3 ms·
Agreed. Of-course this also raises the possibility that somewhere, a perfectly rational actor would see no way out but to use one. There are historical examples
by farseer 9y ago
Agreed. Of-course this also raises the possibility that somewhere, a perfectly rational actor would see no way out but to use one. There are historical examples where things were quite on the brink:
1. Israel threatened to use them in the opening days of 1973 war: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinion/the-last-nuclear-moment.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinion/the-last-nuclear-m...
2. Pakistan threatened to use them in 1986-87 during operation brasstacks: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/03/29/on-the-nuclear-edge http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/03/29/on-the-nuclear-...
3. North Korea today.
- krapp 9y ago>Of-course this also raises the possibility that somewhere, a perfectly rational actor would see no way out but to use one. There are historical examples where things were quite on the brink And, of course, the one time it actually happened.
- Kenji 9y agoIf a rational actor sees no way out but to use a nuke, then there is a much larger irrational actor that is tyrannizing the world and needs to be destroyed. And since the actor is rational, it will have carefully considered the choice and have come to the conclusion that the loss of life was worth it, for an end of tyranny.
- farseer 9y agoBoth actors could be perfectly rational and fighting over a scarce resource such as fresh water.