| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22490 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:20 ThomasjServo wrote: I like the sound of that, feel a bit sorry for the policy holder, but not so sorry. If the car is in your name and you lend it to someone who is not qualified to drive it your partly responsible yeah, nothing to feel sorry about. He knew what he was getting into when he lend the car. | ||
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:04 JimmiC wrote: I was responding to just the bold part. But yeah you do launch and you have to make it clear to everyone that you would. Because that's MAD the whole point of having nukes is that you are willing to use them, so people don't use theirs on you. Edit: Or was the Bold part saying that if you obliterate half the planet then the nuclear fallout would create a nuclear winter that would destroy the world anyways? I'm thinking that was the question now, and that is why he was asking for a study on how many nukes to destroy the planet. So in closing I guess I'm useless  Make it clear that you would to who? Nobody is left. I wrote the original hypothetical but it's basically. 1) Two opposing blocs that include all of humanity between them 2) Each has a weapon capable of wiping out the other and each threatens that if the other attacks then they will use their own weapon in retaliation such that while any attack will be successful the attackers will not live long enough to enjoy it. 3) One bloc attacks anyway using their weapon. At this point the second bloc is utterly doomed. There will be no survivors. 4) The attacked bloc has the choice of whether to counterattack. It cannot change their fate, there is no chance of improving their situation, all they can choose to do is either render humanity extinct to serve as a lesson of the perils of a MAD policy or refuse to do so. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:29 KwarK wrote: Make it clear that you would to who? Nobody is left. I wrote the original hypothetical but it's basically. 1) Two opposing blocs that include all of humanity between them 2) Each has a weapon capable of wiping out the other and each threatens that if the other attacks then they will use their own weapon in retaliation such that while any attack will be successful the attackers will not live long enough to enjoy it. 3) One bloc attacks anyway using their weapon. At this point the second bloc is utterly doomed. There will be no survivors. 4) The attacked bloc has the choice of whether to counterattack. It cannot change their fate, there is no chance of improving their situation, all they can choose to do is either render humanity extinct to serve as a lesson of the perils of a MAD policy or refuse to do so. In the scenario you postulate, instant certain death for everyone and retaliation meaning instant death for every other human being: yes, you can make a strong moral argument for withholding fire. You can also ask why the guy that will die anyway should care about the humanity at that point. It turns into a very philosophical argument easily, which I'm not really interested in personally. In practice however, it will not be as extreme. It'll be nukes that will instantly kill (almost?) everyone in or close to major cities, and then years of nuclear winter and decades of radiation damage for the survivors. The guy making the call, the president or whatever, will probably make sure that he is one of the survivors one way or another. It'll be a very angry and stressed person making the call, and someone that has been in intense conflict with the other side for a long while. If he doesn't retaliate, what stops the other side from preparing a land invasion? What reason do they have to not fire a second round of nukes? I'd think that in practice, there would be missiles flying the other way within a couple of minutes. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9325 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:39 Sent. wrote: Did all those nuclear tests since ww2 affect the global climate in a significant way? http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html A reasonable estimate indicates that the total energy released by nuclear explosions in the twentieth century amounts to six hundred megatons TNT equivalent of energy, or 2.5 billion, billion Joules (2.5 x 1018 J). That estimate is larger than the five hundred and thirty megatons TNT equivalent estimated by UNSCEAR (also), so it can be considered a conservative estimate. Divided over the five hundred and ten million, million square meters of the Earth's surface (510 x 1012 m^2), and over the two decades of peak testing, that represents eight millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power. For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year that the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world has generated. and then there's more. That is not the whole story. Many nuclear tests kick up a lot of dust, which reflects sunlight, thereby cooling the Earth. Indeed, according to Turco et al, 1983, that is the dominant effect of nuclear explosions on climate. The result is that nuclear testing is likely to have reflected more energy from the Sun than they generated. That is, nuclear testing is likely to have been a net cooling factor. but it's an argued subject nonetheless. