11 ms·

The last sentence is the best part of the article. "When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, 'My God, that’s terrible. Having to KILL someon

The last sentence is the best part of the article. "When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, 'My God, that’s terrible. Having to KILL someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the button.'" From their response, killing through a button isn't killing.

throwaway2048 11y ago
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 11y ago
This argument makes absolutely no sense. Can you agree that sometimes it is morally just and legally permitted to use violence? Can you also imagine that someone may know that it is the right thing to order this violence, but be put off by physically having to hack someone up themselves? If so, do you now see the practical problem that the friends in the Pentagon were warning of? With the capsule in the person you are clouding the judgement of the president and making it harder for them to make a cool assessment of the right course of action, not adding some kind of clever moral check. Can't you see that? If you want to know more about this issue, read up on the 'trolley problem'. It's a more complex moral issue than your snarky comment implies.
- jMyles 11y ago
  > Can you agree that sometimes it is morally just and legally permitted to use violence? Even if one can agree, which I think most of us can, this particular dilemma is specific to weapons of mass destruction, because their use inevitably (and intentionally) causes the death of many, many people who aren't the target but are in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, the thinking goes, it makes some sense to force the president to kill someone who isn't the target to ensure that it's a worthwhile sacrifice.
  - chrisseaton 11y ago
    My main objection is that the person telling the anecdote is making fun of the people in the pentagon, making it look like they didn't get his clever little moral trick, when in reality, like many things in life, it isn't quite that simple and maybe they had a good point.
- vidarh 11y ago
  The problem is whether they "know that it is the right thing" vs. just do it because the negative repercussions are not felt strongly enough to deter him in circumstances when it is not the right thing. Perhaps the butcher knife and the capsule is too extreme, but on the other hand, perhaps just having to issue some codes is too easy. The situations where a nuclear counter-attack serves any moral purpose are limited enough that such thought experiment are worthwhile means or considering what level of deterrence should be in place.
  - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
    Let's be honest - the President is not going to be pushing the button unless enemy missiles are already in the air. In that situation, we're all screwed, and a retaliatory launch is the appropriate action. Under that circumstance, the President should not be required to hack someone open in order to do the right thing.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      > ...and a retaliatory launch is the appropriate action. Why? So that when a new intelligence emerges on this planet they'll know the value of deterrence?
      - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
        So you're Ok with, say, Putin deciding to launch his arsenal in a first strike and wiping out the US and allies with no retaliation?
        Zigurd 11y ago
        If he launches, deterrence failed and civilation is gone. What is the point of killing even more people?
    - danbruc 11y ago
      Why is it the right thing to do? A lot of people are already dead or about to die in the immediate future, why would you want to kill even more people, most of whom are not responsible for the attack? It's just pitiable revenge unless you specifically try to deter further attacks which may or may not be necessary and effectively achieved by the use of nuclear weapons.
shrugger 11y ago
Wow, that really is fascinating. I wonder what else people would be more willing to do by pushing a button rather than doing it themselves. I mean, it's not surprising that gov higher-ups would incinerate human beings with a button, dump toxic waste on people from a plane with a button, poison water supplies, launch tear-gas from choppers, etc. They should be forced to open their eyes and WATCH the effects of their buttons. Like Clockwork Orange or something.
- dave2000 11y ago
  The problem with that is that just like with antibiotics you're left with the ones which they don't kill, you'll be left with those who would actually rather enjoy watching people getting killed.
  - shrugger 11y ago
    Yeah but if you are dying of a disease, surely it's wise to do SOMETHING, right? I mean, what's the solution to these types of problem where the adversary keeps getting better and better? I feel like Forever War touched on this too, where the Taurans just kept getting more and more advanced, and it was always an arm race to have the better technology and better weapons and better tactics, etc.
    - dave2000 11y ago
      The answer is to vote into power people who don't wish to dominate other countries.
- wlievens 11y ago
  Basically you just incentivised the cruelest, nastiest sadists as the best candidates for high office. What could go wrong?
  - shrugger 11y ago
    Hmm, that was a shortcoming I did not foresee.
rwc 11y ago
It's amazing what people will do with a button if told to do so by an authority figure: http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
- colejohnson66 11y ago
