7 ms·
In Defence of a ‘No First Use’ Nuclear Doctrine
- jjcc 10y agoThe principle is beyond the Nuclear policy. It's a famous winning strategy in game theory called "tit for tat" which can be considered as the foundation of all moral principles of human society.
- oxide 10y agodoes the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction have roots in game theory? or does the concept itself simply tie back into tit for tat?
- gizmo686 10y agoI have never seen the phrasing "mutually assured destruction" in game theory (outside of nuclear references). However, outside of edge cases, it is the same concept as a Nash equilibrium. Specifically, it is a strategy where defecting leads to a worse outcome for both parties.
- aidenn0 10y agoThe person credited with creating the term was a mathematician, (and also extraordinarily hawkish). He was almost certainly aware of Nash's work, as he coauthored a book proving the existence of Nash equilibria for zero-sum games prior to Nash's more general proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Mutual_assure... [edit] As a note, I can't find a date for Von Neumann coining the MAD term. It seems likely to me that it would predate Nash's work, though as I said earlier, the existence of such equilibria was already well known (It was jut not proven that for large classes of non-zero-sum games there must exist at least one such equilibrium, which was Nash's contribution).
- Xcelerate 10y agoThe funny thing is that for the iterated prisoner's dilemma, tit for tat is less optimal than an extortionist strategy. I don't know what this entails for the moral principles of human society though haha. https://www.edge.org/conversation/william_h_press-freeman_dyson-on-iterated-prisoners-dilemma-contains-strategies-that https://www.edge.org/conversation/william_h_press-freeman_dy...
- ianunruh 10y ago> Firstly, it is important to recall that in the entire span since the United States acquired nuclear weapons it has not seen fit to use them. Uhhh, did the author forget about 1945?
- masteryupa_ 10y agoApologies for the miss-type, the error has been corrected: "Firstly, it is important to recall that in the entire span since the United States acquired nuclear weapons, outside the two instances in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it has not seen fit to use them."
- DHMO 10y agoAnd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_... And others have also set off the bomb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests Granted, weapons testing is a little different than intentional use in war against an enemy.
- pluma 10y ago"a little"
- duncan_bayne 10y agoNot as little a difference as you might hope, in the case of atmospheric testing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Atoll https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_At...
- SilasX 10y ago"Other than the death of her husband, Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play."
- 10y ago
- gozur88 10y ago"No first use" invites attack by anyone who has a stronger conventional military. This is one of those cases where ambiguity is the right course of action - if you say "all our options are on the table, and we'll decide on a case-by-case basis" potential adversaries have to consider the possibility they'll lose even if they win. They're likely to be more circumspect.
- rdtsc 10y agoBut since nobody has a stronger conventional military, this could be a good propaganda move -- because others can't say "well Americans are beligerant, they could nuke us any day without warning, look! it's right there in their military doctrine, so we have to seek nuclear technology to defend outselves.". This could also be a potential boost for military contractors since because now we need a stronger conventional military so more, tanks, bombers, drones, etc. If anyone asks why they can say "because our doctrine changed, so a bigger military means more peace".
- nickff 10y agoThe Hawks say every change means they need larger and expensive armed forces, and the doves will come up with reasons why the same change requires disarmament. Such debates have not proven very productive.
- vilhelm_s 10y agoYes, the reason the U.S. has historically not ruled out a first use was to deter a conventional attack (mainly in Europe). At the same time, the Soviet union declared that they would not make a first use (because their conventional army was much stronger anyway). However, now the tables are turned, and NATO has more conventional forces than Russia. (And indeed, Russia changed policy and says that they would use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack). Realistically, there is no situation in which the U.S. today would actually make a first use, so they can afford to change their formal policy to reflect that. At the same time, keeping the policy ambiguous has a cost, namely that the other side will feel more threatened, raising the risk of an accidental nuclear war. (C.f. Able Archer 83). Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. To give the maximal stability, everyone should adopt as restrictive a policy as possible (the ideal example is China, who rule out both first use and use against non-nuclear countries). Such a policy makes the weapons less "useful", in the sense that they only used to deter a nuclear attack and not for "getting away with" weaker conventional forces, but it is safer.
- JDDunn9 10y agoHow about a more general no first strike policy? If you are willing to pre-strike a country, logically they should be willing to pre-pre-strike you. A no first strike policy allows for us to reach a Nash equilibrium.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoNot really - you can't rule out defectors.
- DHMO 10y agoIn addition to the two actually dropped in Japan, the US and Russia have been close to accidentally firing nuclear weapons since then, in each case because they thought they were getting ready to respond to what they thought was an aggressive act. It's just not a good idea to have nuclear weapons at all. So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, not even for defense. Nuclear pulse propulsion should be allowed for spacecraft, however. This was outlawed years ago by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat... but would be much more efficient than other currently used methods and safe if used with clean bombs in space. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion Weapons by their nature will continue to escalate as long as technology improves, so if nuclear weapons continue to be allowed, time will surely bring a weapon even more destructive to counter them. Whether you believe they've brought peace or not, do you want someone to invent an even greater weapon and test it as the next "weapon of peace"? I don't.
