5 ms·

Really? Out of the blue like that?

cgriswald 8y ago
You know the bombs are coming and you have less than 30 minutes. Do you alert the public or grab your family and get to safety?
- mlindner 8y ago
  Yes of course you alert the public. There's systems already in place for this. Ever since the 50s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  It's more a question of if you think anyone (in possession of icbms at least) would take that risk in the current state of the world? Seems unlikely. That said after I posted I was reminded of the time I woke up the sound of the air raid siren in Latvia. That was disorientating to say the least.
  - fmihaila 8y ago
    > It's more a question of if you think anyone (in possession of icbms at least) would take that risk in the current state of the world? It doesn't have to be anybody's decision. Cascading mistakes and system failures happen.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Countries have quite happily committed suicide. Consider the attack on the United States by Imperial Japan. Everyone in that government knew that the war they were starting was unwinnable. They were right, and their empire and government was dismantled in 1945. You can't expect rational behavior from governments. In a time of crisis, there will always be some idiot in power, who doesn't want to face reality, or cares about their pet issue more then overall well-being, or feels that they have no alternative options.
    - rorykoehler 8y ago
      Ye but there was contextual alignment then. No country is doing moves like that in 2019.
      - vkou 8y ago
        Iraq did a move like that in 2002. The United States demanded that Saddam Hussein let weapons inspectors in (to look for WMDs that, as it turns out, did not exist), and something, something, bullshit, something 9/11. Saddam Hussein thought that telling the United States to go pound sand was the correct move. He thought that all the talk by the warhawks in the Bush administration was just bluster. As it turns out, that talk was not bluster, telling the US to sod off was not the correct move, he got to dance the hemp fandango, and 16 years later, Iraq is still in the middle of a civil war. These kinds of geopolitical failures happen when one country's leadership mispredicts how another country will react to its actions. This can happen in any year, be it 1939, 1941, 2002, or 2019.
        rorykoehler 8y ago
        Pretty big difference in situations. I don't recall any country in recent history making such a big move as firing a nuke at the US out of the blue. Not in 1939, 1941, 2002, or 2019.
        vkou 8y ago
        These things don't start by one side firing a nuke. They either start by one side believing the other side fired a nuke. (See: Every close call having to do with a communication failure/false detection.) Or by one side believing that firing a tactical nuke is the only way to accomplish their goal. The battle doctrines of both the United States, and Russia, permit the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional military engagements. I wouldn't be surprised if, in a shooting war, some idiot were to actually use a tactical nuclear weapon, believing that it would not escalate into an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons.
    - shadowprofile76 8y ago
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    In addition to what the sibling mentions, there are also technical failures, mistakes, and rogue actors. Granted, these are ICBMs; but starting a war between Russia and the US is likely to be very profitable for someone.
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      I really can't find a reason to agree with this. I guess if we use different definitions of "war." But a total war between any two superpowers will be profitable for no one.
      - cgriswald 8y ago
        > But a total war between any two superpowers will be profitable for no one. This assertion has no historical basis. Plenty of people stand to profit from such a war. Just look at World War II. Countries, companies, and individuals profited greatly. Even in the worst case of total nuclear annihilation, someone who was prepared for such an event could profit, depending on your definition of profit. In any case, what matters is whether the people involved believe they can profit; however they define profit.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Doesn't matter, We Will All Go Together When We Go. https://youtu.be/TIoBrob3bjI?t=20 https://youtu.be/TIoBrob3bjI?t=20
- wongarsu 8y ago
  Most of those who would find out first would already be in a bunker, simply because their workplace is a bunker. Alerting the public would be their best strategy to get their family to safety.
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    If you need your family to drive far away quickly, letting everyone else know they should be doing the same thing is a bad idea. You want your family ahead of the inevitable wave of knowledge. Even if they’re at home and you have a bunker, you don’t want the neighbors inviting themselves over. You want them locked safely inside before anyone else knows.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      I think that's a pretty terrible stance to take, for a short term event like this there is no disadvantage to sharing the structural security of the bunker with others. The only time locking yourself in is really important is if it's a long term disaster, either something nuclear (where this is most valid) or a natural disaster, like a hurricane (where your bunker is essentially just a really secure fridge/food storage device and the structural soundness of the bunker is _less_ relevant (but not irrelevant))
      - cgriswald 8y ago
        > I think that's a pretty terrible stance to take, for a short term event like this... > The only time locking yourself in is really important is if it's a long term disaster, either something nuclear (where this is most valid)... A nuclear ICBM striking DC is the scenario. Even though the strike is short term, that's a long term event with a lot of unknown variables. In any case, I suspect it's a probable stance people will take regardless of the merits.
        munk-a 8y ago
        I think the ethical damage an act like that would cause psychologically makes even that semi-rational action a bad one to take. Thinking it in the abstract is different from having to spend weeks locked away in isolation underground pondering the neighbors or just human lives that your actions ended - even accepting the fact that you didn't initiate the ICBM and that if you didn't live where you did there'd be no bunker to possibly save people... I'm pretty sure everyone would be coming out of the bunker severely damaged with survivor's guilt and constantly second guess if maybe it would've been okay to let one or two in... Basically, in the abstract, and in pop culture according to video games and movies... your approach is the way to "win", but the human psyche is a fragile thing. (I'd clarify, this isn't meant as any sort of criticism, I just think that considering these sorts of scenarios in a abstract sterile setting is very different from how you'd experience them as they happened - and that's interesting to me.)
ddalex 8y ago
Or dark, if it's night time. Amy preemptive strike will have no warning . Otherwise it would defeat the purpose.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  But in the current political climate I don't see anyone being motivated to do a nuclear strike against another nuclear power (with the possible exception of India/Pakistan against each other), much less one that could retaliate against a preemptive strike with nuclear submarines. And historically in many situations with much clearer incentives it still didn't happen. In that sense it's out of the blue.