  But actually _hack someone up_? I'm sure if you dehumanized the "key carrier" like the Nazis did, you could probably get someone to do it. But if you've dehumanized someone enough you're willing to hack them up to follow an order, you wouldn't be working with them. The American military fighting in Vietnam dehumanized the Vietnam soldiers in order to justify killing them, but imagine if one of those American soldiers were told by his commanding officer that in order to kill more "Charlies", he'd have to kill his friend he's been fighting with since the beginning. Sure, you'll probably find someone crazy enough to do so, but a lot of people wouldn't do it. TLDR: It's different when it's someone you work with
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
kazinator 11y ago
Killing via button is killing many of them "them". Hacking the innocent's chest is killing one of "us". Part of the dilemma in this thought experiment is basically about weighing the worth of the lives of unknown numbers of "them", against one of "us". The President must distinguish "them" or "us", otherwise he has no business leading the country in a war. He must treat the killing of one of "us" with a different judgment. The other part of this is remote controlled killing versus visceral engagement. Suppose that pushing the button is the right thing to do for the country, but the President has a personal aversion against the bloody engagement form of killing. As President, he's supposed to push, but a personal, psychological reason is preventing him from doing it as a man.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Killing via button is killing many of them "them". Hacking the innocent's chest is killing one of "us". Pressing the button means killing of lot of "us" in the end too, because there's no such thing as one-way nuclear exchanges nowadays, with subs ready to fire from anywhere in the world.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Also, fallout is not restricted by borders. For example US and USSR where within 60 miles of each other at there closest borders during the Cold War. India and Pakistan share a border.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    Which is why we have proxy wars where we "protect" or "liberate" peoples who are not super power themselves and do not have second strike capability.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  Honestly, large scale nuclear weapon deployment is going to kill alot of "us" so symbolically killing one of us is a better representation of reality. There is never going to be a one-sided nuclear exchange when a substantial number of powerful, ideologically opposed countries have access to ICBMs.
venomsnake 11y ago
There is huge difference though. He has to kill one of the citizens of his own country. Better example would have been lets say a convicted war criminal. He still has to do the killing, but not a person that is one of his own.
- jdavis703 11y ago
  Launching a nuclear strike against another nuclear-armed country will cause your own citizens to die though.
  - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
    Yeah, but no President has ever launched a pre-emptive nuclear attack (saving WWII). And the likelihood of any President doing so has decreased over time. The only time the button would be pressed is if enemy missiles are in the air.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    It may not have to be nuclear armed adversary. And it will cause a high probability of your own citizens dying. Not certainty.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      It is exactly this line of thinking that makes it worthwhile creating extra barriers to make it harder to launch a strike to force the person responsible to be very sure.
throwaway2048 11y ago
Remember this when people like raiyner and tptacek tell us that drones don't change warfare.
- jMyles 11y ago
  I was thinking the same thing about the same two commenters, even though I do definitely enjoy their contributions.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  They don't change it any more than smart bombs and missiles already had. They just widen that change somewhat.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Tonight the music seems so loud --- I wish that we could lose this crowd! Maybe it's better this way: we'd hurt each other with the things we'd want to say. We could have been so good together! We could have lived this dance forever! But now? Who's gonna dance with me? Please stay!
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    Nothing careless about my reply, opinions like yours kill people. Really.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    You think telling me I can kill people with my mind powers is going to make me write fewer HN comments? YOU DON'T KNOW ME AT ALL.
peatmoss 11y ago
(Perhaps) misattributed to Stalin: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
Our nuclear opponents need to think we'd be perfectly willing to push the button in order for the balance to work correctly. This destabilizes the situation, which is NOT a good thing.
dorfsmay 11y ago
I cannot find any link right now, but I remember reading about the Milgram's experiment, or one of it replication, and one of the test was with and without glass, what looked like a more direct connection between the button and the victim or via a machine, etc... and that one of the conclusion was that the more indirect connection, the more distance, the more elements between the person pressing the button and the victim, and the more likely the person was going to push the button. By the way, have you ever wonder which type of meat you would eat if you had to kill the animals yourself?