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:39 Sent. wrote: Did all those nuclear tests since ww2 affect the global climate in a significant way? Don't think so. Maybe some local effects at most. The current total of nukes is a lot more than what has been tested though (right?). I'd guess by a couple of orders of magnitude at least? Is there any information on that? Not sure if there would be a large global effect if we were to fire them all actually... According to above, I thought the dust-effect was the major one as well. Similar to volcanoes I guess? | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:23 Gorsameth wrote: If the car is in your name and you lend it to someone who is not qualified to drive it your partly responsible yeah, nothing to feel sorry about. He knew what he was getting into when he lend the car. I dont feel too bad, actually this should let us fix the bumper my fiancee fucked up, as well as replace the windshield which had been damaged in the last couple weeks driving behind a semi truck with a chip. Silver lining I guess. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:33 xM(Z wrote: so you removed weapon being a nuke; it changes everything. i'd still fire it though, out of principle. Better that all humanity is destroyed out of spite than my enemy be rewarded with success for killing me. Game theory experiments into the value of spite are pretty interesting but you have to hope that when it comes to the extermination of the only intelligent life we know to exist in the universe people would choose against wiping them out to prove a point to the endless void. Nobody would learn any lesson from it because there would be nobody to learn a lesson from it. After a million years or so it'd be like humanity never existed. To me the whole idea of MAD is utterly insane, the win condition is your enemy being so convinced of your total irrationality that they dare not risk it. If I were President I'd probably take a madman who was foaming at the mouth to destroy the enemy and put them in charge of pushing the button when the time came. And then I'd give him all the wrong codes. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On July 20 2016 01:00 KwarK wrote: Better that all humanity is destroyed out of spite than my enemy be rewarded with success for killing me. Game theory experiments into the value of spite are pretty interesting but you have to hope that when it comes to the extermination of the only intelligent life we know to exist in the universe people would choose against wiping them out to prove a point to the endless void. Nobody would learn any lesson from it because there would be nobody to learn a lesson from it. After a million years or so it'd be like humanity never existed. To me the whole idea of MAD is utterly insane, the win condition is your enemy being so convinced of your total irrationality that they dare not risk it. If I were President I'd probably take a madman who was foaming at the mouth to destroy the enemy and put them in charge of pushing the button when the time came. And then I'd give him all the wrong codes. lol, that's animal cruelty!. but there is a lesson here thou(if we have it your way), the lesson the winner teacher to its subjects: anytime you have a weapon that would annihilate your enemy, use it and no harm will come to you. so they kill you and then they kill each other, by example. evolution learns!; in some billion years it'll make dolphins the apex predators. Edit: that logic of yours it's why lefties are losing now and will continue to lose until they get their shit together. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
On July 20 2016 01:21 xM(Z wrote: lol, that's animal cruelty!. but there is a lesson here thou(if we have it your way), the lesson the winner teacher to its subjects: anytime you have a weapon that would annihilate your enemy, use it and no harm will come to you. so they kill you and then they kill each other, by example. evolution learns!; in some billion years it'll make dolphins the apex predators. Edit: that logic of yours it's why lefties are losing now and will continue to lose until they get their shit together. The winner will have grandkids who write books about how evil their grandfathers were and the philosophy and ideals of your nation will continue in their history books. The bloc that was united against your bloc will fall apart due to internal divisions eventually. All of the points that actually caused the conflict between the two blocs are small picture stuff, the survival of intelligent life is big picture stuff. And you're right that given enough shots at creating intelligent life randomly there probably wouldn't be an intelligent life that destroyed itself, unless we presume that complex and spiteful irrationality is a precondition to intelligence, but so far earth is home to the only intelligent life we have evidence that there has ever been. And I disagree, I think an ideological desire to act in intensely irrational ways due to obscure moral points is the reason the right lose. They'd launch a million dollar taxpayer funded investigation into whether or not someone misused $100 of taxpayer money and, upon finding no wrongdoing, state that it is important that there be transparency in whether people are using taxpayer money wisely. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
