8 ms·

> Has Tech Destroyed Society? I recently watched the documentary The Man Who Saved the World[0], about Stanislav Petrov, who one day in 1983 made the decision

> Has Tech Destroyed Society? I recently watched the documentary The Man Who Saved the World[0], about Stanislav Petrov, who one day in 1983 made the decision to ignore the early warning system computers telling him the USA had fired 5 missiles at the USSR.[1] It seems had he followed orders, a report to his superiors would have resulted in mass retaliation. The decision was in his hands. In the movie, as well as a reenactment of the incident, the real Petrov visits the USA to speak at the UN, and visits Kevin Costner, his favourite actor. Costner asks him how many people would have died if not for his actions that day. You expect him to say millions. Petrov explains that everyone on the planet would've died. They visit a disused missile silo in the USA and Petrov explains to a guard there that just one of those missiles had more explosive force than all the weapons used in WW2. According to this page[2], in 1985 the USA had 21,000+ nuclear weapons, USSR 39,000+. It's very chilling, to say the least. It makes humans seem so very crazy, to create the possibility of that situation in the first place. Petrov explains emotionally to the guard that the Russian people wanted peace, and thought the USA wanted to attack them. I can't help thinking about that, reading about Whether Tech Has Destroyed Society? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...

swarnie_ 6y ago
> in 1985 the USA had 21,000+ nuclear weapons, USSR 39,000+. This is one of the facts from this era which seems completely irrational to me. Considering the damage each one of these devices can do why do you need so many. Lets presume you're in fact a genocidal maniac (i didn't say the roleplaying would be difficult America) 1 bomb per enemy military installation and 1 bomb per population centre over 100k population friend, foe, own country included. Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs?
- dingaling 6y ago
  > Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs? Second-wave strategic targets ( surviving silos, airfields, ports and C3 facilities ) Tactical targets ( tank formations , POL depots, troop assembly areas, aviation FOBs ) Naval targets ( submarines, surface vessels, sonar installations ) Mobility targets ( bridges, valleys, tunnels ) Plus accounting for failed weapons, losses en route, missed targets...
  - tremon 6y ago
    If you have made so many enemies that you need 18,000 nuclear bombs to feel safe, I question your attitude to life.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      As others have said - the primary reason is that you need 1+ nukes to take out the other side's launch sites, and the other side knows this so they spread the siloses across their whole territory - so now you need 1+ nukes for every silo they have (or suspect they have), and they need 1+ nukes for every silo you have (or suspect you have), and this is a positive feedback loop.
      - littlestymaar 6y ago
        By the time your nukes get to the silos, they will most likely be empty already though.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Which is the reason you want to have more nukes than they have silos - to be able to hit all of them at once in a surprise attack (also called "first strike").
        littlestymaar 6y ago
        Which won't save you against their SSBN… Granted, they have much less warheads in submarines than in silos, but that's still far enough to obliterate every city above 100.000 inhabitant in your country.
bambax 6y ago
It's possible that had "AI" been in charge at that time, the world would have been destroyed. I don't think "AI" is a threat in itself but relying on technology to make life-or-death decisions without human application, feels extremely dangerous.
- thebigspacefuck 6y ago
  What if you trained it on tic-tac-toe though?
- badRNG 6y ago
  There are an awful lot of lines in the sand that have to be crossed prior to "oh, we just rig up nukes to this computer that checks for incoming missiles and fires back." Using nuclear weapons is one of the most bureaucratic processes the government has by design. There are an awful lot of people in the loop that must work in concert to make something like that happen.
ballenf 6y ago
> Petrov explains emotionally to the guard that the Russian people wanted peace, and thought the USA wanted to attack them. Good reason for us to personally think about (and investigate) whether our political/societal enemies really believe what we're told they believe about us. And I don't mean respond to a tweet, I mean have a real conversation. Kinda feels like we're in an arms race where Facebook/Twitter are the arms dealers and have so much to gain from continued hostilities.
- rolandog 6y ago
  "continued hostilities" -> "offline engagement".

swarnie_ 6y ago

> in 1985 the USA had 21,000+ nuclear weapons, USSR 39,000+. This is one of the facts from this era which seems completely irrational to me. Considering the damage each one of these devices can do why do you need so many. Lets presume you're in fact a genocidal maniac (i didn't say the roleplaying would be difficult America) 1 bomb per enemy military installation and 1 bomb per population centre over 100k population friend, foe, own country included. Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs?

dingaling 6y ago
> Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs? Second-wave strategic targets ( surviving silos, airfields, ports and C3 facilities ) Tactical targets ( tank formations , POL depots, troop assembly areas, aviation FOBs ) Naval targets ( submarines, surface vessels, sonar installations ) Mobility targets ( bridges, valleys, tunnels ) Plus accounting for failed weapons, losses en route, missed targets...
- tremon 6y ago
  If you have made so many enemies that you need 18,000 nuclear bombs to feel safe, I question your attitude to life.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    As others have said - the primary reason is that you need 1+ nukes to take out the other side's launch sites, and the other side knows this so they spread the siloses across their whole territory - so now you need 1+ nukes for every silo they have (or suspect they have), and they need 1+ nukes for every silo you have (or suspect you have), and this is a positive feedback loop.
    - littlestymaar 6y ago
      By the time your nukes get to the silos, they will most likely be empty already though.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Which is the reason you want to have more nukes than they have silos - to be able to hit all of them at once in a surprise attack (also called "first strike").
        littlestymaar 6y ago
        Which won't save you against their SSBN… Granted, they have much less warheads in submarines than in silos, but that's still far enough to obliterate every city above 100.000 inhabitant in your country.

bambax 6y ago

It's possible that had "AI" been in charge at that time, the world would have been destroyed. I don't think "AI" is a threat in itself but relying on technology to make life-or-death decisions without human application, feels extremely dangerous.

thebigspacefuck 6y ago
What if you trained it on tic-tac-toe though?
badRNG 6y ago
There are an awful lot of lines in the sand that have to be crossed prior to "oh, we just rig up nukes to this computer that checks for incoming missiles and fires back." Using nuclear weapons is one of the most bureaucratic processes the government has by design. There are an awful lot of people in the loop that must work in concert to make something like that happen.

ballenf 6y ago

> Petrov explains emotionally to the guard that the Russian people wanted peace, and thought the USA wanted to attack them. Good reason for us to personally think about (and investigate) whether our political/societal enemies really believe what we're told they believe about us. And I don't mean respond to a tweet, I mean have a real conversation. Kinda feels like we're in an arms race where Facebook/Twitter are the arms dealers and have so much to gain from continued hostilities.

rolandog 6y ago
"continued hostilities" -> "offline engagement".