6 ms·

Well, I don’t think my eyes have ever bugged out so much over an HN submission title! ⁂ > The Presidential identification (ID) codes … could delay implementat

by alanh 16y ago

Well, I don’t think my eyes have ever bugged out so much over an HN submission title! ⁂ > The Presidential identification (ID) codes … could delay implementation long enough to prevent a rapid response To me, a naïve human who doesn’t want to see a nuclear winter, it seems that we should be optimizing for human life instead of immediate revenge. I would even dare to hope the response to a nuclear launch would be to roll over and surrender for the greater good. And while I’m no expert in game theory, I suppose the official line is that guaranteeing mutually assured destruction was the only way to prevent all nuclear attacks.

robryan 16y ago
If they don't respond quick enough mutually assured destruction quickly becomes America only destruction. No doubt any all out attack would quickly aim to incapacitate the other sides ability to respond.
- alanh 16y ago
  How is America only destruction worse than mutual destruction? That's what I'm saying, it's not a humanistic or broadly moral outlook Edit I’m not talking about hitting strategic targets (do those really require H-bombs anyway?). And thanks for clarifying that the lives of citizens in allied countries are worth so much more than Russian citizens.
  - robryan 16y ago
    Well, supposing motivation to totally destroy a country, allowing both to take out each others military installations may result in less loss of life that one side being totally dominant. Obviously either situation is beyond terrible.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Nuclear weapons (and all other sufficiently powerful weapons) really do suck. Since it would be very hard, though, for nations to keep enough around for mutually assured destruction without anyone noticing (or so I think) I would think that disarmament is not an entirely crazy idea. I would even assume that an agreement by the US, Russia and China would be sufficient. (I’m not sure to what extent Pakistan and India can threaten the rest of the World and I really don’t think Israel and North Korea matter. I’m also pretty sure that France and the UK would follow the US because they would look pretty stupid if they wouldn’t.)
  - d2viant 16y ago
    A successful retaliatory attack by America could prevent the enemy from attacking our allies after they've hit us.
    - arethuza 16y ago
      Given the amount of American military infrastructure that was in the UK (and other allies) during the cold war any attack on the United States would almost certainly have included missile and bomber attacks on the allies. Also with the fact that most Western European countries are quite small and densely populated compared to the United States and the Soviet Union the carnage here would have been indescribable (although if you want a feeling for what a "best case" attack might have been like feel free to watch Threads).
tomjen3 16y ago
Thats the error nobody ever see in the MAD scenario - until the missiles are launched, it is absolutely in the interest of both sides to threaten to launch in the event the other side does so. The moment the missiles are launched however, the side that didn't launch no longer has any advantage to launching a counter strike (assuming an all out strike was launched, not just one with a few missiles) and the leaders have every advantage to broker a deal for refuge in the other country, as theirs will soon be uninhabitable.
- arethuza 16y ago
  There have been hints that a number of politicians who might have had to issue a retaliation order might have refused to do so from purely moral reasons. In Richard Rhodes Arsenals of Folly a close adviser to Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying: "I think deep down he doubted that he could bring himself to strike another country with [nuclear weapons]" Somewhat to my surprise, I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.
  - ugh 16y ago
    “I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.” That’s definitely what you want everyone to think. If I ever were in such a position of power I would leave no doubt about my will to strike back and in the critical moment don’t do it. I have no trouble believing that some other people think just like that.
  - lmz 16y ago
    About issuing orders to fire, some might find this clip from "Yes, Prime Minister" funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUzRJfAc-HU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUzRJfAc-HU edit: actually this one is even more appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjaAqY_KFdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjaAqY_KFdw

by alanh 16y ago

robryan 16y ago

If they don't respond quick enough mutually assured destruction quickly becomes America only destruction. No doubt any all out attack would quickly aim to incapacitate the other sides ability to respond.

alanh 16y ago
How is America only destruction worse than mutual destruction? That's what I'm saying, it's not a humanistic or broadly moral outlook Edit I’m not talking about hitting strategic targets (do those really require H-bombs anyway?). And thanks for clarifying that the lives of citizens in allied countries are worth so much more than Russian citizens.
- robryan 16y ago
  Well, supposing motivation to totally destroy a country, allowing both to take out each others military installations may result in less loss of life that one side being totally dominant. Obviously either situation is beyond terrible.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Nuclear weapons (and all other sufficiently powerful weapons) really do suck. Since it would be very hard, though, for nations to keep enough around for mutually assured destruction without anyone noticing (or so I think) I would think that disarmament is not an entirely crazy idea. I would even assume that an agreement by the US, Russia and China would be sufficient. (I’m not sure to what extent Pakistan and India can threaten the rest of the World and I really don’t think Israel and North Korea matter. I’m also pretty sure that France and the UK would follow the US because they would look pretty stupid if they wouldn’t.)
- d2viant 16y ago
  A successful retaliatory attack by America could prevent the enemy from attacking our allies after they've hit us.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    Given the amount of American military infrastructure that was in the UK (and other allies) during the cold war any attack on the United States would almost certainly have included missile and bomber attacks on the allies. Also with the fact that most Western European countries are quite small and densely populated compared to the United States and the Soviet Union the carnage here would have been indescribable (although if you want a feeling for what a "best case" attack might have been like feel free to watch Threads).

tomjen3 16y ago

Thats the error nobody ever see in the MAD scenario - until the missiles are launched, it is absolutely in the interest of both sides to threaten to launch in the event the other side does so. The moment the missiles are launched however, the side that didn't launch no longer has any advantage to launching a counter strike (assuming an all out strike was launched, not just one with a few missiles) and the leaders have every advantage to broker a deal for refuge in the other country, as theirs will soon be uninhabitable.

arethuza 16y ago
There have been hints that a number of politicians who might have had to issue a retaliation order might have refused to do so from purely moral reasons. In Richard Rhodes Arsenals of Folly a close adviser to Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying: "I think deep down he doubted that he could bring himself to strike another country with [nuclear weapons]" Somewhat to my surprise, I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.
- ugh 16y ago
  “I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.” That’s definitely what you want everyone to think. If I ever were in such a position of power I would leave no doubt about my will to strike back and in the critical moment don’t do it. I have no trouble believing that some other people think just like that.
- lmz 16y ago
  About issuing orders to fire, some might find this clip from "Yes, Prime Minister" funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUzRJfAc-HU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUzRJfAc-HU edit: actually this one is even more appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjaAqY_KFdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjaAqY_KFdw