6 ms·

Do you think every leader in every nuclear capable nation is going to have those same views forever? There's going to be a failure in the "our leaders are afra

Do you think every leader in every nuclear capable nation is going to have those same views forever? There's going to be a failure in the "our leaders are afraid of nuclear war" plan. That isn't viable. Just because it has happened for a few decades doesn't mean it will continue to happen, everywhere, forever.

CamperBob2 5y ago
What's your plan for ensuring that such a berserk national leader doesn't retain nuclear capability in a post-disarmament world? When it comes to preventing war, MAD works. Wishful thinking doesn't.
- palijer 5y ago
  That isn't an argument against my statement. MAD is the very wishful thinking that you indicate does not work. Your initial scenario here of a berserk national leader is plenty applicable to MAD. Why do you assume MAD will work on a long timescale? There are too many variables with different nations and leaders.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    The way I see it, when it comes to preventing war, we have an approach that, while both literally and figuratively MAD, has worked OK so far, and an approach that we know doesn't work. It would be great if we had more options, no argument there.
    - runarberg 5y ago
      There is a flaw in your logic. In a game of Russian roulette you might have a 100% success rate after 5 shots. But that doesn’t mean the 6th shot won’t be fatal.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        How does that apply here, though? We know your suggested approach doesn't work. We know that there are definitely live rounds in the gun, because they've killed millions already. The UN's best intentions didn't deter the conflicts in Korea, or Viet Nam, or Iraq, or Rwanda, or whatever shenanigans Putin is about to pull in Ukraine, just to name a few. In the MAD game, both the goal and the incentives are rationally aligned to avoid pulling the trigger at all. If MAD fails, it will happen because a mistake occurred. If the "Just let the UN take care of it" approach fails, it will fail for the same reason it has failed so many times before: because someone rationally calculated that the consequences were worth it. These scenarios don't really compare to a simple game of Russian roulette. Logically speaking, it seems best to keep doing what we've been doing, but work as hard as we can to reduce the odds of a mistake.
        runarberg 5y ago
        It is relevant because if we are dealing with a poisson-like distribution the chances of the event happening is greater over a longer time-span. We don’t know what distribution nuclear strikes and accidents occur with. It may very well be a distribution similar to Russian roulette. If it is, we really really shouldn’t risk it any further. That is the flaw in your logic. It is assuming a favorable distribution when the distribution is unknown.
- runarberg 5y ago
  > What's your plan for ensuring that such a berserk national leader doesn't retain nuclear capability in a post-disarmament world? That is for the UN to decide, and I’m sure they will come up with a plan. Options include sanctions, boycotts, shunning from international sports and cultural events, etc. Individual nations can go further and fund opposition groups etc. International disarmament treaties like these have worked in the past, there is no reason to think that nuclear weapons are any different. What is different is the scale of the potential damage. > When it comes to preventing war, MAD works. Wishful thinking doesn't. I’d argue that the assumption that nuclear weapons prevent wars are speculations at best. Hoping they won’t be used by nation states in future wars and hoping there won’t be a devastating accident involving them is not just wishful thinking but also an extremely dangerous belief.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    That is for the UN to decide, and I’m sure they will come up with a plan. How much do you know about the post-WWII history of the Korean peninsula? Options include sanctions, boycotts, shunning from international sports and cultural events, etc. Individual nations can go further and fund opposition groups etc. Same question.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

CamperBob2 5y ago

What's your plan for ensuring that such a berserk national leader doesn't retain nuclear capability in a post-disarmament world? When it comes to preventing war, MAD works. Wishful thinking doesn't.

palijer 5y ago
That isn't an argument against my statement. MAD is the very wishful thinking that you indicate does not work. Your initial scenario here of a berserk national leader is plenty applicable to MAD. Why do you assume MAD will work on a long timescale? There are too many variables with different nations and leaders.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The way I see it, when it comes to preventing war, we have an approach that, while both literally and figuratively MAD, has worked OK so far, and an approach that we know doesn't work. It would be great if we had more options, no argument there.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    There is a flaw in your logic. In a game of Russian roulette you might have a 100% success rate after 5 shots. But that doesn’t mean the 6th shot won’t be fatal.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      How does that apply here, though? We know your suggested approach doesn't work. We know that there are definitely live rounds in the gun, because they've killed millions already. The UN's best intentions didn't deter the conflicts in Korea, or Viet Nam, or Iraq, or Rwanda, or whatever shenanigans Putin is about to pull in Ukraine, just to name a few. In the MAD game, both the goal and the incentives are rationally aligned to avoid pulling the trigger at all. If MAD fails, it will happen because a mistake occurred. If the "Just let the UN take care of it" approach fails, it will fail for the same reason it has failed so many times before: because someone rationally calculated that the consequences were worth it. These scenarios don't really compare to a simple game of Russian roulette. Logically speaking, it seems best to keep doing what we've been doing, but work as hard as we can to reduce the odds of a mistake.
      - runarberg 5y ago
        It is relevant because if we are dealing with a poisson-like distribution the chances of the event happening is greater over a longer time-span. We don’t know what distribution nuclear strikes and accidents occur with. It may very well be a distribution similar to Russian roulette. If it is, we really really shouldn’t risk it any further. That is the flaw in your logic. It is assuming a favorable distribution when the distribution is unknown.
runarberg 5y ago
> What's your plan for ensuring that such a berserk national leader doesn't retain nuclear capability in a post-disarmament world? That is for the UN to decide, and I’m sure they will come up with a plan. Options include sanctions, boycotts, shunning from international sports and cultural events, etc. Individual nations can go further and fund opposition groups etc. International disarmament treaties like these have worked in the past, there is no reason to think that nuclear weapons are any different. What is different is the scale of the potential damage. > When it comes to preventing war, MAD works. Wishful thinking doesn't. I’d argue that the assumption that nuclear weapons prevent wars are speculations at best. Hoping they won’t be used by nation states in future wars and hoping there won’t be a devastating accident involving them is not just wishful thinking but also an extremely dangerous belief.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  That is for the UN to decide, and I’m sure they will come up with a plan. How much do you know about the post-WWII history of the Korean peninsula? Options include sanctions, boycotts, shunning from international sports and cultural events, etc. Individual nations can go further and fund opposition groups etc. Same question.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]