if it were some sort of accident or something on a massive scale and I knew this to be true, I would probably not press the button. I'm sure none of us would. But given the scenario in question, all we are left to is our own thoughts and our own assumptions.
The natural assumption for any reasonable person sitting in a bunker in that given scenario would be that it was a deliberate act of hostility and that's how my reasoning comes into play. If you want me to sit there twiddling my thumbs about all of the non-hostile things that it could POSSIBLY be or all of the hostile acts with mitigating circumstances it could POSSIBLY be, I'm not going to because there would be no end to it. Maybe some sort of alien species contacted Russia and threatened to destroy them if they didn't destroy the United States. Maybe someone had a seizure and somehow armed, aimed, and launched every nuke while flailing about. Maybe the planets aligned and the nukes were set off by some sort of gravitational forces. Maybe there was just some sort of glitch in the entire Russian missile defense system that set off the nukes. Maybe someone somewhere for a moment forgot that we had second strike capabilities. Maybe they were calling our bluff.
Nobody in such a situation would realistically sit there and turn it into an academic exercise. It's only here where we're all sitting comfortably in our homes with nothing going wrong that you have some sort of conviction that things need to be fully thought through. I could absolutely guarantee you that if you were really in a situation like this, you wouldn't be sitting down and writing out an equation to calculate the most logical course of action or going through absolutely everything that could have possibly gone wrong. My assumption would be that it's an act of hostility simply because in my brain I could honestly not fathom any other cause. I'm sure smarter people can and have and that's why I'm sure if there is a button somewhere, they'll be the ones to have their hands on it.
In truth there doesn't seem to be a real point in all this because it's not really a discussion about anything other than people criticizing each other for the decisions that they will never have to make. This really stopped being an academic exercise the moment America and Russia came into the picture and the moment the question moved away from "What's the difference?" became "What would YOU do?". Or if what you really want to know is a numerous reasons we could think of for a country to be forced to nuke another in the given scenario that wouldn't warrant retaliation, just be direct about it and ask that question. I've been following this thread for 12 pages now, and I honestly don't see where this is supposed to be going... And it's really not a lack of effort on my part. I'm really trying... It's just confusing as hell...
|
Im trying to get people to realize that while you are a member of a country you are also a member of a greater group called humanity.
|
MAD, the one another big punch. yea very funny logic at least we die all.
the stupid thing is the question. the fact this problem exists. that is the really big fail.
destroy the question at first. hard and with no mercy. thats my point.
|
On January 15 2010 09:27 Archerofaiur wrote:
Im trying to get people to realize that while you are a member of a country you are also a member of a greater group called humanity.
You should have just told us all to go watch 2012... that would've been the quicker way to do it. 
|
The members of humanity that are really stupid enough to wipe an entire continent need to die, one way or another.
|
On January 15 2010 09:58 Ecrilon wrote:
The members of humanity that are really stupid enough to wipe an entire continent need to die, one way or another.
But see heres the problem. When they do that they take you and everyone else with them.
|
id press it knowing that i shouldn't have, but not caring anyway.
|
Actually, seeing as they only nuked one continent, there's still hope! Hurry! Nuke them before they nuke someone else! Then the 10% (random) of humanity still living might not have to die!
|
the soldier would probably have been trained to press the button and would do exactly that
I wouldn't
|
On January 15 2010 10:06 Ecrilon wrote:
Actually, seeing as they only nuked one continent, there's still hope! Hurry! Nuke them before they nuke someone else! Then the 10% (random) of humanity still living might not have to die!
Ignoring the ecological damage you did to earth, and the innocent millions you just killed, you have now installed China as the dominant nuclear force in the world.
|
On January 15 2010 10:06 Ecrilon wrote:
Actually, seeing as they only nuked one continent, there's still hope! Hurry! Nuke them before they nuke someone else! Then the 10% (random) of humanity still living might not have to die!
You make it sound like a country that launches a nuke would try to kill the world... what do you think your answer would be if the United States was the country doing the nuking? (Assuming that you live in the states) A lot of innocents would be killed just because of a poor choice by the military/government.
|
nuclear battleships
we both agree to fire 1 nuke at a time, first to give up loses. And instead of plastic gray ships, we can use billons of lives. The stakes would be high...
|
Are we assuming Russia/USA are the ones that died? I'm willing to try China over Russia, personally. America's no saint either. But this is more a political issue. If we can assume that China lives, humanity isn't dead and this is better than the alternative where it is dead because this other country is nuke-happy. Innocent millions are dying because we need to make sure they don't kill more people. Yeah it's sad.
Canucks, as I said,
The other country also presumably knew about MAD and committed nukes to an attack regardless. Now that they have apparently NOT been nuked in retaliation, what makes you think that they'd be any less inclined to nuke someone else? Naturally, we don't know their motivation for nuking you. Maybe your country was actually a jerk and in the wrong and this other country is hailed as a saint for wiping you off the map. (That makes the decision to nuke them pretty obvious because you are probably a jerk and enjoy nuking people as a matter of course.) However, if we assume that the other country is the offending party, any motivation that was used against you can readily be applied against another country. That is why I said that they were going to nuke someone else.
Thus, if America decided that nuking is their only solution (a stupid solution by the country with the strongest conventional military in the world, whose aircraft carrier taskforces possess more actual power than several nukes) they should be retaliated against in such a way that MAD still works. Nuking should never go unretaliated. It sends the wrong message about MAD. It sends the wrong message to other countries with nukes.
On January 15 2010 10:13 bumatlarge wrote:nuclear battleships we both agree to fire 1 nuke at a time, first to give up loses. And instead of plastic gray ships, we can use billons of lives. The stakes would be high...
lol Every single shot is a "HIT. You sunk Atlantis."
|
On January 15 2010 09:27 Archerofaiur wrote:
Im trying to get people to realize that while you are a member of a country you are also a member of a greater group called humanity.
Then don't pretend it's a poll and solicit other people's points of view. Trying to convert everyone who has a different point of view in the guise of an open conversation is intellectually dishonest. It's like when Christians invite you to discuss God with them.
|
Im shocked that this is still going on this long. I dont believe many of these people have some sort of amazing allegiance to their country as much as you cant let assholes get away with anything they want especially if it involves nukes. Not to mention is there any data that specifies how many/where the nukes would have to be sent for a nuclear winter to occur?