You know the bombs are coming and you have less than 30 minutes. Do you alert the public or grab your family and get to safety?

mlindner 8y ago
Yes of course you alert the public. There's systems already in place for this. Ever since the 50s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System
rorykoehler 8y ago
It's more a question of if you think anyone (in possession of icbms at least) would take that risk in the current state of the world? Seems unlikely. That said after I posted I was reminded of the time I woke up the sound of the air raid siren in Latvia. That was disorientating to say the least.
- fmihaila 8y ago
  > It's more a question of if you think anyone (in possession of icbms at least) would take that risk in the current state of the world? It doesn't have to be anybody's decision. Cascading mistakes and system failures happen.
- vkou 8y ago
  Countries have quite happily committed suicide. Consider the attack on the United States by Imperial Japan. Everyone in that government knew that the war they were starting was unwinnable. They were right, and their empire and government was dismantled in 1945. You can't expect rational behavior from governments. In a time of crisis, there will always be some idiot in power, who doesn't want to face reality, or cares about their pet issue more then overall well-being, or feels that they have no alternative options.
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    Ye but there was contextual alignment then. No country is doing moves like that in 2019.
    - vkou 8y ago
      Iraq did a move like that in 2002. The United States demanded that Saddam Hussein let weapons inspectors in (to look for WMDs that, as it turns out, did not exist), and something, something, bullshit, something 9/11. Saddam Hussein thought that telling the United States to go pound sand was the correct move. He thought that all the talk by the warhawks in the Bush administration was just bluster. As it turns out, that talk was not bluster, telling the US to sod off was not the correct move, he got to dance the hemp fandango, and 16 years later, Iraq is still in the middle of a civil war. These kinds of geopolitical failures happen when one country's leadership mispredicts how another country will react to its actions. This can happen in any year, be it 1939, 1941, 2002, or 2019.
      - rorykoehler 8y ago
        Pretty big difference in situations. I don't recall any country in recent history making such a big move as firing a nuke at the US out of the blue. Not in 1939, 1941, 2002, or 2019.
        vkou 8y ago
        These things don't start by one side firing a nuke. They either start by one side believing the other side fired a nuke. (See: Every close call having to do with a communication failure/false detection.) Or by one side believing that firing a tactical nuke is the only way to accomplish their goal. The battle doctrines of both the United States, and Russia, permit the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional military engagements. I wouldn't be surprised if, in a shooting war, some idiot were to actually use a tactical nuclear weapon, believing that it would not escalate into an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons.
  - shadowprofile76 8y ago
- cgriswald 8y ago
  In addition to what the sibling mentions, there are also technical failures, mistakes, and rogue actors. Granted, these are ICBMs; but starting a war between Russia and the US is likely to be very profitable for someone.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    I really can't find a reason to agree with this. I guess if we use different definitions of "war." But a total war between any two superpowers will be profitable for no one.
    - cgriswald 8y ago
