35 ms·

Almost everything in Dr. Strangelove was true (2014)

103 points by danieka 10y ago

atemerev 10y ago
It is interested how can cultural differences play out. We Russians always thought that placing the ultimate power of authorizing the nuclear strike in the hands of a single individual is irresponsible (we of all people know really well that said individual can go insane without a prior warning). So, adding non-human components into decision loop is regarded as an improvement by Russians. We don't really trust fellow humans, especially in positions of authority.
- arpa 10y ago
  if by non-human components you mean the Oko system, well, if not for podpolkovnik Petrov[1], a fellow human, we'd be enjoying radioactivity :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
  - atemerev 10y ago
    All automatic military systems in Russia are equipped with big red MANUAL OVERRIDE button (installed on command post, of course). Automatic is the default, though. :)
- arethuza 10y ago
  I wonder what that says about the UK where the last resort set of instructions to Trident sub crews is a set of hand written letters from the current PM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    I love how one of the checks until the 80s on whether the letter should even be read was whether BBC Radio 4 was still broadcasting.
    - Brakenshire 10y ago
      Radio 4 no longer broadcasting = end of civilization. Makes a lot of sense.
  - arpa 10y ago
    astonishing! very, very British.
  - spangry 10y ago
    Wow, now I really want to know what's in one of those letters. Apparently the British PM is presented with 4 possible options, according to that wiki page: 'The Guardian reported in 2016 that the options are said to include: "Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there", "Go to Australia", "Retaliate", or "Use your own judgement".' Personally, I vote for the 'Go to Australia' thing :)
    - mimimjmi3 10y ago
      With crazy Trump at the helm I'd be surprised if they do not scrap #1
- taejo 10y ago
  A recent Restricted Data post [0] goes into some detail about the extent to which the American system is the opposite: as much as possible is done to ensure the availability of nuclear options to the president. There are basically no checks against a president gone mad. [0] http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-...
  - atemerev 10y ago
    I am not convinced that the election process is the ultimate check on the presidential authority. What if they _become_ insane during the term, join the secret Korean cult, mindwashed by Russians, or just generally lose their bearings in completely unpredictable way? I only can hope that there is some classified procedure designed to deal with this situation, otherwise, human civilization is doomed, sooner or later.
    - taejo 10y ago
      > I am not convinced that the election process is the ultimate check on the presidential authority. Ultimate in the sense of last, not best.
- mimimjmi3 10y ago
  Your comment reminds me that the founding fathers did not thrust the masses, which is why they created the Electoral College. In theory they could elect somebody other than Trump for president. I really hope we do not live to regret not using that option.
danohu 10y ago
More recently: Bill Clinton supposedly lost the nuclear launch codes for a few months http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/21/shelton.clinton.nuclear.codes/ http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/21/shelton.clinton.n...
- andrewl 10y ago
  The article says that Clinton was probably unaware of the loss of the codes.
dzdt 10y ago
How do we ever get beyond mutually assured destruction? It is so obviously an unstable solution, but for 50+ years this has remained the basis underlying the survival of humanity.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  The obvious answer is to have no nuclear weapons. But everyone will think to themselves "We got rid of our nukes, but if they still have a few then we could be totally totally screwed." The more feasible way is arms limitation. Let's say you go from having enough nukes to destroy the entire planet to merely having enough to end your opponent's civilization as we know it. But the more alliances means the more enemies or even targets on your own side. 10,000 to 1,000 is relatively easy. 1,000 to 100 is very very hard. <100 will probably never happen :(
  - zelos 10y ago
    I've read that many people consider the "both sides have few nukes" dangerous. One side may think they can strike first, either conventionally or with some of their own nukes and disable their opponent's ability to retaliate. With thousands of warheads that isn't possible.
    - trprog 10y ago
      Similarly, the complete removal from the earth of nuclear weapons could potentially make the world much more dangerous. Without the threat of nuclear annihilation conventional war between large nations becomes more conceivable. It would take more time than a nuclear exchange but it is possible to inflict comparable levels of destruction through conventional warfare if you have multiple nations sending millions of humans into battle as part of a war that drags on.
  - spangry 10y ago