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do.
|
On January 15 2010 10:22 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 09:27 Archerofaiur wrote:
Im trying to get people to realize that while you are a member of a country you are also a member of a greater group called humanity. Then don't pretend it's a poll and solicit other people's points of view. Trying to convert everyone who has a different point of view in the guise of an open conversation is intellectually dishonest. It's like when Christians invite you to discuss God with them.
depends on you! i dont think so, if christians invite me to a discussion, afterwards some of them are convinced of some of my random ideas eventually. good ideas btw.
topic: take that automatic backup launch from russia out, and the automatic defense system newly going to be installed in europe by usa called starwars. thx
humans dont kill mankind unless they are coninced the other side is inhuman.
so if you dont want to be called like it, push down your danger to kill everyone, it rises your chances to survive
|
On January 15 2010 10:23 Sadist wrote:
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do.
Question: How long do you think MAD logic can work? A 100 years? 1000? 10000?
|
On January 15 2010 12:05 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 10:23 Sadist wrote:
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do. Question: How long do you think MAD logic can work? A 100 years? 1000? 10000?
as long as we are around and there are nuclear weapons in the world. Not nuking someone back when they launch a nuke sets a precedent that you can nuke whoever you want and no one will do anything about it.
Hopefully there wont be nuclear weapons forever in the world but MAD is the best solution we have and so far its worked.
|
Logic works forever in most cases really. MAD logic works as long as its assumptions are correct, that is, as long as no one is able to completely defend against a nuclear attack.
|
On January 15 2010 13:03 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 12:05 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:23 Sadist wrote:
Because of MAD nobody has yet launched a nuke and its probably the reason the cold war ended peacefully as opposed to a nuke being sent off early. Also I think some people who are arguing against MAD are underestimating the people who are in control of nukes. They essentially know if they launch, they die. Theres also more than one person who has the say so the idea that a lone person could decide to launch a nuclear weapon as a death wish is far fetched since not everyone around them would like to die as much as they do. Question: How long do you think MAD logic can work? A 100 years? 1000? 10000? as long as we are around and there are nuclear weapons in the world.
I dont think theres a facepalm in the world big enough for this quote.
Not nuking someone back when they launch a nuke sets a precedent that you can nuke whoever you want and no one will do anything about it.
No it sets the precedent that, against all human nature, a second attrocity was averted and millions of lives were saved along with countless human animal and plant lives from a 'less severe' ecological consequences. It would be single handedly the greatest act done by humans....ever.
On January 15 2010 13:21 Ecrilon wrote:
Logic works forever in most cases really. MAD logic works as long as its assumptions are correct, that is, as long as no one is able to completely defend against a nuclear attack.
Or any of the many other flaws with MAD logic which I was kind enough to post even though people apparently didnt read.
|
On January 15 2010 10:08 travis wrote:the soldier would probably have been trained to press the button and would do exactly that I wouldn't
Not entirely true... only like 67% of people would press the button... and that's the optimal situation :
white Caucasian male, unmarried, mid 40's.
The US government did experiments back in the Cold War to find the optimal personality so that they would press the button on command, knowing they would probably wipe out humanity.
The movie "War Games" plays with this concept... it stars Matthew Broderick when he was still good.
|
I don't think any amount of blind, heat of the moment rage could forever overshadow the eventual guilt that I would feel, knowing what I'd done. I wouldn't push the button.
Speaking of logic, I think it's pretty clear two wrongs don't make a right, so there :p
|
I don't see the point of wiping out humanity just because "my side" has lost. The whole idea seems childish to me. Eye for an eye etc. Whats the point of making sure MAD applies if everyone is dead?
|
The thing is that a second atrocity would not be avoided at all. First, the country in question is more than likely going to launch more nukes. Second, other countries now realize that there will be no retaliation for launching nukes. This sets the precedent that nukes are not things that, if used, result in MAD, it sets the precedent that nukes are a valid weapon to use, much like conventional bombs.
|
On January 15 2010 13:33 Ecrilon wrote:
The thing is that a second atrocity would not be avoided at all. First, the country in question is more than likely going to launch more nukes.
You have no way of knowing that.
Second, other countries now realize that there will be no retaliation for launching nukes.
Where exactly are you getting this from? Like Im honestly at a loss how your coming up with this. So one country goes up in smoke and miraculously there is no retaliation. So all the other countrys look around and say "hey cool if you fire nukes nobody will fire back at you!"
Like is that really whats going on in your head?
|
It's not about winning as a whole, its about being ahead of everyone else (or atleast on par). *pushes button*
|
I have no way of knowing that? Can you guarantee that a country that nuked another won't do it again? Sure I don't know that a murderer is strictly going to murder again, but I'm certainly not taking the path where I don't do anything about the guy because killing him is wrong.
Every country knows that other countries with nuclear capabilities have submarines loaded with nuclear weapons patrolling the oceans for the purpose of engaging in MAD. When these are not launched, there will be questions as to why this was. There is no reason apparently except "we are better than that." Great, everyone must be above MAD logic. So yes, that is what is going through my head, mainly because that is the way MAD logic WORKS.
|
On January 15 2010 13:42 Ecrilon wrote:
I have no way of knowing that? Can you guarantee that a country that nuked another won't do it again? No thats the point. You dont know whether there will be more nukes used in the future. But you do know whether their will be more nukes that day.
Explain how your stacking up
Possibility of future nuclear attacks
vs
Certainty of 7000 nuclear attacks
Every country knows that other countries with nuclear capabilities have submarines loaded with nuclear weapons patrolling the oceans for the purpose of engaging in MAD. When these are not launched, there will be questions as to why this was. There is no reason apparently except "we are better than that." Great, everyone must be above MAD logic. So yes, that is what is going through my head, mainly because that is the way MAD logic WORKS.
Illogicity aside. Hasnt that day proven enough that MAD doesnt work?
|
I am saying that after the 7000 nuclear attacks are over, that's IT. We've proven that MAD works and the 10% of humanity remaining has learned a lesson about nuclear weapons that it will never forget. Future nuclear attacks will easily wipe out the last remnants of humanity if there is no MAD to check them.
The day has not proven that MAD doesn't work. It has proven that there is a certain reasoning capable of overriding MAD, which clearly there is. (For example, if a country does not care if it dies, it no longer cares about MAD. This can happen in cases in which the global community has completely cut off economic ties with a country, leaving it in a stranglehold which will slowly starve the country. Nuclear weapons are deemed to be the only solution, nukes are launched. If no return nukes are launched, the country is more than likely to launch more.)
It's your question. If you want to be more specific, by all means, be more specific. However, as much as you claim that I am being illogical, there is no more evidence to support your ideas than mine.
