5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.