but you don't seem to get the ideological here; the premise is that the one bombing your block knows beforehand that the moment he does that, the moment he fires the bomb, he commits suicide. that is the deterrent: him not wanting to kill himself, not him not wanting to kill you (people killing others are a dime a dozen; statistics dude, play the odds). (your last example looks to randomly picked from a pile of hurt so it get's skipped over) | ||
|
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
On July 20 2016 02:19 xM(Z wrote: well aren't you the little romantic that thought he could; the forever hopetimist. i will bomb your block and write no books, there; now you know the future. but you don't seem to get the ideological here; the premise is that the one bombing your block knows beforehand that the moment he does that, the moment he fires the bomb, he commits suicide. that is the deterrent: him not wanting to kill himself, not him not wanting to kill you (people killing others are a dime a dozen; statistics dude, play the odds). (your last example looks to randomly picked from a pile of hurt so it get's skipped over) Sure, you need him to believe that he would die if he tried to kill you. I get how MAD works. Okay, let's say it's a fuckup. Let's say he misidentifies a weather balloon as your weapon and launches his own counteroffensive. You have no way of knowing why the hell he attacked first, even though he must have known that you'd retaliate and obliterate him. You're just there in your command bunker knowing that for whatever reason he has chosen to attack and you must decide whether to turn the death of half of humanity into the death of all of humanity to prove a point to one set of ashes that nobody attacks the other set of ashes and gets away with it. And my example is relevant to this situation. The right are so desperate in their desire not to be taken advantage of that they would cut off their nose to spite their face. That's your argument here, that you would rather have all humanity die than feel like anyone took advantage of you. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11942 Posts
On July 20 2016 02:19 xM(Z wrote: well aren't you the little romantic that thought he could; the forever hopetimist. i will bomb your block and write no books, there; now you know the future. but you don't seem to get the ideological here; the premise is that the one bombing your block knows beforehand that the moment he does that, the moment he fires the bomb, he commits suicide. that is the deterrent: him not wanting to kill himself, not him not wanting to kill you (people killing others are a dime a dozen; statistics dude, play the odds). (your last example looks to randomly picked from a pile of hurt so it get's skipped over) Yes, but at this point in the hypothetical that has already happened. You don't get to deter anymore, since the other sides doomsday button has already been pressed. The question is not: "Do you try to convince the other guy that you will press yours in return beforehand?". This point is gone. Of course you try to do that. But at this point, unless you think that you pressing now is going to change the past and make them realize that you will indeed press the button, and thus not have launched the missiles in the past themselves, this is a mute point. Work with the premise of the hypothetical. The question is not "How could we have prevented that situation from occuring. It has occured. What do you do now? You can't turn back time. You can press your button or not, but neither decision will undo the fact that the enemy has already launched their stuff. Everyone knows how MAD is supposed to work. The question is not what you say beforehands about how you will react, but how you actually react if the situation is there. Is the destruction of humanity worth it to make a point about MAD? My position is that humanity is better than no humanity. And no matter how bad the other side is, they might eventually get their shit sorted out. Societies change. Give it a few hundred or thousand years, and there will be barely any resemblence between the evil other block that killed you, and the society that arose in its wake. Firing now will deny humanity of this potential to build new societies, and will forever condemn us to remain the idiots who blew themselves up due to their own stupidity. Of course, a better situation would be to prevent the whole thing from happening, so you have to be more convincing in your MAD, or figure a way to stop MAD from being the thing that holds stuff together. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
second, understand MAD and read up on Fail-deadly Fail-deadly is a concept in nuclear military strategy that encourages deterrence by guaranteeing an immediate, automatic, and overwhelming response to an attack and Dead Hand. the nuclear response is automatic, triggered by sensors.@Kwark, his example bypasses all of the above so, in that straw-man-ish case, you subject yourself to the laws of physics (for every action there's a reaction) and push the god damn button. (your idea of "a right" is nonsensical/not (yet) properly defined; to your explanation/assumption, i don't see myself as being taken advantage off, i just do my duty; it's righteousness not spite. yin<->yang, light<->dark and all that; you can't have one without the other or, one triggers the response of the other). @Simberto: some of the above and my position is: the humanity that bombed me is way worse than a future humanity. i think of the children!+ Show Spoiler + of evolution hmm, if you look at all this discussion, the conclusion is that it seems to depend on what one puts his hopes: today or tomorrow. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5195 Posts