throwaway2048 11y ago

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

chrisseaton 11y ago

This argument makes absolutely no sense. Can you agree that sometimes it is morally just and legally permitted to use violence? Can you also imagine that someone may know that it is the right thing to order this violence, but be put off by physically having to hack someone up themselves? If so, do you now see the practical problem that the friends in the Pentagon were warning of? With the capsule in the person you are clouding the judgement of the president and making it harder for them to make a cool assessment of the right course of action, not adding some kind of clever moral check. Can't you see that? If you want to know more about this issue, read up on the 'trolley problem'. It's a more complex moral issue than your snarky comment implies.

jMyles 11y ago
> Can you agree that sometimes it is morally just and legally permitted to use violence? Even if one can agree, which I think most of us can, this particular dilemma is specific to weapons of mass destruction, because their use inevitably (and intentionally) causes the death of many, many people who aren't the target but are in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, the thinking goes, it makes some sense to force the president to kill someone who isn't the target to ensure that it's a worthwhile sacrifice.
- chrisseaton 11y ago
  My main objection is that the person telling the anecdote is making fun of the people in the pentagon, making it look like they didn't get his clever little moral trick, when in reality, like many things in life, it isn't quite that simple and maybe they had a good point.
vidarh 11y ago
The problem is whether they "know that it is the right thing" vs. just do it because the negative repercussions are not felt strongly enough to deter him in circumstances when it is not the right thing. Perhaps the butcher knife and the capsule is too extreme, but on the other hand, perhaps just having to issue some codes is too easy. The situations where a nuclear counter-attack serves any moral purpose are limited enough that such thought experiment are worthwhile means or considering what level of deterrence should be in place.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  Let's be honest - the President is not going to be pushing the button unless enemy missiles are already in the air. In that situation, we're all screwed, and a retaliatory launch is the appropriate action. Under that circumstance, the President should not be required to hack someone open in order to do the right thing.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    > ...and a retaliatory launch is the appropriate action. Why? So that when a new intelligence emerges on this planet they'll know the value of deterrence?
    - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
      So you're Ok with, say, Putin deciding to launch his arsenal in a first strike and wiping out the US and allies with no retaliation?
      - Zigurd 11y ago
        If he launches, deterrence failed and civilation is gone. What is the point of killing even more people?
  - danbruc 11y ago
    Why is it the right thing to do? A lot of people are already dead or about to die in the immediate future, why would you want to kill even more people, most of whom are not responsible for the attack? It's just pitiable revenge unless you specifically try to deter further attacks which may or may not be necessary and effectively achieved by the use of nuclear weapons.

shrugger 11y ago

Wow, that really is fascinating. I wonder what else people would be more willing to do by pushing a button rather than doing it themselves. I mean, it's not surprising that gov higher-ups would incinerate human beings with a button, dump toxic waste on people from a plane with a button, poison water supplies, launch tear-gas from choppers, etc. They should be forced to open their eyes and WATCH the effects of their buttons. Like Clockwork Orange or something.

dave2000 11y ago
The problem with that is that just like with antibiotics you're left with the ones which they don't kill, you'll be left with those who would actually rather enjoy watching people getting killed.
- shrugger 11y ago
  Yeah but if you are dying of a disease, surely it's wise to do SOMETHING, right? I mean, what's the solution to these types of problem where the adversary keeps getting better and better? I feel like Forever War touched on this too, where the Taurans just kept getting more and more advanced, and it was always an arm race to have the better technology and better weapons and better tactics, etc.
  - dave2000 11y ago
    The answer is to vote into power people who don't wish to dominate other countries.
wlievens 11y ago
Basically you just incentivised the cruelest, nastiest sadists as the best candidates for high office. What could go wrong?
- shrugger 11y ago
  Hmm, that was a shortcoming I did not foresee.