    I kinda feel like that 'safest' option, even when including the 'no nukes' option, is for stable and rational powers to have lots of nukes, and probably a 'fail-deadly' doomsday machine type setup. If they're all rational, and all know about each other's doomsday machines/deadman's switch, they wouldn't attack each other as it would be tantamount to suicide. Of course, things start to get a bit dicey when you add not so rational nuclear powers in to the mix (e.g. North Korea), or diversion of nuclear bombs to not so rational 'non-state actors'.
michaelt 10y ago
I read an interesting book a while ago by Thomas Schelling [1] that said in nuclear launch systems, being unreliable is a feature not a bug. Let's say you want to threaten your enemy with nuclear war so they'll do what you want. Maybe you want them to withdraw their missiles from Cuba. The threat you make actually has two components - the claim you'll launch, and the credibility of that claim. The enemy is only scared of the /product/ of threat and credibility, so if either is zero your enemy has nothing to fear. If you say "we'll certainly launch" you have no credibility (you'd have launched already, and everyone can see you haven't) and if you say "we certainly won't launch" you have no threat. In fact, Schelling points out, the only credible threats are /randomized/ threats, that fall somewhere between 100% and 0% chance of launching. You threaten your enemy by showing him you have a system that has a 0.1% chance of launching per day, and you'll roll the dice every day until they withdraw their missiles from cuba (or whatever you want them to do). Except rather than rolling dice, the random threat is from systems failures and mad generals. This is what the DEFCON level is really about - increasing the 'readiness level' amounts to reducing the controls that prevent accidental launches, increasing the threat of a random launch. 'Doomsday machines' can be explained by a similar calculation: Nobody will believe you if you claim you'll trigger nuclear war if a single soldier took a single step over a border. So why would you for two soldiers or two steps - or indeed the capture of some trifling town near one of your allies' borders? It's not like mutually assured destruction will become a more palatable concept when the enemy tanks are ten miles over the border instead of one. However, if you build a doomsday machine with tank detectors ten miles past the border, then you give enemy diplomats and spies a tour and show them that it works, the claim that you'll launch has credibility /despite/ the fact the ten mile line is arbitrary. The invader's calculation is no longer "If our conventional forces do X, will /they/ trigger a launch?" but instead "Do /we/ want to trigger a launch?" and the answer to that is always 'no'. So Dr Strangelove is actually a pretty well informed film :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_of_Conflict_.281960.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_...
- spangry 10y ago
  I can't remember where I got this from, but wasn't this 'instability' strategy also one that Nixon (personally) employed? As in, he deliberately behaved in a way to make the Soviet leadership think he was a bit of a madman? Also, I've always been fascinated by the Doomsday machine/credible second-strike capability doctrine, and what their ultimate consequences might be. One I find particularly interesting is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace
Graham24 10y ago
Is it also true that one was not allowed to fight in the War Room?
pavlov 10y ago
The US president has a "Presidential Decision Handbook" available at all times, which includes a menu of nuclear retaliation options. In theory he can launch these on his authority alone. Some would kill more than 100 million people: "The president can select nuclear strike packages against three categories — military targets, war-supporting or economic targets and leadership targets. There are sub-options, and the menu allows a president to withhold attacks on specific targets. Two officials said that the “Black Book” also includes estimates on the number of casualties for each of the main options that run into the millions, and in some cases over 100 million. Officials who have dealt with nuclear-war options said that learning the details can be horrifying and that there is a “Dr. Strangelove” feel to the whole enterprise." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/president-elect-donald-trump-is-about-to-learn-the-nations-deep-secrets/2016/11/12/8bf9bc40-a847-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html%3F0p19G%3De https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... I can see the next president tweeting at 3.30 am: "Should I launch Black Book option 17C? I'll keep you in suspense..."
- oxide 10y ago
  It sounds a little defeated, but hasn't nuclear war been inevitable since the invention of the nuclear weapon? if no, why not? It's strange how distant the idea of nuclear war seems to my mind when I try to imagine the perspective of someone who lived through the Cold War. It's even more strange to imagine my own country as being a nuclear instigator. Metal Gear Solid is the closest I've come to nuclear doctrine, and in that game the US is there to stop a terrorist nuclear threat and protect deterrence, not keep the nuclear option on the table and potentially flush deterrence down the toilet. It causes some dissonance.
Beltiras 10y ago
Here's an astonishing tale [1] from the Cold War about nuclear weapons. [1] http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2016-11-09

