3 ms·
See point on attribution. How do we know the weapons originated from North Korea, and not Japan, or the UK, or some other unlikely source? Because we saw the
by ethbro 7y ago
See point on attribution.
How do we know the weapons originated from North Korea, and not Japan, or the UK, or some other unlikely source?
Because we saw the missile radar tracks? What if it was a shipping container or UUV bomb?
This is why huge sums of money have been spent on post-detonation nuclear fingerprinting with high accuracy.
Absent a high likelihood of correctly attributing the source, one must default to retaliating against everyone.
Only once one establishes a credible belief in an adversary that the true source will likely be discovered can one relax policy to retaliation only against the source (and probably its allies).
- perl4ever 7y agoYou're saying that assuming a nuke goes off and nobody knows where it came from, that logic dictates the US or anyone else will nuke the whole world. I utterly don't believe that this is a thing that is planned or arranged to happen.
- ethbro 7y agoYou're arguing the same point in another thread, and we're talking about two different things there too. You're making a moral argument for why it shouldn't be so. I'm making an ammoral, logical argument for why it should.
- perl4ever 7y agoNo, I wasn't making a moral argument. I was talking about facts as I see them - I don't believe that the US or anyone else will blow up the world in response to being nuked. That is based on my thinking the game theory logic doesn't hold together and never has, but also historical events that indicate it was definitely invalid as of sometime in the 1960s.