6 ms·

>...unpredictable dictators posing a nuclear threat I'm sorry to say that it makes the most sense to simply not worry about it, unless it's your job to. We te

>...unpredictable dictators posing a nuclear threat I'm sorry to say that it makes the most sense to simply not worry about it, unless it's your job to. We tend to forget that dictatorship is the default human civilization. It also happens to be the "normal" structure of the family, even in liberal countries, for the simple reason that kids are, by definition, incompetent. So I'm not sure if it makes sense to "stamp out dictatorship" when so many people legitimately want to live under one. So that leaves getting rid of nukes - a problem most of us assumed would solve itself over time after the fall of the Soviet Union. This backsliding is worrisome, but the path to success remains the same. But when the next Soviet Union falls, we should pursue denuclearification much much more seriously.

margalabargala 5y ago
To further expand on "don't worry about it unless it's your job to": Unless you are able to directly exercise nonzero control over the foreign policy of a nuclear power, the threat of a nuclear apocalypse is sufficiently far removed from anything you can do anything about, that it's tantamount to worrying about a large asteroid impacting the earth. It would be devastating, sure, but it's not productive to genuinely concern yourself with it, because it's unlikely you'll survive and there's not much you can do to change the likelihood of the event or your survival.
- NateEag 5y ago
  You can't change the likelihood of the event, but you can change the likelihood of your survival. New Zealand will probably not be hit in an exchange. It would be a safer place to live in event of nuclear war.
- spunker540 5y ago
  There are certain areas more likely to be vaporized than others though. I know in NYC at least there were some who felt moving to a less populated area (ie rural Midwest) might lower their risk of nuclear death.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Yeah but then you will freeze in the winter or starve to death first. I mean by all means buy a decommissioned nuclear bunker and setup solar and download as many videos you can about growing food etc... This is sort of the level of preparation you might need to take.
  - philjohn 5y ago
    Except there are missile silos in the midwest that would be first-strike targets. Your best bet is to move somewhere in the southern hemisphere, such as New Zealand. Hey ... that's where a lot of the mega rich have been buying property of late ...
brimble 5y ago
Really, the vast majority of human activity remains organized under heavily hierarchical, authoritarian command economies—since that's how nearly all companies work. We're fortunate to live in a seemingly-unusual time when maybe 1/3 of the world's population lives under semi-functional, more-or-less liberal democratic states that claim higher authority than those companies and do an OK job of slightly moderating the ability of the rich to dominate everyone else, but still. The world's very much mostly not democratic, even today, and even in democracies little mini-oligarchies/dictatorships dominate much of our life.
erehweb 5y ago
"dictatorship is the default human civilization" definitely needs a citation. Many historical societies had one person at the top, but a bunch of several rich and powerful people with non-trivial ability to veto things / influence policy. I'd guess that an oligarchy where these people take turns to be the top guy and still retain some control when they're not on top is a fairly common pattern.
- randomdata 5y ago
  In that respect, the mention of family made earlier is also really more like an oligarchy. One member may have the final say (historically the man of the house), but other members of the family (notably said man's wife, historically speaking), can wield power to try and sway the opinion. That distinction from dictatorship may not be all that significant.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  It's difficult to determine who is at the top, like in the UK. Who are the principle people who control PM Johnson? There's the royal family, but without resources of the secret service it's impossible to know who he's taking direction from. There are occasional glimpses: connection of Russian money to Brexit, delay of the Russia Report, delay of sanctions against oligarchs showing them to handle their finances before sanctions take effect, etc., but that's one small block, I suspect. Clearly there's heavy interplay with media tycoons. But really it's all pretty opaque.
  - jen20 5y ago
    > Who are the principle people who control PM Johnson? The editors of the Daily Mail and The Sun, donors like the Elliotts, and whoever has financial kompromat.
    - javajosh 5y ago
      There are far too few technologists in that list. Twitter, for example, certainly drives the decisions of politicians these days; politicians perceive it a pretty good substitute for polling, for better or worse, and have the donations to prove it.
Joeri 5y ago
You are throwing the mode of government and the outcomes of government on one big pile, but I don’t think you can. Even under a dictatorship people can reasonably expect access to basic human rights. Putin seems to be depriving his people of even that. There are basic rules of human decency which we as a species have agreed to in the form of human rights, people may choose an alternate mode of government to democracy (and this is always a choice on some level, no dictatorship can rule an entirely unwilling populace), but nothing they choose can morally deny them their human rights.
cypherpunks01 5y ago
I don't see how "dictatorship is the default human civilization" (which seems true!) implies "so many people legitimately want to live under one". The fact that many/most people do live under authoritarian control, to me does not say anything about those same people's desire to continue doing so. Totally agree with the main point of denuclearization, it needs to be pursued even more aggressively in the future. The current 12,000 nukes is yes way lower than Cold War, but it's an insane level / irrational overall.
- Kibae 5y ago
  I'm going to go against the grain here and say denuclearization is not the solution for peace. I believe the reason the world has been at (relative) peace since WWII is because of the threat of a nuclear war. If Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons, do you think Putin would even consider invading? I don't think so. A better solution to denuclearization, in my opinion is to adopt a "No First Use" policy [1]. I suspect internally the US and NATO do follow this policy but will not disclose it publicly for strategic reasons. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
  - javajosh 5y ago
    No, if you connect a nuclear launch to the decision of a single human mind, eventually that mind will have a stray thought, and press the button. To think otherwise is to assume that any human mind remains stable, sane and rational for its tenure manning the button. Nevermind morality or compassion! But nothing could be further from the truth. Organic mushy brains are inherently unstable and irrational in the long run. If the button exists, its only a matter of time before someone pushes it.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That's why deployment processes require multi-user launch approval (eg 2 simultaneous keys).
      - 5y ago
pmoriarty 5y ago
"I'm not sure if it makes sense to "stamp out dictatorship" when so many people legitimately want to live under one" The people who want to live under a dictator do it either because they're greatly benefiting from the status quo (these tend to be an elite minority) or those who have been brainwashed by a state-controlled media and education system to not realize how oppressed they are. Free access to the internet lets people see outside their tightly controlled propaganda bubble, which is why totalitarian regimes such as China try to censor it. They are afraid of the internet for good reason: because once people start to find out what really happened in their country (like at Tiananmen Square) they'll start to wonder if their own government is as benevolent and if the outside world is so horrible as state-controlled media and education tells them. That could contribute to the overthrow of the old regime. Free access to information is only one piece of the puzzle, but revolutions and deposing of dictators can and has happened. Unfortunately, what replaces dictators is sometimes just as bad or worse than the dictator. See the results of the Communist overthrow of the Russian Czar for one example, and the military's control of Egypt after the revolution that overthrew Mubarak for another. To be truly successful revolutions can't just replace one elite with another, but have to really empower the people.
watwut 5y ago
You absolutely should worry about that when, for example, you are voting for a president or in general elections. It does actually matter in terms of how your country will deal with that threat.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  you keep telling people to worry. maybe we don't want to. how does worrying change anything.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    No, they are telling people to worry when it matters - when they are voting. I personally think that's a good and responsible position. It's quite different than saying you should worry all the time!
  - watwut 5y ago
    No. It is you who went out of way to tell people passivity is right noble behavior. I saying, choices in aggregate matters.
d136o 5y ago
The problem with dictators is that they don’t stop at their borders. In fact they don’t do boundaries and behave as though there’s nothing outside of their control or influence, including you and your children. Plenty of people should worry about it. People have to physically remove themselves from these environments in order to seek opportunities for their own children and assure their long term opportunities. Millions of people are being displaced today by the whims of a Russian dictator, and we should assume dictatorship is good and well?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 5y ago
Not worrying is the correct choice in my opinion. More frightening are always those that want a dictatorship in your own country and western nations tend to call the domestic part of that "emergency situations".
pjc50 5y ago
Seeing all the people arguing straight up for dictatorship in these comments is really making me reconsider the "intelligent" reputation of HN.