You're caught in a logic loop.
If MAD works, you claim, this situation never happens. Therefore, MAD must have failed and there is no longer any reason to follow MAD logic. Therefore, we save the most lives by not launching nukes. However, that means that any time nukes are launched, MAD has failed and there should be no counter nukes launched. This would in turn imply that MAD never works because in reality, any time you launch nukes, there is no mutually assured destruction because nukes will never be launched in retaliation.
|
On January 15 2010 13:57 Ecrilon wrote:
The day has not proven that MAD doesn't work. It has proven that there is a certain reasoning capable of overriding MAD, which clearly there is.
Hey guess what. That, what you just said, that is proving it doesnt work.
On January 15 2010 13:57 Ecrilon wrote:
You're caught in a logic loop.
If MAD works, you claim, this situation never happens. Therefore, MAD must have failed and there is no longer any reason to follow MAD logic. Therefore, we save the most lives by not launching nukes.
So far good.
However, that means that any time nukes are launched, MAD has failed and there should be no counter nukes launched.
Nope thats where you jumped the logic tracks. Either your trying to say there would be no counter nukes launched in the future (which is unknowable, frankly its incredibly unlikely that should nukes be launched again a retaliation wouldnt occur) or your trying to say that counter nukes should never be launched (in which case I think we both agree any nukes should never be launched).
You see how you tried to turn a should into a would. One implies whats right and the other implies what happens.
|
Then you're telling us that if we all do what's right MAD logic doesn't work because the right thing is to not launch nukes in retaliation in your opinion.
Honestly, I think we SHOULD go with the path where MAD logic does work because it seems to be the only nuclear deterrent.
The fact that there are overrides for MAD like the one I just listed means that we should prevent those situations, not rid ourselves of MAD. What do you think is preventing nukes from being used in warfare?
|
On January 15 2010 13:36 Archerofaiur wrote:
Where exactly are you getting this from? Like Im honestly at a loss how your coming up with this. So one country goes up in smoke and miraculously there is no retaliation. So all the other countrys look around and say "hey cool if you fire nukes nobody will fire back at you!"
Like is that really whats going on in your head?
I think the problem here is that you're responding to uncertainty with uncertainty. To you, he's being unreasonable because his decision is based on the uncertain assumption that the lack of retaliation would be seen as an incentive for future generations to use nukes.
However, you're responding to that with the equal uncertainty that maybe they won't see it as an incentive, but rather look at the destruction and learn from it as well as be thankful that there was in fact, no retaliation.
The issue with this kind of response is that it assumes that his way of thinking is unreasonable because he can't be certain of it while yours is despite the fact that you can't be certain of it... Along his path of thinking, the destruction of the world due to the increased incentive to use nuclear arms is an inevitability. So to him, it's not a matter of one POSSIBLE scenario vs. a guaranteed one. It's a matter of one guaranteed scenario vs. another guaranteed one. Really, your thinking is not that much different because you believe it's unreasonable to believe that people might see an incentive despite the lack of retaliation. You two are never going to see eye to eye simply because you believe his analysis is unreasonable... You need to understand that not all people have as much faith in humanity as you.
|
On January 15 2010 14:08 Ecrilon wrote:
Then you're telling us that if we all do what's right MAD logic doesn't work because the right thing is to not launch nukes in retaliation in your opinion.
Honestly, I think we SHOULD go with the path where MAD logic does work because it seems to be the only nuclear deterrent.
The fact that there are overrides for MAD like the one I just listed means that we should prevent those situations, not rid ourselves of MAD. What do you think is preventing nukes from being used in warfare?
And now your not making any sense.
Heres some more food for thought. Suppose America is the country that just blew up Russia and for some miraculous reason America survived. Do you know what would be the first thing I think would happen if Americans woke up and found theyd just destroyed millions? I think theyd immidiatly overthrow thier goverment and destroy all remaining nuclear technology.
|
And once again we have installed China as the dominant nuclear power with the likes of Pakistan and India eying each other. And you think no one will launch a nuke after it has become apparent that MAD is actually not true? (Something you believe but I do not.)
|
On January 15 2010 14:19 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 14:08 Ecrilon wrote:
Then you're telling us that if we all do what's right MAD logic doesn't work because the right thing is to not launch nukes in retaliation in your opinion.
Honestly, I think we SHOULD go with the path where MAD logic does work because it seems to be the only nuclear deterrent.
The fact that there are overrides for MAD like the one I just listed means that we should prevent those situations, not rid ourselves of MAD. What do you think is preventing nukes from being used in warfare? And now your not making any sense. Heres some more food for thought. Suppose America is the country that just blew up Russia and for some miraculous reason America survived. Do you know what would be the first thing I think would happen if Americans woke up and found theyd just destroyed millions? I think theyd immidiatly overthrow thier goverment and destroy all remaining nuclear technology.
lol you really overestimate the zealousness of Americans. I'm sure they'd circulate an online petition or something, but lol at overthrowing their government in disgust.
|
On January 15 2010 07:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
Sarah Palin is a perfectly good example of why MAD logic is a stupid thing to bet the world on.
L the question asks what you would do after MAD has failed. Your answer can't go back in time and make things better.
Oh, but I'm not going back in time. I'm actually quite affixed in current time. Its you that are trying to push the clock forward to some undisclosed period of time with a context we haven't been in, with a situation none of us have ever been in. The countries are unnamed. The tension between them is unexplained. The world's difficulties and the current technology aren't really elaborated on.
That's precisely why I don't want to have to go back in time to make things better; I'll answer in the manner which is most likely to satisfy the common good, and that's the answer which promotes the deterrence of a species ending event.
|
On January 15 2010 14:19 Archerofaiur wrote:
And now your not making any sense.
Heres some more food for thought. Suppose America is the country that just blew up Russia and for some miraculous reason America survived. Do you know what would be the first thing I think would happen if Americans woke up and found theyd just destroyed millions? I think theyd immidiatly overthrow thier goverment and destroy all remaining nuclear technology.
Short answer: No, they wouldn't...
Long answer: In such a scenario, America would stand unopposed as the only nuclear superpower in the world, which is actually better for American citizens. Given the fact that most of America still views Russia as being no different from the USSR, which was the "bad guy", I doubt the annihilation of the country would cause some sort of massive uprising on a scale that would allow the American government to be overthrown. I'm sure there will be a certain amount of dissent, but let's be real. If America did indeed nuke Russia out of existence, that would mean that the majority of the American government probably went along with that decision.