rwc 11y ago

It's amazing what people will do with a button if told to do so by an authority figure: http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

colejohnson66 11y ago
But actually _hack someone up_? I'm sure if you dehumanized the "key carrier" like the Nazis did, you could probably get someone to do it. But if you've dehumanized someone enough you're willing to hack them up to follow an order, you wouldn't be working with them. The American military fighting in Vietnam dehumanized the Vietnam soldiers in order to justify killing them, but imagine if one of those American soldiers were told by his commanding officer that in order to kill more "Charlies", he'd have to kill his friend he's been fighting with since the beginning. Sure, you'll probably find someone crazy enough to do so, but a lot of people wouldn't do it. TLDR: It's different when it's someone you work with
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

kazinator 11y ago

Killing via button is killing many of them "them". Hacking the innocent's chest is killing one of "us". Part of the dilemma in this thought experiment is basically about weighing the worth of the lives of unknown numbers of "them", against one of "us". The President must distinguish "them" or "us", otherwise he has no business leading the country in a war. He must treat the killing of one of "us" with a different judgment. The other part of this is remote controlled killing versus visceral engagement. Suppose that pushing the button is the right thing to do for the country, but the President has a personal aversion against the bloody engagement form of killing. As President, he's supposed to push, but a personal, psychological reason is preventing him from doing it as a man.

ekianjo 11y ago
> Killing via button is killing many of them "them". Hacking the innocent's chest is killing one of "us". Pressing the button means killing of lot of "us" in the end too, because there's no such thing as one-way nuclear exchanges nowadays, with subs ready to fire from anywhere in the world.
- Retric 11y ago
  Also, fallout is not restricted by borders. For example US and USSR where within 60 miles of each other at there closest borders during the Cold War. India and Pakistan share a border.
- newjersey 11y ago
  Which is why we have proxy wars where we "protect" or "liberate" peoples who are not super power themselves and do not have second strike capability.
fweespee_ch 11y ago
Honestly, large scale nuclear weapon deployment is going to kill alot of "us" so symbolically killing one of us is a better representation of reality. There is never going to be a one-sided nuclear exchange when a substantial number of powerful, ideologically opposed countries have access to ICBMs.

venomsnake 11y ago

There is huge difference though. He has to kill one of the citizens of his own country. Better example would have been lets say a convicted war criminal. He still has to do the killing, but not a person that is one of his own.

jdavis703 11y ago
Launching a nuclear strike against another nuclear-armed country will cause your own citizens to die though.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  Yeah, but no President has ever launched a pre-emptive nuclear attack (saving WWII). And the likelihood of any President doing so has decreased over time. The only time the button would be pressed is if enemy missiles are in the air.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  It may not have to be nuclear armed adversary. And it will cause a high probability of your own citizens dying. Not certainty.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    It is exactly this line of thinking that makes it worthwhile creating extra barriers to make it harder to launch a strike to force the person responsible to be very sure.

throwaway2048 11y ago

Remember this when people like raiyner and tptacek tell us that drones don't change warfare.

jMyles 11y ago
I was thinking the same thing about the same two commenters, even though I do definitely enjoy their contributions.
GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
They don't change it any more than smart bombs and missiles already had. They just widen that change somewhat.
tptacek 11y ago
Tonight the music seems so loud --- I wish that we could lose this crowd! Maybe it's better this way: we'd hurt each other with the things we'd want to say. We could have been so good together! We could have lived this dance forever! But now? Who's gonna dance with me? Please stay!
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  Nothing careless about my reply, opinions like yours kill people. Really.
- tptacek 11y ago
  You think telling me I can kill people with my mind powers is going to make me write fewer HN comments? YOU DON'T KNOW ME AT ALL.

peatmoss 11y ago

(Perhaps) misattributed to Stalin: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

GunboatDiplomat 11y ago

Our nuclear opponents need to think we'd be perfectly willing to push the button in order for the balance to work correctly. This destabilizes the situation, which is NOT a good thing.

dorfsmay 11y ago

I cannot find any link right now, but I remember reading about the Milgram's experiment, or one of it replication, and one of the test was with and without glass, what looked like a more direct connection between the button and the victim or via a machine, etc... and that one of the conclusion was that the more indirect connection, the more distance, the more elements between the person pressing the button and the victim, and the more likely the person was going to push the button. By the way, have you ever wonder which type of meat you would eat if you had to kill the animals yourself?