|
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.
|
United States1195 Posts
Seriously, if someone can't see the blinking red dot and run away in time, they deserve to be nuked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/lostpedia/images/2/26/2X02-LockeCumputer.jpg)