This isn't the 1700's where the difference in arms between the average citizen and the military is a few boats and cannons. There is a massive difference now to the point where any serious revolt could immediately be put down with just a fraction of the government's military might. Unless you believe regular citizens could raid Airforce bases and hijack F-16's to operate them along with other military weaponry without training, or unless you somehow believe a significant percentage of our current military personnel would suddenly turn against the government for such a move, I would call BS immediately. There would be no contest. The time is long past in countries like America, Russia, and China where regular people can overthrow a nation by force. Change in countries like this can only happen from a foreign invasion or through peaceful means. And I'd like to see any nation that would stand up to America after it just showed a willingness to preemptively turn an enemy nuclear superpower which could have also destroyed America even after its own destruction into a smoldering crater... No other nation would dare. The same would apply if Russia was the country that destroyed America.
Let's also not forget the historical precedent. America has actually used nuclear weapons to incinerate two non-military cities and kill 200,000 people before. Yet here we stand, our government still perfectly intact, and we've yet to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons or technology. In fact, we've increased our nuclear armament with not only perfect knowledge of their destructive force, but BECAUSE of that very destructive force. We've also been in several wars and killed plenty of enemy soldiers and civilians without enough dissent to overthrow the government either. If anything, the government and military are glorified for it. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the destruction of what many Americans consider to be a "dangerous enemy state" would cause them to act out. You'd probably see a bunch of college kids protesting in front of the White House, but that's really about it... If much weaker warlords who kill their own citizens mercilessly can hold onto power, what makes you think the American government couldn't considering all they're doing is killing people that their citizens believe are evil?
There's absolutely no precedent or evidence to even suggest that Americans would behave the way you believe they would. All real historical precedent and evidence actually suggests the contrary...
|
Let's also not forget the historical precedent. America has actually used nuclear weapons to incinerate two non-military cities and kill 200,000 people before. Yet here we stand, our government still perfectly intact, and we've yet to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons or technology. In fact, we've increased our nuclear armament with not only perfect knowledge of their destructive force, but BECAUSE of that very destructive force.
The use of nuclear weapons against Japan was by and large accepted without qualms by the American people. It was various members of the government, Stimson foremost, who foresaw the necessity of negotiated nuclear disarmament, which culmulated in the Baruch plan in the summer of 1946. Soviet objections jettisoned the plan, and the arms race went on. However, the historical example itself does not reflect any superior pacifism of the people vis-a-vis the government. Most Americans in those narrow years would have subscribed to the notion that the moral exceptionalism of the American people went hand-in-hand with their possession of a nuclear monopoly.
|
On January 16 2010 06:41 HeartOfTofu wrote:
In such a scenario, America would stand unopposed as the only nuclear superpower in the world, which is actually better for American citizens. Given the fact that most of America still views Russia as being no different from the USSR, which was the "bad guy", I doubt the annihilation of the country would cause some sort of massive uprising on a scale that would allow the American government to be overthrown. I'm sure there will be a certain amount of dissent, but let's be real. If America did indeed nuke Russia out of existence, that would mean that the majority of the American government probably went along with that decision.
Dont be so sure. Remember, half of our country is still sane enough to remember tortureing is wrong. Either way I suspect the population would realize that a single government with complete nuclear domanence is as much a threat to its own people as it is to the rest of the world.
|
On January 16 2010 09:06 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 06:41 HeartOfTofu wrote:
In such a scenario, America would stand unopposed as the only nuclear superpower in the world, which is actually better for American citizens. Given the fact that most of America still views Russia as being no different from the USSR, which was the "bad guy", I doubt the annihilation of the country would cause some sort of massive uprising on a scale that would allow the American government to be overthrown. I'm sure there will be a certain amount of dissent, but let's be real. If America did indeed nuke Russia out of existence, that would mean that the majority of the American government probably went along with that decision.
Dont be so sure. Remember, half of our country is still sane enough to remember tortureing is wrong. Either way I suspect the population would realize that a single government with complete nuclear domanence is as much a threat to its own people as it is to the rest of the world.
I want you to admit that this thread isn't based on some clean idea of philosophical truth and reasoning, but it's merely a presentation of your opinion...
Suppose there was a single government with complete nuclear dominance. Now suppose the head of the project to develop their nuclear weapons advocated to the President to create an international agency with monopolistic control over all nuclear material and nuclear research and production. Suppose the President believes all their rivals to be years from the production of their first atomic weapon.
Would the president agree to it, or would he reject it so he could wield international influence from being the sole nuclear power?
|
Actually, apart from them being used in Japan nukes remain a political asset rather than actual military one. Not one sane person would ever consider using nukes during a war (they didn't really know what nukes do before Japan, it scared the shit out of US as much as japanese, and since now everyone knows how they work, and that their power has increased vastly, it would require a madman to use one even under the most dearest of circumstances).
Using a nuclear device during war operations is crazy because benefits don't counterbalance the negatives (there are very, very few positive effects you could get and many, many negative ones).
|
On January 16 2010 10:56 Manit0u wrote:
Actually, apart from them being used in Japan nukes remain a political asset rather than actual military one. Not one sane person would ever consider using nukes during a war (they didn't really know what nukes do before Japan, it scared the shit out of US as much as japanese, and since now everyone knows how they work, and that their power has increased vastly, it would require a madman to use one even under the most dearest of circumstances).
Using a nuclear device during war operations is crazy because benefits don't counterbalance the negatives (there are very, very few positive effects you could get and many, many negative ones).
Do you really think that they were unaware of the power of a nuclear bomb? I thought that they were tested before they were used.
And the symbolic power of the nuke vastly outweighs its tactical uses for sure.
|
On January 16 2010 11:50 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 10:56 Manit0u wrote:
Actually, apart from them being used in Japan nukes remain a political asset rather than actual military one. Not one sane person would ever consider using nukes during a war (they didn't really know what nukes do before Japan, it scared the shit out of US as much as japanese, and since now everyone knows how they work, and that their power has increased vastly, it would require a madman to use one even under the most dearest of circumstances).
Using a nuclear device during war operations is crazy because benefits don't counterbalance the negatives (there are very, very few positive effects you could get and many, many negative ones). Do you really think that they were unaware of the power of a nuclear bomb? I thought that they were tested before they were used. And the symbolic power of the nuke vastly outweighs its tactical uses for sure.
