6 ms·
Harold Hering
- zeckalpha 5y agoIf you like this you might be interested in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Alert_(novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Alert_(novel)
- seiferteric 5y agoOkay I figured out how to denuclearize the world. The billionaires can take their rockets and start a self sufficient break-away colony on the far side of the moon and take a bunch of nukes with them. The location will be secret and not easily observable and maybe underground to be totally resistant to any attack. Then they can hold the world hostage threatening to start nuking major cities of any nation that does not give up it's nukes immediately. Since there is no more MAD, nations will have to comply. Then hopefully they will give up theirs...
- fernly 5y agoSo the threat is, "Give up the weapons that could kill millions of people, or we will kill millions of people." Oooookay, got it.
- netizen-936824 5y agoYea, plus why tf would we want billionaires in charge? They already are and things are completely fucked
- seiferteric 5y agoit was not a serious comment...
- nescioquid 5y agoBut think of the efficiency! It was dry, but the funny bit, I think, is that Terran civilization can somehow get along without its billionaires.
- _jal 5y agoBillionaires are not required for civilization. Put aside the hereditary wealthy, whom I don't think you're thinking of, either. The existence of billionaires is an artifact of inefficient legal and economic systems, and the set of people who would work hard at whatever example you're thinking of for $billions but not for lesser, but still extreme, wealth is null. Discuss.
- whatshisface 5y agoMoney serves two purposes, rewarding people and putting control of resources in the hands of people and institutions most able to invest them wisely. Billionaires are not necessary for the first but they are for the second. If you think that a billion-dollar company can exist, then combining what we know about the inefficiency of committees with that fact we arrive at the conclusion that perhaps some people can reasonably be given control of billions as well. Billionaires spend a small fraction of their money on superyachts and keep most of it invested which is the system working if you believe in it.
- joshuahaglund 5y agoWe haven't always had this extreme degree of income and wealth inequality. Investments still happened.
- catlifeonmars 5y agoWhile I think you’re correct that money can serve those two purposes, I don’t think that it in fact does so universally or exclusively, or even necessarily intentionally.
- LeonB 5y agoI don’t know if you’ve spotted this - but money serves a couple of other purposes too. Some people use money to destroy or buy out their competitors. Some people use money to bribe or corrupt politicians and by extension to corrupt the entire democratic process. Some people use money to influence the media. And in these and many other ways, money can be used to make even more money in a runaway cycle without there being an efficient allocation of resources.
- micromacrofoot 5y agono billionaire would ever want to live in space full time, it’s miserable
- eru 5y agoThere's quite a few billionaires around with all kinds of preferences.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoThere’s no luxury in space
- eru 5y agoYes? Not everyone is into luxuries.
- trhway 5y agowhat you are describing is an interplanetary MAD, kind of Expanse style. We're definitely coming to it. Moon and Mars colonies will have nuclear reactors and Mars ships will be nuclear. The weaponization will happen the first moment some threat happens, which is a given. >totally resistant to any attack it isn't possible for any non-minor period of time as the other side would go exponential in their effort to change that.
- seiferteric 5y agoYes but I was thinking of one group can get the early "highground" they can shoot down any others attempting to start another colony or probe their location, then permanently maintain order "down there".
- ethbr0 5y agoThat's Old Man's War (2005, Scalzi) [0], itself a twist on the (much darker) The Forever War (1974, Haldeman) [1]. Both are predicated on the extra-Earth faction having overwhelming technological superiority and resources. Gravity is not that helpful. So, not "initial colony" stages. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man%27s_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man%27s_War [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War
- HarryHirsch 5y agoThat's the premise of Ernst Jünger's Heliopolis. Doesn't prevent war and ethnic persecution, though.
- gzer0 5y ago> How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president? > The president alone authorizes a nuclear launch and the two-man rule does not apply to him. These two sentences are quite frightening on their own, but even more so given the likelihood that this will become a reality at some point.
- _carbyau_ 5y agoPlenty of people had their doubts about Trump. Many are worried about the advanced age of Biden. There are many articles doubting Putin's mental capacity right now. Also, sanity is not a binary switch. Dementia creeps slowly. So can other mental afflictions. Philosophically, many would argue that to order international nuclear detonation nowadays is by definition, the action of an insane person.
- eru 5y ago> Philosophically, many would argue that to order international nuclear detonation nowadays is by definition, the action of an insane person. Not at all. A first strike maybe, but a retaliatory strike can be perfectly sane, even if exceedingly cruel. Everybody agrees that the retaliation doesn't magically undo the damage of the first strike. The thing is that you need to pre-commit to a retaliatory strike, if you want deterrence. If you are predictably not going to retaliate, and you are never going for a first strike; then you might as well not have any nukes at all. Never having any nukes at all is also a sane position.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago> If you are predictably not going to retaliate Not committing to immediate retaliation is not at all the same thing as "predictably not going to retaliate". That is, the complement of "committing not to" is not "committing to" but "not committing not to"; the two nots do not cancel and leave the issue of retaliation open. Those intent on a first strike then have to gamble.
- 5y ago
- wargames 5y ago
- trabant00 5y agoConspiracy theory: he was discharged in order to mask the fact that the president does not in fact have the power to launch on his own. My reasoning: the top level military are career professionals who would not trust or give such power to a politician who got the position by winning a popularity contest.