8 ms·

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

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).
    - sidewndr46 5y ago
      That's the launch infrastructure and only in some circumstances is that required. An order from the US president to launch nuclear weapons can only be rescinded by the US president: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Nuclear-button-U.S.-has-no-way-to-stop-president-s-legal-order https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Nuclear-button-U.S.-has-no-... This is well known, there was a submarine captain who was dismissed for inquiring about it in the US Navy.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Sure the order can't be rescinded. But it's also possible for the individuals to be insubordinate.
- codr7 5y ago
  Until some kind of glitch causes one country to freak out and launch, it has almost happened on at least one occasion that I know of. War is not peace, cold or otherwise.
- Jyaif 5y ago
  Policies do not work when someone irrational is at the helm of a country.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  A no first use policy is never going to happen, because it completely flies against all of the prevailing wisdom about nuclear deterrence[1]. Nuclear powers benefit heavily from ambiguity about where their "red line" is that would need to be crossed for them to use nukes, because that limits the ability of others to act against them for fear of crossing the line. Drawing a lower bound on where your red line is, like with a no first use policy, frees up others to act against you because they know how far they can safely go (literally anything short of using your own nukes in the case of a no first use policy). [1] https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence...
  - witty_username 5y ago
    China and India have a no first use policy, even though they have nuclear armed neighbors.
giantg2 5y ago
"so many people legitimately want to live under one" We sort of see this in democracies when the simple majority want to force a large minority to do or not do things (sometimes contrary to law). We want a dictatorship, just so long as it's one that we agree with. Edit: why downvote?
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  You're describing a feature of democracy and majority rule. The majority always can vote in policies they prefer. That is not a feature of a dictatorship.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    This phenomena was called the "tyranny of the majority" by John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty". The theoretical ability of the majority to bully a minority was a big open question about the viability of democracy, which was to be determined by the American experiment. Results are mixed.
    - fragmede 5y ago
      Subsequent to the start of it, the American experiment has shown that the implementation details of democracy are fundamental to not backsliding into dictatorship. Germany's democracy is different from USA's democracy is different from Russia's, and they all have had different results. There are other experiments to be run, too (especially with recent advancements in technology), but unfortunately we lack the necessary ingredients to test them out. Experiments like large scale direct democracy vs what's technical a republic. Centrally planned economy under a democratic system.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "Experiments like large scale direct democracy" Are there actually people that think this would work on a large scale in the US? On the other side, isn't Switzerland sort of close to direct democracy, at least in the way they require referendums?
javajosh 5y ago
>does not say anything about those same people's desire to continue doing so Well, I'm not sure about that. I feel that we are all responsible for our government to some degree. If the gov is really doing evil things without accountability, then it is the people's responsibility to change it. The problem is that it is very easy to move from democracy to dictatorship, and very hard to move from dictatorship to democracy, with the latter transition almost always requiring the use of force. Its a big, gigantic step. It's starts when Russian mothers and fathers, Russian neighbors and shopkeepers, start whispering about really taking up arms against Putin. This is a very problematic line to cross, mainly because people are stupid and will trigger 'a revolution' about anything and everything. The information landscape is treacherous for false positives, now more than ever. Consider the example of the pitiable 1/6 insurrectionists. Every one of them thought they were defending their country against a threat. But they were all badly wrong, and now they suffer for it. But the instinct to put their lives on the line for their constitution is, in my old-fashioned belief system, admirable. They just got tricked into fighting for the wrong side.
Rury 5y ago
There's no getting around living under "authoritarian" control. You could categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority - Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority is authority - Anarchy: Power in everyone's hands, everyone is authority (or no one is depending on how you look at it) In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more power is equally distributed amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes. When you're in complete Anarchy, might/ability is what ultimately determines the outcomes in conflicts, and those who wield it typically end up becoming the "authority". Hence, over time, Anarchy will naturally develop into the other more stable forms of government. Notice however, all forms of government have the following issue: when there's a conflict in wants between people, someone (ie authority) will have their way, someone won't. You can't get rid of this reality, no matter how you structure government, which is to say: oppression is unavoidable so long as there exists conflicts in what people want. Thus, I honestly don't see why people think a dictatorship is necessarily more oppressive than other forms of government. Some people are quite happy with their dictators, even if there's other people living under the same dictator that aren't; but this is true of any form of government. And it's not hard to see why there can be people happy with their dictators, as dictatorships are highly efficient and effective at carrying out policy. If your dicator is competent & beneveloent towards your wishes, it's arguably the best - most effective form of government. But understandably, if your dicator is not competent or benevolent to you, its among the worst...
- javajosh 5y ago
  >oppression is unavoidable Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! I think we can all agree that even losing the vote on every issue is far preferable to losing the ability to vote on any issue. But that's not true if, by losing a vote, or a court case, or an administrative decision, you consider yourself 'oppressed'. You lost, true. Maybe unfairly. But that's necessary but not sufficient to prove oppression! Like, if I could wave a magic wand and grant all American voters the (apparent) super-power of gracefully losing, I would. If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence. No-one wants to live in that world, so we need to give people a way to take their licks at the polls and then work together to solve the world's problems. And you know what, if you want to go to war over abortion, have at it, but do you really want to die on that hill? Aren't there issues that are more urgent, and more clearly dire than abortion? Or gay people? Or racist people? Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change, nuclear armaggedon, income inequality and the backsliding of democracies into autocracies? And aren't all of these at least 5 orders-of-magnitude more important than whether or not a trans woman can compete in NCAA sport? (Why don't we hear our senators debating the important issues of the day? Why aren't they erudite men, well versed in many fields of endeavor, hosting daily podcasts of debates, singly and in groups? Is this not their job? And isn't it our job to second-guess all of them mercilessly??)