They tested power, not radiation. Remember that they had been carpet bombing europe. What's the difference between a clean nuclear bomb and dropping bombs on every inch of a city?
|
On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. Then you lose to giant robots.
Actually, it took 3. We lied and said we were going to bomb Tokyo if they didn't surrender, but we didn't actually have another. They took the bait.
|
On January 16 2010 12:14 Cyrkulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. Then you lose to giant robots. Actually, it took 3. We lied and said we were going to bomb Tokyo if they didn't surrender, but we didn't actually have another. They took the bait.
Fake bombs don't count.
|
United States42567 Posts
On January 16 2010 12:14 Cyrkulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 11:24 L 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? It took 2 nuclear devices to scare japan out of war. If you only have one, you can't scare japan out of war. Then you lose to giant robots. Actually, it took 3. We lied and said we were going to bomb Tokyo if they didn't surrender, but we didn't actually have another. They took the bait.
You'd already bombed Tokyo with incendiaries. People always forget that the conventional bombing campaign against Japan killed far more civilians than the nukes. Incendiaries are no more humane either, they create a firestorm which sucks up all the air.
|
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes.
|
On January 16 2010 09:06 Archerofaiur wrote:
Dont be so sure. Remember, half of our country is still sane enough to remember tortureing is wrong. Either way I suspect the population would realize that a single government with complete nuclear domanence is as much a threat to its own people as it is to the rest of the world.
And how many people would be willing to do something about it if it meant they had to risk some sort of inconvenience to the lifestyle they've so comfortably settled into? Plenty of people grumble about all sorts of crap and have all manner of grievances. Most are content to grumble about it and just go about their day. Are half the people in our country still sane enough to remember that genocide is wrong? What percentage of that people would even take a day off of work to even do something so small as march in a protest? What percentage of those people do you think would pick up a weapon and challenge the US military if they felt there was something so terribly wrong or evil about what their country was doing to some other person on the other side of the world? As you escalate in level of response, the number of people willing to take part in it quickly dwindles until the half of the country that would agree that torturing people is wrong becomes 1/10,000 of the country that's willing to do anything about it.
The fact that people think something is wrong does not automatically translate into massive uprising and revolution. The vast majority of people will never revolt so long as they themselves aren't inconvenienced by the system and even if they themselves are inconvenience by that system, the majority STILL wouldn't revolt. Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on some moral principle, but you really have to accept that most people aren't. So long as they continue to have their coffee in the morning and their 9-5 job and all the little creature comforts of the world available to entertain them, the average person will put their head down, keep their grievances to themselves, and life out their lives relatively content. That is what the reasonable person would do and most people in the world are reasonable.
This, of course, is all not taking into account the power of media and propaganda either..
|
On January 16 2010 17:42 EmeraldSparks wrote:
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes.
The more people who believe they would push the button, the less safer the world becomes.
MAD logic is a ticking timebomb. It cannot last forever and anyone who believes it can hasn't read history well.
On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust,
Fixed
|
If MAD logic can't last forever, you still need to nuke whoever breaks it.
|
On January 17 2010 01:32 Ecrilon wrote:
If MAD logic can't last forever, you still need to nuke whoever breaks it.
Only if you believe you do.
The only way to stop more nukes from being fired is to launch 7000 more.
|
Or you could launch 7000 conventional missiles. I'm not picky.
|
On January 17 2010 01:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 17:42 EmeraldSparks wrote:
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes. The more people who believe they would push the button, the less safer the world becomes. MAD logic is a ticking timebomb. It cannot last forever and anyone who believes it can hasn't read history well. Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust, Fixed
The only flaw in MAD logic is the existence of the people voting no.
|
On January 17 2010 02:38 Ecrilon wrote:
Or you could launch 7000 conventional missiles. I'm not picky.
Button doesn't activate 7000 conventional missiles unfortunately.
On January 17 2010 02:39 L wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 01:25 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 16 2010 17:42 EmeraldSparks wrote:
The more people who vote yes on this poll, the safer the world becomes. The more people who believe they would push the button, the less safer the world becomes. MAD logic is a ticking timebomb. It cannot last forever and anyone who believes it can hasn't read history well. On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust, Fixed The only flaw in MAD logic is the existence of the people voting no.
That is not the only flaw in MAD logic. I posted a huge list of the flaws with MAD logic in this thread and you ignored it. You have to accept the fact that humans are not always logical. If they were they wouldn't have built a system to destroy thier entire species. People dont always act in self-preservation.
|
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.
1 nuke physically can't destroy the world. but the path it starts to create can. as in, never ending war. unforgiving actions, alliances, etc.
if humanity is really that savagelike
|
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible.
|
On January 17 2010 01:25 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 00:53 HeartOfTofu wrote: Maybe you're the type of activist that would be willing to destabilize your entire country based on Nuclear Holocaust, Fixed
Which would essentially be moral principle because that nuclear holocaust never actually affected you directly... Don't get me wrong, there are certainly people that would act out. I'm just pointing out that it would most likely be nowhere near the massive amount that you believe.
|
Yeah I'd nuke the other guys, else a nation willing to nuke his enemies off the face of the planet is allowed to exist.
|
On January 17 2010 03:00 Ecrilon wrote:
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible.
Do you realize that your logic (nuke to prevent more nukes) is the same logic that would lead them to nuke others?
You are your enemy. Or better yet human 'logic' is its own worst enemy.
To point out even more how illogical your viewpoint is, the enemy has just launched the majority if not all of his nuclear weapons. He might not even have any left over in which case nukeing him prevents nothing other. You are fufilling your own worst nightmare.
|
I can't realize that because it's false. That's preemptive nuking, which is definitely not what I just suggested.
|
On January 17 2010 04:57 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 03:00 Ecrilon wrote:
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible. Do you realize that your logic (nuke to prevent more nukes) is the same logic that would lead them to nuke others? You are your enemy. Or better yet human 'logic' is its own worst enemy. To point out even more how illogical your viewpoint is, the enemy has just launched the majority if not all of his nuclear weapons. He might not even have any left over in which case nukeing him prevents nothing other. You are fufilling your own worst nightmare.
How does that point out illogical viewpoints? That's just a single situation that you assume will happen with no proof at all.