margalabargala 5y ago

To further expand on "don't worry about it unless it's your job to": Unless you are able to directly exercise nonzero control over the foreign policy of a nuclear power, the threat of a nuclear apocalypse is sufficiently far removed from anything you can do anything about, that it's tantamount to worrying about a large asteroid impacting the earth. It would be devastating, sure, but it's not productive to genuinely concern yourself with it, because it's unlikely you'll survive and there's not much you can do to change the likelihood of the event or your survival.

NateEag 5y ago
You can't change the likelihood of the event, but you can change the likelihood of your survival. New Zealand will probably not be hit in an exchange. It would be a safer place to live in event of nuclear war.
spunker540 5y ago
There are certain areas more likely to be vaporized than others though. I know in NYC at least there were some who felt moving to a less populated area (ie rural Midwest) might lower their risk of nuclear death.
- sjg007 5y ago
  Yeah but then you will freeze in the winter or starve to death first. I mean by all means buy a decommissioned nuclear bunker and setup solar and download as many videos you can about growing food etc... This is sort of the level of preparation you might need to take.
- philjohn 5y ago
  Except there are missile silos in the midwest that would be first-strike targets. Your best bet is to move somewhere in the southern hemisphere, such as New Zealand. Hey ... that's where a lot of the mega rich have been buying property of late ...

brimble 5y ago

Really, the vast majority of human activity remains organized under heavily hierarchical, authoritarian command economies—since that's how nearly all companies work. We're fortunate to live in a seemingly-unusual time when maybe 1/3 of the world's population lives under semi-functional, more-or-less liberal democratic states that claim higher authority than those companies and do an OK job of slightly moderating the ability of the rich to dominate everyone else, but still. The world's very much mostly not democratic, even today, and even in democracies little mini-oligarchies/dictatorships dominate much of our life.

erehweb 5y ago

"dictatorship is the default human civilization" definitely needs a citation. Many historical societies had one person at the top, but a bunch of several rich and powerful people with non-trivial ability to veto things / influence policy. I'd guess that an oligarchy where these people take turns to be the top guy and still retain some control when they're not on top is a fairly common pattern.

