4 ms·

> Who wants to destroy the world and why wouldn't they have done it already? Who wants to shoot down a civilian airliner and why wouldn't they have done it alr

> Who wants to destroy the world and why wouldn't they have done it already? Who wants to shoot down a civilian airliner and why wouldn't they have done it already? It's not about the desire to destroy humanity. It's about the catastrophic scenarios that can arise when nuclear armed countries think they're under nuclear attack and start getting jumpy about counter strikes or even pre-emptive strikes. The only sensible strategy is, basically, to Launch All The Things and wipe out your enemy before they can do the same.

perl4ever 7y ago
People shoot down civilian airliners "all the time". Nobody shoots down all the airliners in the world. If you destroy the world after being nuked, that is strictly worse than not destroying the world after being nuked, so nobody would do it. Since nobody would do it, and that is obvious, there is no such thing as holding the world hostage as a deterrent. If you maintain that some person or group is insane enough to destroy the world, there still can be no deterrent because you can't expect insane people to behave according to logic or plan.
- ethbro 7y ago
  > If you destroy the world after being nuked, that is strictly worse than not destroying the world after being nuked, so nobody would do it. Possibly. But it is also strictly dominating (in the time before nuclear exchange) to make everyone else believe with absolute certainty that you're willing to destroy the world after being nuked. Therein lays one of the quandaries of nuclear weapons policy.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The result of that strategy is irrelevant because it's obviously impossible. Sane people wouldn't destroy the world and insane people can't be relied on to do anything with certainty. Any analysis of a game that relies on impossible moves is meaningless.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      "Sane" is imprecise in the way you're using it. People who share your morals probably wouldn't destroy the world. But there are absolutely scenarios where logical people would do so. "Insane" has the same problem. Logically inconsistent people cannot be relied upon to do anything with certainty. But sociopaths can.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        I don't think I've expressed moral opinions...? My comments are generally about my expectations for peoples' actions, not whether they should blow up the world. Regarding your last sentence, logically inconsistent people cannot be relied upon to predict the actions of sociopaths. Conversely, sociopaths, or just ruthless people with a goal of spreading disinformation, will promote logically inconsistent views, or the idea that trusted people are logically inconsistent.
seer 7y ago
I think MAD was an effective strategy when you had one and only one sure adversary. Only one other country that was willing and able to come at you with nukes. Today’s world - say someone nuked Moscow - who would the russian nukes be set to fire on? USA, China, Germany? If it was a single nuke it most probably is from a terrorist / under cover organization from one of the smaller nations Russia has wronged in the past who had gotten their hands on a nuke somehow. And Russia’s calculus is relatively simple. Who has the USA wronged recently? Quite a lot of players outside of China, Russia, Europe would like to see USA’s demise. So who should the USA retaliate on? I highly doubt that a MAD doctrine is still in effect. That’s why nuclear subs are such an attractive weapon - you can wait and see who your enemy is, and then glass the bastards days / months later.
- true_religion 7y ago
  We know thanks to 9/11 that if the US is attacked it will retaliate against it's historic regional enemies without bothering you wait for confirmation or proof. I bet if the US were nuked they would say it was Iran and North Korea working in sync and try to find confirmation in the ruins of a devastating counter strike.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Perhaps, so in that case, why would you expect the world to be blown to pieces?
    - loopz 7y ago
      The world IS being blown to pieces: Libya, Syria, etc. Of course, there are regional reasons for this, multiple reasons that sadly never seem able to coexist with other people or tackle global challenges.
    - true_religion 7y ago
      I never said that. Maybe someone else in the thread did though.

perl4ever 7y ago

People shoot down civilian airliners "all the time". Nobody shoots down all the airliners in the world. If you destroy the world after being nuked, that is strictly worse than not destroying the world after being nuked, so nobody would do it. Since nobody would do it, and that is obvious, there is no such thing as holding the world hostage as a deterrent. If you maintain that some person or group is insane enough to destroy the world, there still can be no deterrent because you can't expect insane people to behave according to logic or plan.

ethbro 7y ago
> If you destroy the world after being nuked, that is strictly worse than not destroying the world after being nuked, so nobody would do it. Possibly. But it is also strictly dominating (in the time before nuclear exchange) to make everyone else believe with absolute certainty that you're willing to destroy the world after being nuked. Therein lays one of the quandaries of nuclear weapons policy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- perl4ever 7y ago
  The result of that strategy is irrelevant because it's obviously impossible. Sane people wouldn't destroy the world and insane people can't be relied on to do anything with certainty. Any analysis of a game that relies on impossible moves is meaningless.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    "Sane" is imprecise in the way you're using it. People who share your morals probably wouldn't destroy the world. But there are absolutely scenarios where logical people would do so. "Insane" has the same problem. Logically inconsistent people cannot be relied upon to do anything with certainty. But sociopaths can.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I don't think I've expressed moral opinions...? My comments are generally about my expectations for peoples' actions, not whether they should blow up the world. Regarding your last sentence, logically inconsistent people cannot be relied upon to predict the actions of sociopaths. Conversely, sociopaths, or just ruthless people with a goal of spreading disinformation, will promote logically inconsistent views, or the idea that trusted people are logically inconsistent.

seer 7y ago

I think MAD was an effective strategy when you had one and only one sure adversary. Only one other country that was willing and able to come at you with nukes. Today’s world - say someone nuked Moscow - who would the russian nukes be set to fire on? USA, China, Germany? If it was a single nuke it most probably is from a terrorist / under cover organization from one of the smaller nations Russia has wronged in the past who had gotten their hands on a nuke somehow. And Russia’s calculus is relatively simple. Who has the USA wronged recently? Quite a lot of players outside of China, Russia, Europe would like to see USA’s demise. So who should the USA retaliate on? I highly doubt that a MAD doctrine is still in effect. That’s why nuclear subs are such an attractive weapon - you can wait and see who your enemy is, and then glass the bastards days / months later.

true_religion 7y ago
We know thanks to 9/11 that if the US is attacked it will retaliate against it's historic regional enemies without bothering you wait for confirmation or proof. I bet if the US were nuked they would say it was Iran and North Korea working in sync and try to find confirmation in the ruins of a devastating counter strike.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Perhaps, so in that case, why would you expect the world to be blown to pieces?
  - loopz 7y ago
    The world IS being blown to pieces: Libya, Syria, etc. Of course, there are regional reasons for this, multiple reasons that sadly never seem able to coexist with other people or tackle global challenges.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    I never said that. Maybe someone else in the thread did though.