3 ms·

The technology exists to shoot down ICBMs. It’s not yet deployed in sufficient numbers to be significant against an all-out attack from Russia, but that could c

The technology exists to shoot down ICBMs. It’s not yet deployed in sufficient numbers to be significant against an all-out attack from Russia, but that could change. I’m sure they want to stay ahead of the curve.

vkou 7y ago
If 'MAD ensures peace' is the justification for nuclear weapons being allowed to exist, why are we trying so damn hard to break it? You can't have it both ways. Either MAD works, and anyone working on and building ICBM defenses is a dangerous lunatic, and a threat to world peace... Or MAD doesn't work, and anyone controlling thousands of nuclear weapons is a dangerous lunatic and a threat to world peace. We either need to stop trying to break MAD, or disarm. What we do not need, is to build anti-ICBM installations. I do not understand why this is not ever brought up in public discourse. Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?
- mikeash 7y ago
  “Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?” I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes.” I’m baffled as to why, but that seems to be the case. I’m also pretty sure that MAD is a very risky thing, and we really can’t count on it long term. The fact that we’ve made it many decades without a nuclear war indicates that the probability is low, but not necessarily low enough. The problem is, what do you do about it? I agree that we (as in humanity) need to disarm, but it’s not going to happen. It’s a classic prisoners’ dilemma: we’re best off if nobody has nukes, but then someone can gain a huge advantage by acquiring them, and then everybody else is better off if they also acquire them. (And remember that game theory was created to analyze MAD!) If MAD isn’t fully effective and disarmament isn’t going to happen, then building defenses makes sense.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > The problem is, what do you do about it? Set a realistic goal. Total disarmament is unrealistic. But if the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia could be brought down to hundreds, instead of thousands of weapons, we'd all be much better off. We can make that happen, by demanding that our government makes the following things a priority: 1. Some small, unilateral, token-of-good-faith reduction in arms stockpiles. 2. Combined with making more serious, tit-for-tat arms reduction a diplomatic goal. This isn't some novel idea. We have done this during the Cold war. We just need to do it, again. If MAD is not fully effective, ballistic missile defense makes it even less effective (Because it makes your opponent more afraid of you.)
    - cardiffspaceman 7y ago
      There was a treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty Summary: It was okay for each side to have a limited ABM capability but not an extensive one. Treaty was exited by USA side in 2002 and the stated reason was that ABM-like defense would be needed against "rogue states".

vkou 7y ago

If 'MAD ensures peace' is the justification for nuclear weapons being allowed to exist, why are we trying so damn hard to break it? You can't have it both ways. Either MAD works, and anyone working on and building ICBM defenses is a dangerous lunatic, and a threat to world peace... Or MAD doesn't work, and anyone controlling thousands of nuclear weapons is a dangerous lunatic and a threat to world peace. We either need to stop trying to break MAD, or disarm. What we do not need, is to build anti-ICBM installations. I do not understand why this is not ever brought up in public discourse. Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?

mikeash 7y ago
“Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?” I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes.” I’m baffled as to why, but that seems to be the case. I’m also pretty sure that MAD is a very risky thing, and we really can’t count on it long term. The fact that we’ve made it many decades without a nuclear war indicates that the probability is low, but not necessarily low enough. The problem is, what do you do about it? I agree that we (as in humanity) need to disarm, but it’s not going to happen. It’s a classic prisoners’ dilemma: we’re best off if nobody has nukes, but then someone can gain a huge advantage by acquiring them, and then everybody else is better off if they also acquire them. (And remember that game theory was created to analyze MAD!) If MAD isn’t fully effective and disarmament isn’t going to happen, then building defenses makes sense.
- vkou 7y ago
  > The problem is, what do you do about it? Set a realistic goal. Total disarmament is unrealistic. But if the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia could be brought down to hundreds, instead of thousands of weapons, we'd all be much better off. We can make that happen, by demanding that our government makes the following things a priority: 1. Some small, unilateral, token-of-good-faith reduction in arms stockpiles. 2. Combined with making more serious, tit-for-tat arms reduction a diplomatic goal. This isn't some novel idea. We have done this during the Cold war. We just need to do it, again. If MAD is not fully effective, ballistic missile defense makes it even less effective (Because it makes your opponent more afraid of you.)
  - cardiffspaceman 7y ago
    There was a treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty Summary: It was okay for each side to have a limited ABM capability but not an extensive one. Treaty was exited by USA side in 2002 and the stated reason was that ABM-like defense would be needed against "rogue states".