- gizmo686 10y ago>including for spacecraft in space- something which was outlawed years ago. What are you talking about? NASA is facing a plutonium-238 shortage, but that is because we ran out of our stock-pile that was produced as a by-product of bomb manufacturing. Production of plutonium-238 started again back in 2013. The only international laws I could find regarding nuclear spacecraft seem to be reasonable safety requirement (eg, not crash into Earth while still radioactive). >So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, even for a defensive strike. The problem is that this policy removes the main dynamic that has prevented use of nuclear weapons: the threat of reprisal. If a country (verifiably) agrees to never use nuclear weapons, then a bad actor country can safely break the agreement. Under the current system this does not happen, because that would lead to a nuclear counter attack.
- akiselev 10y agoNASA uses plutonium for radioisotope thermoelectric generators whereas the OP is talking about nuclear pulse propulsion, which uses the shockwave from nuclear warhead detonations to propel a spacecraft. These are two fundamentally different things. The latter is illegal in most countries because of the aforementioned Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans any atmospheric or outer space detonations.
- solotronics 10y agoI imagine it could be a tactic to launch a single ICBM from a submarine at yourself to give cause to launch a nuclear offense. In reality it doesn't matter who shoots first against a determined enemy who is willing to execute a false flag.
- thomasruns 10y agoI believe you're looking for infowars or some other bs site where conspiracy nutjobs hang out.
- pluma 10y agoOr you could just launch the nukes anyway because if there is a thermonuclear war it doesn't matter what asshole started it for which reason unless there's someone alive to hold you accountable when the dust has settled. Only the worst kind of human would ever actually use a nuclear weapon in any scenario.
- Animats 10y agoThere's a new argument for enacting this as legislation, and requiring the permission of Congress for first use of nuclear weapons. Trump might be elected.
- duncan_bayne 10y agoYou get that it's Clinton, not Trump, with the established history of starting and encouraging wars? Not that I'd vote for either of them, but it bothers me when people claim that a Trump presidency would be any more dangerous in this regard then if Clinton were elected.
- captainmuon 10y agoSomewhat related, I've never believed the conventional doctrine of mutual assured destruction. The way I see it, the only rational thing to do once you have been hit hard by nuclear weapons is to forget your original plan of retaliation and to surrender immediately. Retaliating would only kill more people and potentially render the planet uninhabitable, but would give you no gain. MAD only works if you tie your own hands. If you make the retaliation absolutely automatic and unstoppable. As far as I know, the only such system that was built was the Soviet "Perimetr" or "Dead Hand" system, which was never completely activated. As long as there is a human component, you will be able to, and rationally have to, turn around once you have taken the hit. I think the naive story about MAD comes from applying game theory but assuming your strategy is static throughout the whole "game". Likewise, the main reason we (US, NATO) have not used another nuclear bomb is that we have not been in a "real" war against an opponent where it would make sense. I mean for example an all out land war against Russia on Russian or European territory and/or where US territory is under danger. Where it would make sense to use a nuclear bomb to quickly destroy a huge tank unit or weapons factories, or to bomb the enemy into submission (if you have given up on sparing civilian lives). Once we would be stuck in such a horrible war, a "no first use" doctrine like any peacetime strategy would be up for discussion immediately, IMO.
- deepfriedbits 10y agoNukes were strongly considered during the Korean War due to the massive number of Chinese fighting on the side of the aggressors in that war. MacArthur wanted badly to nuke China or more specifically, Chinese divisions and the threat of nukes helped lure China to the negotiating table when the U.S. wanted to wind down the conflict.
- Noseshine 10y agoIncidentally, I read that "perimeter" - the Soviet automatic MAD system - was actually not meant against the Americans, but against the "hawks" in the Soviet government. Which is why it wasn't publicized. It assured them that the USSR had a way to retaliate in any case - so there was no need to launch nukes right away at the slightest suspicion, but waiting if there actually was an impact somewhere was possible without losing the ability to retaliate. With the "hawks" assured the calmer people now had more time to think, talk, and check data in an emergency and faced less pressure to act immediately. And to the MAD scenario, I too came to the conclusion that the only sane thing to do if I was someone in the chain of command to launch nukes was a) Always make your unwavering commitment to launch clear - to everyone, including at home. b) When it happens, refuse to launch, contradictory to anything people know about you. You can't tell b) to anyone though, because there is a chance the enemy may find out. It's important to only reveal that you won't ever launch nukes when it actually happens, not before.