103 points by danieka 10y ago

It is interested how can cultural differences play out. We Russians always thought that placing the ultimate power of authorizing the nuclear strike in the hands of a single individual is irresponsible (we of all people know really well that said individual can go insane without a prior warning). So, adding non-human components into decision loop is regarded as an improvement by Russians. We don't really trust fellow humans, especially in positions of authority.

arpa 10y ago
if by non-human components you mean the Oko system, well, if not for podpolkovnik Petrov[1], a fellow human, we'd be enjoying radioactivity :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
- atemerev 10y ago
  All automatic military systems in Russia are equipped with big red MANUAL OVERRIDE button (installed on command post, of course). Automatic is the default, though. :)
arethuza 10y ago
I wonder what that says about the UK where the last resort set of instructions to Trident sub crews is a set of hand written letters from the current PM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
- mattmanser 10y ago
  I love how one of the checks until the 80s on whether the letter should even be read was whether BBC Radio 4 was still broadcasting.
  - Brakenshire 10y ago
    Radio 4 no longer broadcasting = end of civilization. Makes a lot of sense.
- arpa 10y ago
  astonishing! very, very British.
- spangry 10y ago
  Wow, now I really want to know what's in one of those letters. Apparently the British PM is presented with 4 possible options, according to that wiki page: 'The Guardian reported in 2016 that the options are said to include: "Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there", "Go to Australia", "Retaliate", or "Use your own judgement".' Personally, I vote for the 'Go to Australia' thing :)
  - mimimjmi3 10y ago
    With crazy Trump at the helm I'd be surprised if they do not scrap #1
taejo 10y ago
A recent Restricted Data post [0] goes into some detail about the extent to which the American system is the opposite: as much as possible is done to ensure the availability of nuclear options to the president. There are basically no checks against a president gone mad. [0] http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-...
- atemerev 10y ago
  I am not convinced that the election process is the ultimate check on the presidential authority. What if they _become_ insane during the term, join the secret Korean cult, mindwashed by Russians, or just generally lose their bearings in completely unpredictable way? I only can hope that there is some classified procedure designed to deal with this situation, otherwise, human civilization is doomed, sooner or later.
  - taejo 10y ago
    > I am not convinced that the election process is the ultimate check on the presidential authority. Ultimate in the sense of last, not best.
mimimjmi3 10y ago
Your comment reminds me that the founding fathers did not thrust the masses, which is why they created the Electoral College. In theory they could elect somebody other than Trump for president. I really hope we do not live to regret not using that option.

danohu 10y ago

More recently: Bill Clinton supposedly lost the nuclear launch codes for a few months http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/21/shelton.clinton.nuclear.codes/ http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/21/shelton.clinton.n...

andrewl 10y ago
The article says that Clinton was probably unaware of the loss of the codes.

dzdt 10y ago

How do we ever get beyond mutually assured destruction? It is so obviously an unstable solution, but for 50+ years this has remained the basis underlying the survival of humanity.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
The obvious answer is to have no nuclear weapons. But everyone will think to themselves "We got rid of our nukes, but if they still have a few then we could be totally totally screwed." The more feasible way is arms limitation. Let's say you go from having enough nukes to destroy the entire planet to merely having enough to end your opponent's civilization as we know it. But the more alliances means the more enemies or even targets on your own side. 10,000 to 1,000 is relatively easy. 1,000 to 100 is very very hard. <100 will probably never happen :(
- zelos 10y ago
  I've read that many people consider the "both sides have few nukes" dangerous. One side may think they can strike first, either conventionally or with some of their own nukes and disable their opponent's ability to retaliate. With thousands of warheads that isn't possible.
  - trprog 10y ago
    Similarly, the complete removal from the earth of nuclear weapons could potentially make the world much more dangerous. Without the threat of nuclear annihilation conventional war between large nations becomes more conceivable. It would take more time than a nuclear exchange but it is possible to inflict comparable levels of destruction through conventional warfare if you have multiple nations sending millions of humans into battle as part of a war that drags on.
- spangry 10y ago
  I kinda feel like that 'safest' option, even when including the 'no nukes' option, is for stable and rational powers to have lots of nukes, and probably a 'fail-deadly' doomsday machine type setup. If they're all rational, and all know about each other's doomsday machines/deadman's switch, they wouldn't attack each other as it would be tantamount to suicide. Of course, things start to get a bit dicey when you add not so rational nuclear powers in to the mix (e.g. North Korea), or diversion of nuclear bombs to not so rational 'non-state actors'.

