6 ms·

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

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.
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  Why is revenge pitiable? If your enemies are ruthless (and they are), then they need to believe you to be ruthless as well, so they believe you WILL launch a retaliatory strike and destroy them if they launch a first strike.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    I am not a native English speaker, so maybe I choose the wrong word here but I think it fits according to the dictionary. Revenge is a bad thing, especially in this situation, you do exactly what you condemn, you kill a lot of innocent people. You try to appear strong, you tell everyone that you will lunch retaliation strikes, but the leaders of this other country don't give a shit, they really hate you and launch a first strike. Then they hide in a bunker. And now? You really want to nuke the people of that country? You won't hit the leaders and the people didn't do anything to you. Chances are that they hate the leaders as much as you do. So why on earth would you do that?
    - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
      >Revenge is a bad thing, especially in this situation, you do exactly what you condemn, you kill a lot of innocent people. I disagree. The instinct for revenge serves a very important purpose in stabilizing society. If I know you will want revenge should I kill your brother, it makes me less likely to do so, and vice versa. Revenge is also the basis of the justice system, though obviously not its total extent. For example, if you kidnap someone, we do exactly what we condemn and forcibly hold you in a facility for a number of years or life. And yet the moral implications of that are different because of the differing situation. >You try to appear strong, you tell everyone that you will lunch retaliation strikes, but the leaders of this other country don't give a shit, they really hate you and launch a first strike. Appearing weak doesn't prevent a first strike by our opponents either. In fact, it increases likelihood of one. So if our options are appear strong or weak, and appearing weak has grave consequences, I will appear strong. >You really want to nuke the people of that country? You won't hit the leaders and the people didn't do anything to you. Chances are that they hate the leaders as much as you do. So why on earth would you do that? The people are guilty of allowing a criminal regime to initiate nuclear warfare against another party. No individual or small clique (small enough to fit in a bunker) can launch a nuclear first strike without the cooperation of a large, representative sample of their nation. They are complicit. They launched a strike. They will suffer and die.
      - danbruc 11y ago
8note 11y ago
I don't think a president Trump would have any reservations about nuking "terrorists' families"
mdpopescu 11y ago
This is the second time I've seen this statement (the president won't launch nuclear missiles without being attacked first). Given that this is demonstrably false in the case of the US, I'm wondering what you're basing this on. (The US has never been bombed by any other nation but it has bombed a couple dozens. In the case of nukes, it is the only nation that has used them against another country.)
- GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
  The US has never been bombed? That's patently false. The American Philippines? Pearl Harbor? The balloon bombs? Attu & Kiska? None of that rings a bell? At the time of their introduction, nuclear weapons were not yet understood as qualitatively different from an equally powerful amount of conventional weapons. The qualitative difference observed after Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped establish this qualitative difference in the minds of people.
vidarh 11y ago
If it is so obviously the right thing, then "being required to hack someone open" shouldn't matter. That is the point of the thought exercise: To ask what kind of sacrifice is a suitable deterrent to ensure that a counterstrike is only ordered when it is sufficiently obvious that it is the right thing.
- chrisseaton 11y ago
  But you could know that it's obviously the right thing, and so know that it's the right thing to do to hack the person open, but still find it hard to actually physically do it. Having the grit and resolution to hack someone open and being able to make a good decision about using weapons are unrelated. Why conflate them?
  - vidarh 11y ago
    It's a thought experiment. It does not have to be hacking him up. The point is exactly to create a barrier that is sufficiently hard to cross to make the person think twice about making the choice. An alternative might be to have the person carry the suitcase with orders never to surrender it, forcing you to be prepared to shoot him or order him shot if he can't be subdued, or any number of "easier" variants. Part of the point is forcing people to think about why it is appropriate to order the murder of millions of innocent civilians if you are unwilling to kill a single person face to face. There may be valid answers, such as if you have reasons to worry about further, more destructive additional strikes and want to try to take out their capabilities. But there are also many digusting reasons, such as being willing to carry out mass murder on innocents out of a desire for vengeance.
    - hga 11y ago
      Eh, it was a propaganda attack on "Warmonger Reagan", who'd just become President, and the military he supported, disguised as a thought experiment.
      - vidarh 11y ago

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.

GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
Why is revenge pitiable? If your enemies are ruthless (and they are), then they need to believe you to be ruthless as well, so they believe you WILL launch a retaliatory strike and destroy them if they launch a first strike.
- danbruc 11y ago
  I am not a native English speaker, so maybe I choose the wrong word here but I think it fits according to the dictionary. Revenge is a bad thing, especially in this situation, you do exactly what you condemn, you kill a lot of innocent people. You try to appear strong, you tell everyone that you will lunch retaliation strikes, but the leaders of this other country don't give a shit, they really hate you and launch a first strike. Then they hide in a bunker. And now? You really want to nuke the people of that country? You won't hit the leaders and the people didn't do anything to you. Chances are that they hate the leaders as much as you do. So why on earth would you do that?
  - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
    >Revenge is a bad thing, especially in this situation, you do exactly what you condemn, you kill a lot of innocent people. I disagree. The instinct for revenge serves a very important purpose in stabilizing society. If I know you will want revenge should I kill your brother, it makes me less likely to do so, and vice versa. Revenge is also the basis of the justice system, though obviously not its total extent. For example, if you kidnap someone, we do exactly what we condemn and forcibly hold you in a facility for a number of years or life. And yet the moral implications of that are different because of the differing situation. >You try to appear strong, you tell everyone that you will lunch retaliation strikes, but the leaders of this other country don't give a shit, they really hate you and launch a first strike. Appearing weak doesn't prevent a first strike by our opponents either. In fact, it increases likelihood of one. So if our options are appear strong or weak, and appearing weak has grave consequences, I will appear strong. >You really want to nuke the people of that country? You won't hit the leaders and the people didn't do anything to you. Chances are that they hate the leaders as much as you do. So why on earth would you do that? The people are guilty of allowing a criminal regime to initiate nuclear warfare against another party. No individual or small clique (small enough to fit in a bunker) can launch a nuclear first strike without the cooperation of a large, representative sample of their nation. They are complicit. They launched a strike. They will suffer and die.
    - danbruc 11y ago

8note 11y ago

I don't think a president Trump would have any reservations about nuking "terrorists' families"

mdpopescu 11y ago

This is the second time I've seen this statement (the president won't launch nuclear missiles without being attacked first). Given that this is demonstrably false in the case of the US, I'm wondering what you're basing this on. (The US has never been bombed by any other nation but it has bombed a couple dozens. In the case of nukes, it is the only nation that has used them against another country.)

GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
The US has never been bombed? That's patently false. The American Philippines? Pearl Harbor? The balloon bombs? Attu & Kiska? None of that rings a bell? At the time of their introduction, nuclear weapons were not yet understood as qualitatively different from an equally powerful amount of conventional weapons. The qualitative difference observed after Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped establish this qualitative difference in the minds of people.

vidarh 11y ago

If it is so obviously the right thing, then "being required to hack someone open" shouldn't matter. That is the point of the thought exercise: To ask what kind of sacrifice is a suitable deterrent to ensure that a counterstrike is only ordered when it is sufficiently obvious that it is the right thing.

chrisseaton 11y ago
But you could know that it's obviously the right thing, and so know that it's the right thing to do to hack the person open, but still find it hard to actually physically do it. Having the grit and resolution to hack someone open and being able to make a good decision about using weapons are unrelated. Why conflate them?
- vidarh 11y ago
  It's a thought experiment. It does not have to be hacking him up. The point is exactly to create a barrier that is sufficiently hard to cross to make the person think twice about making the choice. An alternative might be to have the person carry the suitcase with orders never to surrender it, forcing you to be prepared to shoot him or order him shot if he can't be subdued, or any number of "easier" variants. Part of the point is forcing people to think about why it is appropriate to order the murder of millions of innocent civilians if you are unwilling to kill a single person face to face. There may be valid answers, such as if you have reasons to worry about further, more destructive additional strikes and want to try to take out their capabilities. But there are also many digusting reasons, such as being willing to carry out mass murder on innocents out of a desire for vengeance.
  - hga 11y ago
    Eh, it was a propaganda attack on "Warmonger Reagan", who'd just become President, and the military he supported, disguised as a thought experiment.
    - vidarh 11y ago