It could be just as likely that the nation that launched first is now the only one with enough nukes to cause harm. Thus allowing a single country to become tyrant over the rest of the world. If only they were counter nuked and stopped allowing the rest of the world to live peacefully.
|
On January 17 2010 05:52 randombum wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 04:57 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 17 2010 03:00 Ecrilon wrote:
Then maybe you need a new button. Regardless, they need to die. Everything will be better after they die. Trust us. I mean come on. They're going to nuke more people. And then everyone's going to nuke people because MAD has stopped working and blah blah blah I've been here before. It'll be horrible. Do you realize that your logic (nuke to prevent more nukes) is the same logic that would lead them to nuke others? You are your enemy. Or better yet human 'logic' is its own worst enemy. To point out even more how illogical your viewpoint is, the enemy has just launched the majority if not all of his nuclear weapons. He might not even have any left over in which case nukeing him prevents nothing other. You are fufilling your own worst nightmare. How does that point out illogical viewpoints? That's just a single situation that you assume will happen with no proof at all. It could be just as likely that the nation that launched first is now the only one with enough nukes to cause harm. Thus allowing a single country to become tyrant over the rest of the world. If only they were counter nuked and stopped allowing the rest of the world to live peacefully.
There is always going to be someone with the most nukes. Nuking the other country doesnt stop that.
|
Yes, but how many of those countries left with nukes will be willing to use them? If nobody is willing to nuke back the nuker he will just nuke anybody he feels like. Once counter nuked, then people will be like oh shit maybe we shouldn't nuke somebody if we don't want to die. Vs the nuking countries mentality, hahahah I can nuke everybody I want and nobody will retaliate.
Right now countries have the most nukes aren't tyrants over the world (well, the US sorta tries), but if once country realized it could anybody else and not get nuked in return, it wouldn't take long for them to start just taking over the world.
|
I posted a huge list of the flaws with MAD logic in this thread and you ignored it. You have to accept the fact that humans are not always logical. I didn't ignore anything. History vindicates my position.
While instruments and the particulars of the system might vary, your question was based on the situation werein you knew your entire nation had been completely obliterated and you were the only one left. Regardless of any of your 'qualms' about the logic, a strike has already been issued and your entire country is demolished. For some reason, you've assumed someone has already decided to take a first strike, but now push us to assume that the retaliatory second strike shouldn't take place at all.
If someone wouldn't react to a first strike by ordering a retaliatory second strike, a nation that DOES have more nukes has the incentive to launch a first strike because they can be certain that their opponent's reactionary second strike will not come. The deterrent against the creation circumstances amounting to the one in your question is removed by your preferred answer to it, which is why I simply don't see how one can support it rationally.
I think you should read Hobbes and his description of a state of nature, then apply the said state to a group of leviathans. If physical force and the fear of impending death is the cause of states, civilization and all of its niceties, then state-level lethality begets the creation of a supra-national arbitration system, instead of the continuation of unlimited conventional warfare just the way that human mortality causes us to band together for self interested reasons.
That isn't to say that limited disarmament should be off the table, but that really wasn't one of the options you gave when you assumed half the world was already a smoldering crater.
|
On January 17 2010 14:01 L wrote:
If someone wouldn't react to a first strike by ordering a retaliatory second strike, a nation that DOES have more nukes has the incentive to launch a first strike because they can be certain that their opponent's reactionary second strike will not come.
No. They cannot. Your entire arguement is based on this idea of "if they didnt fire back then that means they will never fire back". Thats wrong. If something doesnt happen one time that doesnt mean it wont happen the next time.
|
You're going to take that risk? What if everyone thought like you, like you apparently want them to? Then that one country will in fact go around nuking everyone because if it happened once, people like you will make sure it does happen again. Clearly you have to be in the minority, mainly because you're wrong about MAD logic, and you're wrong about what we need to do.
|
On January 17 2010 14:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 14:01 L wrote:
If someone wouldn't react to a first strike by ordering a retaliatory second strike, a nation that DOES have more nukes has the incentive to launch a first strike because they can be certain that their opponent's reactionary second strike will not come. No. They cannot. Your entire arguement is based on this idea of "if they didnt fire back then that means they will never fire back". Thats wrong. If something doesnt happen one time that doesnt mean it wont happen the next time.
Uh, what next time? The world was polarized into 2 camps in your example and one camp is now a crater.
Are you postulating that some form of crater people would redevelop relations with the nuking nation, refurbish their nuclear arsenal from its post-strike state, then somehow work themselves into another nuclear stalemate?
If so, I will again suggest that Japan wins with robots because we're clearly off into fantasy land.
|
On January 17 2010 14:38 Ecrilon wrote:
What if everyone thought like you, like you apparently want them to?
Lucky for you not everyone thinks as logically as me (or half of tl apparently). People know this which is why even if you didnt launch your precious and flawed MAD logic deterence would still quasi apply. People wouldnt automatically assume that if you fire missles at someone there was no chance theyd fire back. Thats ludacris.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On January 17 2010 15:29 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2010 14:38 Ecrilon wrote:
What if everyone thought like you, like you apparently want them to? Lucky for you not everyone thinks as logically as me (or half of tl apparently). People know this which is why even if you didnt launch your precious and flawed MAD logic deterence would still quasi apply. People wouldnt automatically assume that if you fire missles at someone there was no chance theyd fire back. Thats ludacris.
|
Funny enough he perfectly sums up the oppositions logic. You can bet he'd push the button :p
|
It is ludicrous. It's also an idiotic thing to think or do. And the last time I checked, being an idiot wasn't all that logical. If you had half the reasoning ability you claim to have, you might be able to note that your idea of logic leads to nuclear annihilation, which clearly means your logic is pretty bad.
|
On January 17 2010 15:44 Ecrilon wrote:
It is ludicrous. It's also an idiotic thing to think or do. And the last time I checked, being an idiot wasn't all that logical. If you had half the reasoning ability you claim to have, you might be able to note that your idea of logic leads to nuclear annihilation, which clearly means your logic is pretty bad.
Mine definatly does not further the chances of nuclear annihilation. Nuclear annihilation could still happen but a path of de-escalation is possibly the only way to break that chain of events.
|
I'm not telling you that de-escalation is a bad idea. I'm telling you that given your own situation, it has stopped being a solution because somebody is already nuking people. You're going to need to nuke them back, not pray that they don't nuke anyone else after nuking a continent.
|
On January 17 2010 15:49 Ecrilon wrote:
I'm not telling you that de-escalation is a bad idea. I'm telling you that given your own situation, it has stopped being a solution because somebody is already nuking people. You're going to need to nuke them back, not pray that they don't nuke anyone else after nuking a continent.