michaelt 10y ago

I read an interesting book a while ago by Thomas Schelling [1] that said in nuclear launch systems, being unreliable is a feature not a bug. Let's say you want to threaten your enemy with nuclear war so they'll do what you want. Maybe you want them to withdraw their missiles from Cuba. The threat you make actually has two components - the claim you'll launch, and the credibility of that claim. The enemy is only scared of the /product/ of threat and credibility, so if either is zero your enemy has nothing to fear. If you say "we'll certainly launch" you have no credibility (you'd have launched already, and everyone can see you haven't) and if you say "we certainly won't launch" you have no threat. In fact, Schelling points out, the only credible threats are /randomized/ threats, that fall somewhere between 100% and 0% chance of launching. You threaten your enemy by showing him you have a system that has a 0.1% chance of launching per day, and you'll roll the dice every day until they withdraw their missiles from cuba (or whatever you want them to do). Except rather than rolling dice, the random threat is from systems failures and mad generals. This is what the DEFCON level is really about - increasing the 'readiness level' amounts to reducing the controls that prevent accidental launches, increasing the threat of a random launch. 'Doomsday machines' can be explained by a similar calculation: Nobody will believe you if you claim you'll trigger nuclear war if a single soldier took a single step over a border. So why would you for two soldiers or two steps - or indeed the capture of some trifling town near one of your allies' borders? It's not like mutually assured destruction will become a more palatable concept when the enemy tanks are ten miles over the border instead of one. However, if you build a doomsday machine with tank detectors ten miles past the border, then you give enemy diplomats and spies a tour and show them that it works, the claim that you'll launch has credibility /despite/ the fact the ten mile line is arbitrary. The invader's calculation is no longer "If our conventional forces do X, will /they/ trigger a launch?" but instead "Do /we/ want to trigger a launch?" and the answer to that is always 'no'. So Dr Strangelove is actually a pretty well informed film :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_of_Conflict_.281960.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_...

spangry 10y ago
I can't remember where I got this from, but wasn't this 'instability' strategy also one that Nixon (personally) employed? As in, he deliberately behaved in a way to make the Soviet leadership think he was a bit of a madman? Also, I've always been fascinated by the Doomsday machine/credible second-strike capability doctrine, and what their ultimate consequences might be. One I find particularly interesting is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace

Graham24 10y ago

Is it also true that one was not allowed to fight in the War Room?

pavlov 10y ago

The US president has a "Presidential Decision Handbook" available at all times, which includes a menu of nuclear retaliation options. In theory he can launch these on his authority alone. Some would kill more than 100 million people: "The president can select nuclear strike packages against three categories — military targets, war-supporting or economic targets and leadership targets. There are sub-options, and the menu allows a president to withhold attacks on specific targets. Two officials said that the “Black Book” also includes estimates on the number of casualties for each of the main options that run into the millions, and in some cases over 100 million. Officials who have dealt with nuclear-war options said that learning the details can be horrifying and that there is a “Dr. Strangelove” feel to the whole enterprise." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/president-elect-donald-trump-is-about-to-learn-the-nations-deep-secrets/2016/11/12/8bf9bc40-a847-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html%3F0p19G%3De https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... I can see the next president tweeting at 3.30 am: "Should I launch Black Book option 17C? I'll keep you in suspense..."

oxide 10y ago
It sounds a little defeated, but hasn't nuclear war been inevitable since the invention of the nuclear weapon? if no, why not? It's strange how distant the idea of nuclear war seems to my mind when I try to imagine the perspective of someone who lived through the Cold War. It's even more strange to imagine my own country as being a nuclear instigator. Metal Gear Solid is the closest I've come to nuclear doctrine, and in that game the US is there to stop a terrorist nuclear threat and protect deterrence, not keep the nuclear option on the table and potentially flush deterrence down the toilet. It causes some dissonance.

Beltiras 10y ago

Here's an astonishing tale [1] from the Cold War about nuclear weapons. [1] http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2016-11-09