3 ms·

Is it an unstable solution? Are we assuming full rationality here, or is this the 'crazy commander' type scenario? Strangely, I can't help but think the situati

by spangry 10y ago

Is it an unstable solution? Are we assuming full rationality here, or is this the 'crazy commander' type scenario? Strangely, I can't help but think the situation becomes more stable if both sides actually have 'doomsday machines' (that they tell each other about). Nuclear weapons present a very weird trade-off. On the positive side, I'd argue they greatly reduce the chance of total war between nuclear powers, almost to the point of it being unthinkable. Of course it sucks for whichever country they're fighting a proxy-war in, but better than the whole world I guess. On the other hand, there's a slim chance at any given moment someone will do something crazy or some system will malfunction and every living thing on the planet gets vaporised. The thing that scares me is the possibility of tactical nukes. As the old saying goes: "one man's big tactical nuke is another man's little strategic nuke". Or something like that...

atemerev 10y ago
Nuclear weapons exist for more than 70 years, and we managed to live through it without starting a nuclear war. This is impressive, considering less than amicable US-Russian relationships, Caribbean crisis, countless proxy wars, spy games, technical glitches, terrorist plots, and the overall craziness of the era (those who worry about the mind state and escapades of Mr. Trump today, usually don't remember or can't imagine what a usual day during the Cold War used to look like, either from Russian or American side). Our human civilization is very young. Our governments sometimes resort to the level of discourse more appropriate for 5 year old boys fighting in a sandbox. But apparently some toys look dangerous enough to be put on the shelf and never touched without adult supervision.
- didsomeonesay 10y ago
  I used to find it reassuring, too, that mankind went through these crises without starting global nuclear war. But lately I began wondering how much of it is survivor bias and thinking that we cannot extrapolate this into the future.
- bbctol 10y ago
  On the other hand, 70 years is a blink in the span of human history so far. I think people have been much too quick to assume, ever since the Soviet Union fell, that we avoided World War III and proved we'd never use nuclear weapons again. We're still far too close to extinction-level wars for my comfort.
  - spangry 10y ago
    I hope I'm not committing some faux pas replying to such an old thread... There are a bunch of hypotheses about why we have yet to encounter or discover other intelligent life in our galaxy/universe (or, more specifically, the Fermi Paradox). Two seem particularly relevant here: (a) 'It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself': There is some period of technological development where the odds of self-extinction become extremely high (e.g. the relatively recent development of nuclear weapons... for example...). (b) 'It is the nature of super intelligent life to destroy others': Intelligent species past a certain point of technological capability will destroy other intelligent species as they emerge. A species might undertake such extermination out of expansionist motives or even just rational and prudent self-interest: an intelligent species that has overcome its own self-destructive tendencies might view other advanced species as a potential threat. A highly advanced alien species would also likely be a super-predator (as are humans).

by spangry 10y ago

atemerev 10y ago

Nuclear weapons exist for more than 70 years, and we managed to live through it without starting a nuclear war. This is impressive, considering less than amicable US-Russian relationships, Caribbean crisis, countless proxy wars, spy games, technical glitches, terrorist plots, and the overall craziness of the era (those who worry about the mind state and escapades of Mr. Trump today, usually don't remember or can't imagine what a usual day during the Cold War used to look like, either from Russian or American side). Our human civilization is very young. Our governments sometimes resort to the level of discourse more appropriate for 5 year old boys fighting in a sandbox. But apparently some toys look dangerous enough to be put on the shelf and never touched without adult supervision.

didsomeonesay 10y ago
I used to find it reassuring, too, that mankind went through these crises without starting global nuclear war. But lately I began wondering how much of it is survivor bias and thinking that we cannot extrapolate this into the future.
bbctol 10y ago
On the other hand, 70 years is a blink in the span of human history so far. I think people have been much too quick to assume, ever since the Soviet Union fell, that we avoided World War III and proved we'd never use nuclear weapons again. We're still far too close to extinction-level wars for my comfort.
- spangry 10y ago
  I hope I'm not committing some faux pas replying to such an old thread... There are a bunch of hypotheses about why we have yet to encounter or discover other intelligent life in our galaxy/universe (or, more specifically, the Fermi Paradox). Two seem particularly relevant here: (a) 'It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself': There is some period of technological development where the odds of self-extinction become extremely high (e.g. the relatively recent development of nuclear weapons... for example...). (b) 'It is the nature of super intelligent life to destroy others': Intelligent species past a certain point of technological capability will destroy other intelligent species as they emerge. A species might undertake such extermination out of expansionist motives or even just rational and prudent self-interest: an intelligent species that has overcome its own self-destructive tendencies might view other advanced species as a potential threat. A highly advanced alien species would also likely be a super-predator (as are humans).