They might not have any nuclear weapons left. They might not have any desire or reason to nuke anyone else. Another country might have nuclear superiority now. Another country may have the most reason to launch for their own self interests. One launch completly destroys the equilibrium. You cant 'reset' it by launching back. You've completly changed the game and proven that MAD does not work.
|
Actually, launching does two things.
One, it affirms that destruction is in fact mutually assured in the event of nuclear launch. This is your message to the rest of the world.
Two, it destroys any chance that this other country will launch more nukes. You certainly didn't tell me that I was sure they had no more nukes. Maybe you're willing to take that risk and pray that they don't/can't launch more nukes, but that's certainly not a logical assumption.
You're not resetting an equilibrium, you're making a historical example of MAD, not just a thought experiment. This actually makes it much LESS likely that someone else will launch a nuke. Maybe when people have something tangible, like continent-wide destruction, the remainder of humanity will be more willing to de-escalate their nuclear capabilities. This, while by no means certain, is a more logical assumption than "they probably won't nuke anyone else" or "that was probably all the nukes they had and they can't make more."
|
On January 17 2010 15:58 Ecrilon wrote:
Actually, launching does two things.
One, it affirms that destruction is in fact mutually assured in the event of nuclear launch. This is your message to the rest of the world.
See this is where your getting it wrong.
Its not that MAD works. Its that MAD merely provides the appearance of working. All MAD really does is delay the inevitable launch of stockpiled nukes. Eventually, for one reason or another those nukes will be launched. If anything massive amount of horded nuclear weapons eventually reached is worse then the sum of thier parts.
So frankly, your whole goal of "preserving MAD as a viable course of action" is merely setting humanity up for another cataclysmic incident. One that, if anything, will be even worse.
|
Why would they eventually be launched?
|
On January 18 2010 03:29 Avidkeystamper wrote:
Why would they eventually be launched?
Allow me to turn the question.
How long do you think MAD logic can last? 100 years? 1000 years? 10000 years?
By the way I cannot believe that the question is still split so evenly. 178 Yes. 178 No. Ive never seen a poll this dead even before.
|
No.
Revenge is not going to prevent the deaths.
Fucked either way.
Might end up doing even more harm to humanity/earth.
Possibly gain something out of controlling the threat of nuke launches.
|
I don't know about you guys, but the only sane answer is a resounding "yes". If I am the only survivor, philosophy, logic and morality are nice and good, but with everyone dead, the only thing left is to make sure that no one, ever, will be smug about killing them. The way the average US citizen is smug about nuking Japan in WWII. It's not even revenge (what would be the point of that?), it's about Carlos Mencia making money from people laughing their asses off at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's not about deterring nuclear weapons use, it's the people who killed MY family saying "it was terrible, but it was the right thing to do". Because lets be honest - no one would get punished for using nukes. Only someone with nothing to lose has that power.
This is not something I could do in an ordinary situation, but people are talking about this in a detached, rational sense - but the truth is that when surrounded by death, the only logic is "this world is shit".
|
No, dude, I'd totally press the button and destroy the remainder of humanity. Fucking terran scum...
|
Both the United States and Russia have already disabled much of their nuclear arsenal. MAD logic prevented them from blowing each other up in the meantime. There are still nukes today. MAD logic is still doing pretty damn well at preventing anyone from launching nukes. A thousand years? Who knows? Nuclear technology may have given way to antimatter technology by then. But it's worked for the last 60 years. I don't see any reason for it to break any time soon.
And if not MAD, WHAT? You're ALREADY saying that "oh look nukes have been launched." We can do NOTHING then but rely on MAD. You don't seem to understand that the alternative you are offering (pray that the enemy isn't going to nuke anymore) is definitely not a valid alternative to following the MAD course.
I'm not telling you, "I love launching nukes at people for my amusement and the amusement of spectators" I'm telling you that your decision to not launch is a far worse decision, and certainly not "logical".
|
On January 18 2010 06:21 Ecrilon wrote:
Both the United States and Russia have already disabled much of their nuclear arsenal. MAD logic prevented them from blowing each other up in the meantime. There are still nukes today. MAD logic is still doing pretty damn well at preventing anyone from launching nukes. A thousand years? Who knows? Nuclear technology may have given way to antimatter technology by then. But it's worked for the last 60 years. I don't see any reason for it to break any time soon.
And if not MAD, WHAT? You're ALREADY saying that "oh look nukes have been launched." We can do NOTHING then but rely on MAD. You don't seem to understand that the alternative you are offering (pray that the enemy isn't going to nuke anymore) is definitely not a valid alternative to following the MAD course.
I'm not telling you, "I love launching nukes at people for my amusement and the amusement of spectators" I'm telling you that your decision to not launch is a far worse decision, and certainly not "logical".
Man... the US should have just nuked everybody, while they were the sole nuclear power, FFS to show the world "yeah... We're boss like that." Then all subsequent war would be avoided because the US empire would encompass every person on the globe! :D
Go America!
|
lol...the United States was the sole nuclear power for just a few years. Russia was really fast. And besides, I don't think they had enough nukes to wipe the world. Russia would probably have launched an all out counter, plunging the world into WW3 
|
No! Now the pronuker's are winning by 1 point.
191 to 190. Neck and neck :p
|
On January 18 2010 06:27 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2010 06:21 Ecrilon wrote:
Both the United States and Russia have already disabled much of their nuclear arsenal. MAD logic prevented them from blowing each other up in the meantime. There are still nukes today. MAD logic is still doing pretty damn well at preventing anyone from launching nukes. A thousand years? Who knows? Nuclear technology may have given way to antimatter technology by then. But it's worked for the last 60 years. I don't see any reason for it to break any time soon.
And if not MAD, WHAT? You're ALREADY saying that "oh look nukes have been launched." We can do NOTHING then but rely on MAD. You don't seem to understand that the alternative you are offering (pray that the enemy isn't going to nuke anymore) is definitely not a valid alternative to following the MAD course.
I'm not telling you, "I love launching nukes at people for my amusement and the amusement of spectators" I'm telling you that your decision to not launch is a far worse decision, and certainly not "logical". Man... the US should have just nuked everybody, while they were the sole nuclear power, FFS to show the world "yeah... We're boss like that." Then all subsequent war would be avoided because the US empire would encompass every person on the globe! :D Go America!
hm if the world wasnt in shambles and at war already, out of a peace situation producing nukes and having no opponent who do so, at some point you would use them to rule the world. only by threat. this lets me think of nukes beeing the reason for america to join the second world war. since not joining and destroying germany quickly it would be germany who would have had nukes threatening the whole world and dominate. so 2 opposing huge farly seperated countrys developing nukes and running a race of construction had been some good coincidence for the world because it has been balanced.
this also could be a reason for americas agressiveness so far, because the nukes somehow are the threat in the backhands. america knows they have the most, though they just dont attack someone with nukes, knowing those will not firststrike because of the more nukes dilemma in favour of the usa. but they are sure the one with only 1 nuke will attack if he gets attacked first because its the only option.