randomdata 5y ago
In that respect, the mention of family made earlier is also really more like an oligarchy. One member may have the final say (historically the man of the house), but other members of the family (notably said man's wife, historically speaking), can wield power to try and sway the opinion. That distinction from dictatorship may not be all that significant.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
It's difficult to determine who is at the top, like in the UK. Who are the principle people who control PM Johnson? There's the royal family, but without resources of the secret service it's impossible to know who he's taking direction from. There are occasional glimpses: connection of Russian money to Brexit, delay of the Russia Report, delay of sanctions against oligarchs showing them to handle their finances before sanctions take effect, etc., but that's one small block, I suspect. Clearly there's heavy interplay with media tycoons. But really it's all pretty opaque.
- jen20 5y ago
  > Who are the principle people who control PM Johnson? The editors of the Daily Mail and The Sun, donors like the Elliotts, and whoever has financial kompromat.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    There are far too few technologists in that list. Twitter, for example, certainly drives the decisions of politicians these days; politicians perceive it a pretty good substitute for polling, for better or worse, and have the donations to prove it.

Joeri 5y ago

You are throwing the mode of government and the outcomes of government on one big pile, but I don’t think you can. Even under a dictatorship people can reasonably expect access to basic human rights. Putin seems to be depriving his people of even that. There are basic rules of human decency which we as a species have agreed to in the form of human rights, people may choose an alternate mode of government to democracy (and this is always a choice on some level, no dictatorship can rule an entirely unwilling populace), but nothing they choose can morally deny them their human rights.

cypherpunks01 5y ago

I don't see how "dictatorship is the default human civilization" (which seems true!) implies "so many people legitimately want to live under one". The fact that many/most people do live under authoritarian control, to me does not say anything about those same people's desire to continue doing so. Totally agree with the main point of denuclearization, it needs to be pursued even more aggressively in the future. The current 12,000 nukes is yes way lower than Cold War, but it's an insane level / irrational overall.

Kibae 5y ago
I'm going to go against the grain here and say denuclearization is not the solution for peace. I believe the reason the world has been at (relative) peace since WWII is because of the threat of a nuclear war. If Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons, do you think Putin would even consider invading? I don't think so. A better solution to denuclearization, in my opinion is to adopt a "No First Use" policy [1]. I suspect internally the US and NATO do follow this policy but will not disclose it publicly for strategic reasons. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
- javajosh 5y ago
  No, if you connect a nuclear launch to the decision of a single human mind, eventually that mind will have a stray thought, and press the button. To think otherwise is to assume that any human mind remains stable, sane and rational for its tenure manning the button. Nevermind morality or compassion! But nothing could be further from the truth. Organic mushy brains are inherently unstable and irrational in the long run. If the button exists, its only a matter of time before someone pushes it.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That's why deployment processes require multi-user launch approval (eg 2 simultaneous keys).
    - 5y ago

pmoriarty 5y ago

"I'm not sure if it makes sense to "stamp out dictatorship" when so many people legitimately want to live under one" The people who want to live under a dictator do it either because they're greatly benefiting from the status quo (these tend to be an elite minority) or those who have been brainwashed by a state-controlled media and education system to not realize how oppressed they are. Free access to the internet lets people see outside their tightly controlled propaganda bubble, which is why totalitarian regimes such as China try to censor it. They are afraid of the internet for good reason: because once people start to find out what really happened in their country (like at Tiananmen Square) they'll start to wonder if their own government is as benevolent and if the outside world is so horrible as state-controlled media and education tells them. That could contribute to the overthrow of the old regime. Free access to information is only one piece of the puzzle, but revolutions and deposing of dictators can and has happened. Unfortunately, what replaces dictators is sometimes just as bad or worse than the dictator. See the results of the Communist overthrow of the Russian Czar for one example, and the military's control of Egypt after the revolution that overthrew Mubarak for another. To be truly successful revolutions can't just replace one elite with another, but have to really empower the people.

watwut 5y ago

You absolutely should worry about that when, for example, you are voting for a president or in general elections. It does actually matter in terms of how your country will deal with that threat.

paulpauper 5y ago
you keep telling people to worry. maybe we don't want to. how does worrying change anything.
- javajosh 5y ago
  No, they are telling people to worry when it matters - when they are voting. I personally think that's a good and responsible position. It's quite different than saying you should worry all the time!
- watwut 5y ago
  No. It is you who went out of way to tell people passivity is right noble behavior. I saying, choices in aggregate matters.

d136o 5y ago

The problem with dictators is that they don’t stop at their borders. In fact they don’t do boundaries and behave as though there’s nothing outside of their control or influence, including you and your children. Plenty of people should worry about it. People have to physically remove themselves from these environments in order to seek opportunities for their own children and assure their long term opportunities. Millions of people are being displaced today by the whims of a Russian dictator, and we should assume dictatorship is good and well?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 5y ago

Not worrying is the correct choice in my opinion. More frightening are always those that want a dictatorship in your own country and western nations tend to call the domestic part of that "emergency situations".

pjc50 5y ago

Seeing all the people arguing straight up for dictatorship in these comments is really making me reconsider the "intelligent" reputation of HN.