3 ms·

> mostly kept nuclear weapons programs in check. It has completely failed to keep nuclear weapons in check, imo. Keeping AI technology out of existence has th

> mostly kept nuclear weapons programs in check. It has completely failed to keep nuclear weapons in check, imo. Keeping AI technology out of existence has the same problem as keeping nuclear weapons out of existence - the incentives are too great for any nation to have them. If a nation is armed with nuclear weapons, the only possible check on them is another nation that is armed with nuclear weapons. Thus even in the existing non-proliferation framework, the largest nations (the United States, Russia, China, several European powers) ALL still have nuclear weapons. The reason why is that if any nation was the only nuclear armed nation it would be impossible to defeat with any quantity of conventional force. The same argument applies for AI. It would be impossible avoid the existence of militarized AI if it provides the same level of force multiplication as nuclear weapons. It would be necessary for any nation to try to gain the same technology as a deterrent against attack by a rival that possesses the technology.

baybal2 6y ago
> The reason why is that if any nation was the only nuclear armed nation it would be impossible to defeat with any quantity of conventional force Really debatable. Bribe enemy generals, drop commando paratroopers right on top of enemy's political leadership, even at 90% attrition rates, bomb vital military infrastructure, like strategic stockpiles, to demoralise the enemy (making them understand that the war will be long, hungry, and ugly,) even if it means sacrificing the entirety of your airforce, and wait until your land force finally reaches enemy territory amid this complete chaos.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  Do you have any historical examples of someone accomplishing what you’ve described? It seems like if what you are arguing is possible, nukes don’t need to be invoked at all. Why wouldn’t you use the same technique against a conventional enemy, if it is possible at all?
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Well, all of the above is so far purely hypothetical. There are exactly 0 countries on record who went on offensive against nuclear states, with intention to invade them. To execute a strategy like this, one needs to be quite a monster to rationalise such losses in their sane mind. It is as ruthless to your own soldiers, as it is to the enemy: forcing a stronger enemy into the most ugly, meat grinding form of ground war, with exact intention to exact maximum attrition losses, while negating advantages of high tech weaponry. Sending them a message "All your bombers, and missiles are useless at the bayonet range, you will have to bury us with your bodies" Even Mao only sent covert cues to Soviets that he is ready to repeat Zhenbaotai, but even he had no real intention to follow up on them. That was a pure theatre.
    - landryraccoon 6y ago
      What you're saying sounds like a strong argument in favor of my original post. It is insane to go to war against a nuclear armed opponent. Sure, you could kill half your able bodied population of military age and maybe win (what if something goes wrong in your battle plan? Now you're nuked and the opponent is still combat ready), but now any of your neighbors can easily take advantage of your now devastated country.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  One country having nuclear weapons means that they can prevent all of what you propose with mere threats. If a few your planes are in position to drop paratroopers or bombs, they can and will threaten to nuke your capital in retaliation the moment the first commando or bomb gets dropped; and the expected result is that you will fold. You can't bomb much of vital military infrastructure if your own infrastructure - not only airfields, but also population centres - have been nuked. Your bombers can drop a single full payload, after which they will have no bases left where they can return to reload. I mean, we have Cold War studies of all of that - the only way to ensure that bombers really have the ability to bomb enemy infrastructure was to ensure that they are up in the air patrolling, or alternatively scramble to launch within minutes of an alert, since an hour after the start of WW3 you only have a single strike with the airforce that you have in the air. You can't demoralise the enemy by "making them understand that the war will be long, hungry, and ugly" because the war will end in a single day, after which half of your population will be dead, and the other half in need of food, electricity and supplies. Sure, you will have people willing and able to defend the country, but nobody will be invading; but after being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike your ability to deploy and supply a massed overseas invasion is destroyed, so you're not a meaningful threat anymore, the conflict is over. Nuclear deterrent is the ultimate defensive weapon because it ensures that any war is unwinnable for the attacker - if the attack fails, then it fails, but if the attack succeeds, there's no good response to an ultimatum to accept ceasefire or have your cities nuked. All your soldiers and commanders know that if they invade and win, then their families and their homeland will die anyway.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > I mean, we have Cold War studies of all of that And I read much of them, and what I wrote above is a restatement of what I read. > Your bombers can drop a single full payload, after which they will have no bases left where they can return to reload. Yes, but even this will likely be enough to bomb biggest C3 centres, bases, stockpiles of food, ammo, and fuel. Just enough to ensure 1.) initial shock, and C3 paralysis, 2.) making sure that the adversary will be running on the leased time too. Even at the height of cold war, each side had at most 10 strategic level stockpiles. Without them, the huge force would've ran out of supplies from regional bases in under 6 month. > after being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike your ability to deploy and supply a massed overseas invasion is destroyed, If you have your entire tank, and mechanised force on the go, and one leg on foreign soil already. It doesn't matter. The enemy will either have to nuke own cities captured by your force, or contest them with conventional force. Similarly, they will have to either set their equally diminished supplier on fire to deny them to invader, or have to contest them. > All your soldiers and commanders know that if they invade and win, then their families and their homeland will die anyway. Yes, it requires one to be a madman to accept such "victory." Especially if you already are a somehow major power, as you know that in today's free-for-all world, a third power will swoop in to claim spoils in no time. But think of it as a "counter-MAD," or "asymmetric MAD," or "madman's MAD"