Bombing the others is not righteousness, it's stooping to their level. It's a childish: "they did it, so I'm gonna do it!" So in this case I'd say it's definitely spite veiled as righteousness. the humanity that bombed me is way worse than a future humanity. I don't get that, please elaborate. Did you mean for a future humanity? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/view?exhibitionId={8751a3c7-1ce6-440f-8784-68135f0d4c19}&oid=689655&pkgids=347&pg=18&rpp=10&pos=176&ft=* | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11942 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:26 xM(Z wrote: first off, realize your argument is a paradox: MAD exists, but it really doesn't. second, understand MAD and read up on Fail-deadly and Dead Hand. the nuclear response is automatic, triggered by sensors. @Kwark, his example bypasses all of the above so, in that straw-man-ish case, you subject yourself to the laws of physics (for every action there's a reaction) and push the god damn button. (your idea of "a right" is nonsensical/not (yet) properly defined; to your explanation/assumption, i don't see myself as being taken advantage off, i just do my duty; it's righteousness not spite. yin<->yang, light<->dark and all that; you can't have one without the other or, one triggers the response of the other). @Simberto: some of the above and my position is: the humanity that bombed me is way worse than a future humanity. i think of the children!+ Show Spoiler + of evolution hmm, if you look at all this discussion, the conclusion is that it seems to depend on what one puts his hopes: today or tomorrow. Not really. The question is whether you prefer humanity existing and you giving up a point to humanity not existing, but at least you were right and got your revenge. Also, i would be almost certain that no nation on earth has a system that launches a massive nuclear strike without a human being involved at some place. Things like Dead Hand are designed to circumvent the loss of soviet leadership, but there is still a person in charge that ultimately decides to launch. From Wikipedia on Dead Hand: If that were the case, he [the Soviet leader] would flip on a system that would send a signal to a deep underground bunker in the shape of a globe where three duty officers sat. If there were real missiles and the Kremlin were hit and the Soviet leadership was wiped out, which is what they feared, those three guys in that deep underground bunker would have to decide whether to launch very small command rockets that would take off, fly across the huge vast territory of the Soviet Union and launch all their remaining missiles. Now, the Soviets had once thought about creating a fully automatic system. Sort of a machine, a doomsday machine, that would launch without any human action at all. When they drew that blueprint up and looked at it, they thought, you know, this is absolutely crazy. I am still not certain that we talk about the same thing. You are constantly saying that the deterrence is needed for MAD to work. Noone disputes that. The second strike capability needs to be realistic, and you need to be convincing when you claim that you will indeed launch that second strike when attacked. No one disputes that. That is how MAD works, and everyone understands that. It is not a hard concept to grasp. The question is not about that. The question is, you are in a situation where MAD has failed. For whatever reason. The others HAVE launched their missiles. Your decision to launch now has no effect on your deterrence earlier due to causality. Before this happened, you did everything to ensure that everyone believed that you would launch. But the missiles are flying. At this point you have exactly two choices: a) launch your own, for revenge, and destroy humanity to ensure that the others don't win. You lose, the others lose, everyone loses, humanity gone. b) don't launch. You lose, the others win, you don't get revenge, your civilization is gone, but humanity endures. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22490 Posts
On July 20 2016 04:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: on a lighter subject how is this art? http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/view?exhibitionId={8751a3c7-1ce6-440f-8784-68135f0d4c19}&oid=689655&pkgids=347&pg=18&rpp=10&pos=176&ft=* Because everything is art so long as you say it is. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 8445Jaedong 1594Shuttle  1370firebathero  917Light 676Mini 523actioN 498EffOrt 472BeSt 406Soulkey 284[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games FrodaN2194 singsing2120 B2W.Neo954 hiko874 Lowko508 ceh9337 DeMusliM308 Liquid`VortiX207 crisheroes149 ArmadaUGS138 Fuzer  117XaKoH  89QueenE62 Trikslyr38 elazer29 ZerO(Twitch)21 Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
