5 ms·

It becomes irrational when you develop the capacity for mutually assured destruction.

by throwaway316943 6y ago

omginternets 6y ago
MAD is grounded in game theory. It is designed to make the only winning move “don’t play”. It’s hyper-rational.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  MAD happened because of a (real, or perceived, I’m unsure myself...) risk of the Soviet Union invading Western Europe - and NATO ended up calculating that maintaining a nuclear deterrence was more affordable and more feasible than resisting a Warsaw Pact invasion using conventional forces. This assumes any kind of Soviet expansionism must be an absolute evil because the position is logically equivalent to “death is a preferable alternative to communism” (to steal a phrase from a video game...) which is patently absurd: it’s rational to prefer reduced standards of living over death, but credible deterrence requires drawing and maintaining a hard-line, even if that line is arbitrarily placed. ...given all of that is due to the risk of aggression from the Soviets, and I believe NATO may have disarmed themselves unilaterally if they didn’t see the SU/WP as a military threat (regardless of ideological threats) - what was making the SU so concerned about NATO military threats? Did the SU still have expansionist designs... or did they actually believe NATO still wanted to liberate/claim Poland long after the 1960s?
  - omginternets 6y ago
    I respectfully insist: you are mistaken. MAD is a formal (i.e. mathematical) model. It is 100%, unequivocally rational. The problem is that this rational process leads to outcomes you and I dislike. These "bad outcomes" are value judgements. That is, MAD's outocmes don't align with our values. Therefore, the problem with mad (on which we agree!) is based in something extra-rational: values. Again: you and I agree there is a problem with MAD. Where you are wrong is that the problem is not "MAD is irrational". The problem is "MAD's logical conclusions run afoul of our values".
squeaky-clean 6y ago
Mutually assured destruction on a planetary scale does come about rather early in a civilization's history (if we're assuming galactic, or beyond-galactic scales of civilization). But that doesn't really mean it is easy to come about on a galactic or universal scale. Is an enemy destroying a planet or solar system you control really such a big deal when you're battling to control a third of the universe? Even having an entire galaxy destroyed would be like an enemy destroying someone's living room on an earth-scale. Of course, this is all just making guesses about technology way beyond our current comprehension. Maybe universe-destroying bombs come up rather early in technology on this scale. Who knows.

It becomes irrational when you develop the capacity for mutually assured destruction.

omginternets 6y ago

MAD is grounded in game theory. It is designed to make the only winning move “don’t play”. It’s hyper-rational.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
MAD happened because of a (real, or perceived, I’m unsure myself...) risk of the Soviet Union invading Western Europe - and NATO ended up calculating that maintaining a nuclear deterrence was more affordable and more feasible than resisting a Warsaw Pact invasion using conventional forces. This assumes any kind of Soviet expansionism must be an absolute evil because the position is logically equivalent to “death is a preferable alternative to communism” (to steal a phrase from a video game...) which is patently absurd: it’s rational to prefer reduced standards of living over death, but credible deterrence requires drawing and maintaining a hard-line, even if that line is arbitrarily placed. ...given all of that is due to the risk of aggression from the Soviets, and I believe NATO may have disarmed themselves unilaterally if they didn’t see the SU/WP as a military threat (regardless of ideological threats) - what was making the SU so concerned about NATO military threats? Did the SU still have expansionist designs... or did they actually believe NATO still wanted to liberate/claim Poland long after the 1960s?
- omginternets 6y ago
  I respectfully insist: you are mistaken. MAD is a formal (i.e. mathematical) model. It is 100%, unequivocally rational. The problem is that this rational process leads to outcomes you and I dislike. These "bad outcomes" are value judgements. That is, MAD's outocmes don't align with our values. Therefore, the problem with mad (on which we agree!) is based in something extra-rational: values. Again: you and I agree there is a problem with MAD. Where you are wrong is that the problem is not "MAD is irrational". The problem is "MAD's logical conclusions run afoul of our values".

squeaky-clean 6y ago

Mutually assured destruction on a planetary scale does come about rather early in a civilization's history (if we're assuming galactic, or beyond-galactic scales of civilization). But that doesn't really mean it is easy to come about on a galactic or universal scale. Is an enemy destroying a planet or solar system you control really such a big deal when you're battling to control a third of the universe? Even having an entire galaxy destroyed would be like an enemy destroying someone's living room on an earth-scale. Of course, this is all just making guesses about technology way beyond our current comprehension. Maybe universe-destroying bombs come up rather early in technology on this scale. Who knows.