baybal2 6y ago

> The reason why is that if any nation was the only nuclear armed nation it would be impossible to defeat with any quantity of conventional force Really debatable. Bribe enemy generals, drop commando paratroopers right on top of enemy's political leadership, even at 90% attrition rates, bomb vital military infrastructure, like strategic stockpiles, to demoralise the enemy (making them understand that the war will be long, hungry, and ugly,) even if it means sacrificing the entirety of your airforce, and wait until your land force finally reaches enemy territory amid this complete chaos.

landryraccoon 6y ago
Do you have any historical examples of someone accomplishing what you’ve described? It seems like if what you are arguing is possible, nukes don’t need to be invoked at all. Why wouldn’t you use the same technique against a conventional enemy, if it is possible at all?
- baybal2 6y ago
  Well, all of the above is so far purely hypothetical. There are exactly 0 countries on record who went on offensive against nuclear states, with intention to invade them. To execute a strategy like this, one needs to be quite a monster to rationalise such losses in their sane mind. It is as ruthless to your own soldiers, as it is to the enemy: forcing a stronger enemy into the most ugly, meat grinding form of ground war, with exact intention to exact maximum attrition losses, while negating advantages of high tech weaponry. Sending them a message "All your bombers, and missiles are useless at the bayonet range, you will have to bury us with your bodies" Even Mao only sent covert cues to Soviets that he is ready to repeat Zhenbaotai, but even he had no real intention to follow up on them. That was a pure theatre.
  - landryraccoon 6y ago
    What you're saying sounds like a strong argument in favor of my original post. It is insane to go to war against a nuclear armed opponent. Sure, you could kill half your able bodied population of military age and maybe win (what if something goes wrong in your battle plan? Now you're nuked and the opponent is still combat ready), but now any of your neighbors can easily take advantage of your now devastated country.
PeterisP 6y ago
One country having nuclear weapons means that they can prevent all of what you propose with mere threats. If a few your planes are in position to drop paratroopers or bombs, they can and will threaten to nuke your capital in retaliation the moment the first commando or bomb gets dropped; and the expected result is that you will fold. You can't bomb much of vital military infrastructure if your own infrastructure - not only airfields, but also population centres - have been nuked. Your bombers can drop a single full payload, after which they will have no bases left where they can return to reload. I mean, we have Cold War studies of all of that - the only way to ensure that bombers really have the ability to bomb enemy infrastructure was to ensure that they are up in the air patrolling, or alternatively scramble to launch within minutes of an alert, since an hour after the start of WW3 you only have a single strike with the airforce that you have in the air. You can't demoralise the enemy by "making them understand that the war will be long, hungry, and ugly" because the war will end in a single day, after which half of your population will be dead, and the other half in need of food, electricity and supplies. Sure, you will have people willing and able to defend the country, but nobody will be invading; but after being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike your ability to deploy and supply a massed overseas invasion is destroyed, so you're not a meaningful threat anymore, the conflict is over. Nuclear deterrent is the ultimate defensive weapon because it ensures that any war is unwinnable for the attacker - if the attack fails, then it fails, but if the attack succeeds, there's no good response to an ultimatum to accept ceasefire or have your cities nuked. All your soldiers and commanders know that if they invade and win, then their families and their homeland will die anyway.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > I mean, we have Cold War studies of all of that And I read much of them, and what I wrote above is a restatement of what I read. > Your bombers can drop a single full payload, after which they will have no bases left where they can return to reload. Yes, but even this will likely be enough to bomb biggest C3 centres, bases, stockpiles of food, ammo, and fuel. Just enough to ensure 1.) initial shock, and C3 paralysis, 2.) making sure that the adversary will be running on the leased time too. Even at the height of cold war, each side had at most 10 strategic level stockpiles. Without them, the huge force would've ran out of supplies from regional bases in under 6 month. > after being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike your ability to deploy and supply a massed overseas invasion is destroyed, If you have your entire tank, and mechanised force on the go, and one leg on foreign soil already. It doesn't matter. The enemy will either have to nuke own cities captured by your force, or contest them with conventional force. Similarly, they will have to either set their equally diminished supplier on fire to deny them to invader, or have to contest them. > All your soldiers and commanders know that if they invade and win, then their families and their homeland will die anyway. Yes, it requires one to be a madman to accept such "victory." Especially if you already are a somehow major power, as you know that in today's free-for-all world, a third power will swoop in to claim spoils in no time. But think of it as a "counter-MAD," or "asymmetric MAD," or "madman's MAD"