      > But a total war between any two superpowers will be profitable for no one. This assertion has no historical basis. Plenty of people stand to profit from such a war. Just look at World War II. Countries, companies, and individuals profited greatly. Even in the worst case of total nuclear annihilation, someone who was prepared for such an event could profit, depending on your definition of profit. In any case, what matters is whether the people involved believe they can profit; however they define profit.
icebraining 8y ago
Doesn't matter, We Will All Go Together When We Go. https://youtu.be/TIoBrob3bjI?t=20 https://youtu.be/TIoBrob3bjI?t=20
wongarsu 8y ago
Most of those who would find out first would already be in a bunker, simply because their workplace is a bunker. Alerting the public would be their best strategy to get their family to safety.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  If you need your family to drive far away quickly, letting everyone else know they should be doing the same thing is a bad idea. You want your family ahead of the inevitable wave of knowledge. Even if they’re at home and you have a bunker, you don’t want the neighbors inviting themselves over. You want them locked safely inside before anyone else knows.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I think that's a pretty terrible stance to take, for a short term event like this there is no disadvantage to sharing the structural security of the bunker with others. The only time locking yourself in is really important is if it's a long term disaster, either something nuclear (where this is most valid) or a natural disaster, like a hurricane (where your bunker is essentially just a really secure fridge/food storage device and the structural soundness of the bunker is _less_ relevant (but not irrelevant))
    - cgriswald 8y ago
      > I think that's a pretty terrible stance to take, for a short term event like this... > The only time locking yourself in is really important is if it's a long term disaster, either something nuclear (where this is most valid)... A nuclear ICBM striking DC is the scenario. Even though the strike is short term, that's a long term event with a lot of unknown variables. In any case, I suspect it's a probable stance people will take regardless of the merits.
      - munk-a 8y ago
        I think the ethical damage an act like that would cause psychologically makes even that semi-rational action a bad one to take. Thinking it in the abstract is different from having to spend weeks locked away in isolation underground pondering the neighbors or just human lives that your actions ended - even accepting the fact that you didn't initiate the ICBM and that if you didn't live where you did there'd be no bunker to possibly save people... I'm pretty sure everyone would be coming out of the bunker severely damaged with survivor's guilt and constantly second guess if maybe it would've been okay to let one or two in... Basically, in the abstract, and in pop culture according to video games and movies... your approach is the way to "win", but the human psyche is a fragile thing. (I'd clarify, this isn't meant as any sort of criticism, I just think that considering these sorts of scenarios in a abstract sterile setting is very different from how you'd experience them as they happened - and that's interesting to me.)

ddalex 8y ago

Or dark, if it's night time. Amy preemptive strike will have no warning . Otherwise it would defeat the purpose.

wongarsu 8y ago
But in the current political climate I don't see anyone being motivated to do a nuclear strike against another nuclear power (with the possible exception of India/Pakistan against each other), much less one that could retaliate against a preemptive strike with nuclear submarines. And historically in many situations with much clearer incentives it still didn't happen. In that sense it's out of the blue.