3 ms·

> If you know that your adversary will become invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today. Str

> If you know that your adversary will become invulnerable to your counter-strike in three months, the optimal game-theory solution is to strike him today. Striking today means MAD happens and your country gets wasted. That only makes sense if the shield-building adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you dead. The 3 big nuclear powers don't seem to be that stupid. Maybe the calculus would be different with Israel vs Iran or India vs Pakistan, where the conflict has religious aspects.

vkou 5y ago
> That only makes sense if the shield-building adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you dead. Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. It's difficult to assure your counterparty that you will never behave in a psychotic manner in the future - or to assure yourself that they will not. If you're not planning on starting a nuclear war, and you assume that your adversary isn't going to, either, why do you need a missile shield, anyways? MAD is a necessary and sufficient deterrent. If you're building a shield, you are very conspicuously betting that at least one of these two assumptions is no longer true...
- joconde 5y ago
  > Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. These assumptions better be strongly supported by evidence, if one's going to decide to get their country annihilated by attempting a first strike. Striking first won't protect the country from a hypothetical future attack, it will just make it happen now. I don't really see a sane reason to do it if the threat isn't considered immediate.

vkou 5y ago

> That only makes sense if the shield-building adversary is some sort of psychopath who wants to see you dead. Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. It's difficult to assure your counterparty that you will never behave in a psychotic manner in the future - or to assure yourself that they will not. If you're not planning on starting a nuclear war, and you assume that your adversary isn't going to, either, why do you need a missile shield, anyways? MAD is a necessary and sufficient deterrent. If you're building a shield, you are very conspicuously betting that at least one of these two assumptions is no longer true...

joconde 5y ago
> Or if they may become a psychopath who wants to see you dead - in the name of self-defense, of course. Or if they think that you are a psychopath who wants to see them dead. Or if they think you may become a psychopath who wants to see them dead. These assumptions better be strongly supported by evidence, if one's going to decide to get their country annihilated by attempting a first strike. Striking first won't protect the country from a hypothetical future attack, it will just make it happen now. I don't really see a sane reason to do it if the threat isn't considered immediate.