(sidenote i think russia expired on paper like this dilemma points out, information gathering got so good that both sides counted the missiles, russia saw "ok we are not in favour, what shall we do?" usa: "open your lands, get a democratic country." ru: "ok." (but at closed doors all of us stay in power and we rule all, like we want, eco, media, resources and so on) usa: "we heard that(echolon), we do the same, no problem there.")
today the naive bad/good separation is fading away and changed from an enemy country to a blur. a blur nukes are pretty worthless to. but at least you can use the nuke power to give in your resource hunger overwhelming nukeless country in interest.
at least the attitude is changing at the moment from "we over all" to more global one world thinking. since the terrorist supporting evil axes failed on try and by trying to gather what evil is, like people were used to, nothing exact can be found. so you are forced to think or believe what you are told, sadly for the dumb, media is not precise in forecasting anything for their freedom.
to the dilemma in todays situation, this worked calmly until now, so i would know the otherside knows the dilemma. nukes fly in so something has changed. i also know we are not enemies anymore, and todays most important resource is money at stock exchanged based on producing capabilities (that are hungry for energy). those are in my country and totally wiped out so no longer of worth. no demands were put or threats were made by the country firing.
had to be a system error so i would not push the button. it actually destroyed worlds market and will suffer itself so much, more than it can ever gain by any possible scenario nuking me and risking nuklear winter.
what do you think about these thaughts? also lets me think globalisation and conform worlds markets has been a strategy to assure nuklear first strike not to hapen by making vulnerable everyone to big losses of working production facilities. maybe it has been russian free decision or just another "lucky coincidence". (btw i dont believe in the fairy-tale udssr gone bankrupt, i never heard an old person live experienced it talking bad about basic needs there, today there so much hunger.. north korea people die of hunger, do you thing that will change anything at the one at arms :/ )
just some thought that came around concerning that problem.
sorry for my english btw, im totally not used to write than talk, i use so many words talking i never saw in written form. i also eat up words xD
|
excuse me but somehow my post made sence and and some how moved me... just amazed me
|
Depends on the cause of the war. If this was WWII and I was on the allies side I would. If I was only in the military cause I got drafted as a nazi or something I wouldn't.
Assuming I believe my country was "on the good side" of the war, yes.
|
On January 21 2010 15:19 Grobyc wrote:
Depends on the cause of the war. If this was WWII and I was on the allies side I would. If I was only in the military cause I got drafted as a nazi or something I wouldn't.
Assuming I believe my country was "on the good side" of the war, yes.
When has anyone not believed they were "on the good side" of a war?
|
He must mean if he's a soldier drafted into a cause he didn't believe in. This happens all the time.
|
|
|
On January 22 2010 00:32 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2010 15:19 Grobyc wrote:
Depends on the cause of the war. If this was WWII and I was on the allies side I would. If I was only in the military cause I got drafted as a nazi or something I wouldn't.
Assuming I believe my country was "on the good side" of the war, yes. When has anyone not believed they were "on the good side" of a war?
all the time?
WW1?
|
tho archer do you think my evaluatioins could make point in todays solvation of the riddle ?
|
17 pages of debate... it only serves people to entrench themselves on their sides. especially on the internet
|
My answer was originally "no", but now I am not quite sure.
My original logic is that even if my country/loved-ones were destroyed, the rest of the world would still be alive so why cause more destruction? i could (possibly) even survive and start a new life.
The issue is that there now is only 1 overwhelmingly powerful and selfish country that can easily bring the rest of the world into submission. Even though I wouldn't want to bring death to all of the civilians of that country, it might be better for the future of the world if that country was eliminated so it wouldn't dominate the world through its nuclear superiority.
Also, selfishly, my chances of survival (depending on the circumstances), would probably be better if that other country was destroyed. If they ever found out who I was, they would most certainly kill me.
So now I am thinking of pushing the button, and whats restraining me is:
Even though I could restore some balance to the world's power structure, the cost of doing that is killing the enemy countries civilians and causing much more direct damage then the original attack(assuming i am the us soldier vs russia, russia being carpet-bombed with nukes would directly effect europe, asia, and the middle-east, while the US being carpet-bombed would only directly effect central/north america).
My answer:
push the button... I think the world would be better off without an evil nuclear-bomb-dropping country controlling the entire world.
|
On January 25 2010 12:29 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:
tho archer do you think my evaluatioins could make point in todays solvation of the riddle ?
To tell you the truth Ive been having trouble following what you are saying. Perhaps if you stuck to really simple sentences.
On January 25 2010 14:03 ultramagnetics wrote:
My answer was originally "no", but now I am not quite sure.
My original logic is that even if my country/loved-ones were destroyed, the rest of the world would still be alive so why cause more destruction? i could (possibly) even survive and start a new life.
The issue is that there now is only 1 overwhelmingly powerful and selfish country that can easily bring the rest of the world into submission. Even though I wouldn't want to bring death to all of the civilians of that country, it might be better for the future of the world if that country was eliminated so it wouldn't dominate the world through its nuclear superiority.
Also, selfishly, my chances of survival (depending on the circumstances), would probably be better if that other country was destroyed. If they ever found out who I was, they would most certainly kill me.
So now I am thinking of pushing the button, and whats restraining me is:
Even though I could restore some balance to the world's power structure, the cost of doing that is killing the enemy countries civilians and causing much more direct damage then the original attack(assuming i am the us soldier vs russia, russia being carpet-bombed with nukes would directly effect europe, asia, and the middle-east, while the US being carpet-bombed would only directly effect central/north america).
My answer:
push the button... I think the world would be better off without an evil nuclear-bomb-dropping country controlling the entire world.
I want to clarify something for everyone. Like real life you do not know how many (if any) nuclear weapons your opponent still has. Also the riddle does not even specify which country it is. IT could have been china that attacked you or England.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/2/26/2X02-LockeCumputer.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.douglasgillies.com/images/hiroshima1945.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oVtVHo_28fw/SqSbCBSm0TI/AAAAAAAAARc/51FU0w6Xs8I/s400/ludacris.jpg)
