4 ms·

A man who didn't want a perceived enemy to get nuclear capabilities. Wow, what a lunatic.

by leesec 5y ago

DSingularity 5y ago
And willing to kill tens of millions of innocents to achieve this. Yeah man a lunatic who in his detachment from the common man became less than in some of the most important dimensions of all: empathy, humanity.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Easy to say now, looking back on history and seeing that there wasn't a civilization ending nuclear war. I wonder what the odds were of that happening? Did we get lucky and eke by that period with 1% odds? Or was there only ever a very very small chance of a nuclear holocaust, and people were worried about nothing? The answer to that question is what I would need to know about whether it is reasonable to nuke 10M people.
GDC7 5y ago
Every potential enemy is also a potential friend or a potential neutral. By definition. Besides you don't get to wipe 1B people off the planet (which way back then represented 35% of the global population), and have as only consequence the fact that you "won" the prisoner's dilemma. Such "victories" emerge as such after centuries when scientists would be studying the DNA remains and see who survived and who perished. But such great filter doesn't produce anything good for those living through it. Even the "winners" There was no quality of life to be gained by the US and USSR in nuking each other, still there isn't today between US and Russia.Russia and the US can only be baited into nuking each other. And that's the danger we must be really careful about. Thank god "normal" people like JFK and Kruschev who enjoyed the pleasures of life like cigars, alcohol and women were at the helm and not some guy who was paranoid about "winning" a game. As far as predictive capabilities on this matter...Tom Clancy > John Von Neumann
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  Tom Clancy eventually turned into the worst kind of paint by numbers right wing kook. I have no doubt he'd be slavishly and unquestioningly supporting Trump if he were still alive.
- philwelch 5y ago
  Von Neumann's advocacy of a preemptive strike, to my knowledge, took place in the 1950's, when the Soviet Union was still under the rule of Stalin and did not yet have the ability to effectively strike back at the US. It was far from a guarantee that the Soviets would moderate after Stalin's death--it was sort of like hoping that, if Germany won WWII, that the Nazis would moderate after Hitler's death. Behold your "potential friend": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > It was far from a guarantee that the Soviets would moderate after Stalin's death That is the same of saying that there was no reason to suspect that the US would moderate after FDR's death. Getting involved in a conflict on the other side of the world is not exactly something a moderate would do. Germany had a spirit of revenge after WW1. What did the US have to do on the other side of the world...once again? No matter the other side of the world argument, countries which decided to be moderate were never involved even as they were right there where the disaster went down: Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Greece, Norway... If you adjust for education, quality of life and also hunger, then the US didn't look so moderate after all.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      > That is the same of saying that there was no reason to suspect that the US would moderate after FDR's death. No, it isn’t. FDR didn’t have tens of millions of people murdered in cold blood.
hh3k0 5y ago
Stopping a perceived enemy from researching what you've already successfully researched by using pre-emptive nuclear strikes is lunacy, yes.
- nwah1 5y ago
  In a true zero sum situation it would be a sad reality, but not lunacy. How many slight deviations in the space of possibility would've caused global thermonuclear war during the Cold War? Could you guarantee ahead of time that it would not occur? You have the benefit of hindsight now.
watwut 5y ago
[flagged]

A man who didn't want a perceived enemy to get nuclear capabilities. Wow, what a lunatic.

by leesec 5y ago

A man who didn't want a perceived enemy to get nuclear capabilities. Wow, what a lunatic.

And willing to kill tens of millions of innocents to achieve this. Yeah man a lunatic who in his detachment from the common man became less than in some of the most important dimensions of all: empathy, humanity.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Easy to say now, looking back on history and seeing that there wasn't a civilization ending nuclear war. I wonder what the odds were of that happening? Did we get lucky and eke by that period with 1% odds? Or was there only ever a very very small chance of a nuclear holocaust, and people were worried about nothing? The answer to that question is what I would need to know about whether it is reasonable to nuke 10M people.

GDC7 5y ago

Every potential enemy is also a potential friend or a potential neutral. By definition. Besides you don't get to wipe 1B people off the planet (which way back then represented 35% of the global population), and have as only consequence the fact that you "won" the prisoner's dilemma. Such "victories" emerge as such after centuries when scientists would be studying the DNA remains and see who survived and who perished. But such great filter doesn't produce anything good for those living through it. Even the "winners" There was no quality of life to be gained by the US and USSR in nuking each other, still there isn't today between US and Russia.Russia and the US can only be baited into nuking each other. And that's the danger we must be really careful about. Thank god "normal" people like JFK and Kruschev who enjoyed the pleasures of life like cigars, alcohol and women were at the helm and not some guy who was paranoid about "winning" a game. As far as predictive capabilities on this matter...Tom Clancy > John Von Neumann

selimthegrim 5y ago
Tom Clancy eventually turned into the worst kind of paint by numbers right wing kook. I have no doubt he'd be slavishly and unquestioningly supporting Trump if he were still alive.
philwelch 5y ago
Von Neumann's advocacy of a preemptive strike, to my knowledge, took place in the 1950's, when the Soviet Union was still under the rule of Stalin and did not yet have the ability to effectively strike back at the US. It was far from a guarantee that the Soviets would moderate after Stalin's death--it was sort of like hoping that, if Germany won WWII, that the Nazis would moderate after Hitler's death. Behold your "potential friend": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
- GDC7 5y ago
  > It was far from a guarantee that the Soviets would moderate after Stalin's death That is the same of saying that there was no reason to suspect that the US would moderate after FDR's death. Getting involved in a conflict on the other side of the world is not exactly something a moderate would do. Germany had a spirit of revenge after WW1. What did the US have to do on the other side of the world...once again? No matter the other side of the world argument, countries which decided to be moderate were never involved even as they were right there where the disaster went down: Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Greece, Norway... If you adjust for education, quality of life and also hunger, then the US didn't look so moderate after all.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    > That is the same of saying that there was no reason to suspect that the US would moderate after FDR's death. No, it isn’t. FDR didn’t have tens of millions of people murdered in cold blood.

hh3k0 5y ago

Stopping a perceived enemy from researching what you've already successfully researched by using pre-emptive nuclear strikes is lunacy, yes.

nwah1 5y ago
In a true zero sum situation it would be a sad reality, but not lunacy. How many slight deviations in the space of possibility would've caused global thermonuclear war during the Cold War? Could you guarantee ahead of time that it would not occur? You have the benefit of hindsight now.

watwut 5y ago

[flagged]