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).
  - sidewndr46 5y ago
    That's the launch infrastructure and only in some circumstances is that required. An order from the US president to launch nuclear weapons can only be rescinded by the US president: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Nuclear-button-U.S.-has-no-way-to-stop-president-s-legal-order https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Nuclear-button-U.S.-has-no-... This is well known, there was a submarine captain who was dismissed for inquiring about it in the US Navy.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Sure the order can't be rescinded. But it's also possible for the individuals to be insubordinate.
codr7 5y ago
Until some kind of glitch causes one country to freak out and launch, it has almost happened on at least one occasion that I know of. War is not peace, cold or otherwise.
Jyaif 5y ago
Policies do not work when someone irrational is at the helm of a country.
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
A no first use policy is never going to happen, because it completely flies against all of the prevailing wisdom about nuclear deterrence[1]. Nuclear powers benefit heavily from ambiguity about where their "red line" is that would need to be crossed for them to use nukes, because that limits the ability of others to act against them for fear of crossing the line. Drawing a lower bound on where your red line is, like with a no first use policy, frees up others to act against you because they know how far they can safely go (literally anything short of using your own nukes in the case of a no first use policy). [1] https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence...
- witty_username 5y ago
  China and India have a no first use policy, even though they have nuclear armed neighbors.

giantg2 5y ago

"so many people legitimately want to live under one" We sort of see this in democracies when the simple majority want to force a large minority to do or not do things (sometimes contrary to law). We want a dictatorship, just so long as it's one that we agree with. Edit: why downvote?

sidewndr46 5y ago
You're describing a feature of democracy and majority rule. The majority always can vote in policies they prefer. That is not a feature of a dictatorship.
- javajosh 5y ago
  This phenomena was called the "tyranny of the majority" by John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty". The theoretical ability of the majority to bully a minority was a big open question about the viability of democracy, which was to be determined by the American experiment. Results are mixed.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Subsequent to the start of it, the American experiment has shown that the implementation details of democracy are fundamental to not backsliding into dictatorship. Germany's democracy is different from USA's democracy is different from Russia's, and they all have had different results. There are other experiments to be run, too (especially with recent advancements in technology), but unfortunately we lack the necessary ingredients to test them out. Experiments like large scale direct democracy vs what's technical a republic. Centrally planned economy under a democratic system.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "Experiments like large scale direct democracy" Are there actually people that think this would work on a large scale in the US? On the other side, isn't Switzerland sort of close to direct democracy, at least in the way they require referendums?

javajosh 5y ago

>does not say anything about those same people's desire to continue doing so Well, I'm not sure about that. I feel that we are all responsible for our government to some degree. If the gov is really doing evil things without accountability, then it is the people's responsibility to change it. The problem is that it is very easy to move from democracy to dictatorship, and very hard to move from dictatorship to democracy, with the latter transition almost always requiring the use of force. Its a big, gigantic step. It's starts when Russian mothers and fathers, Russian neighbors and shopkeepers, start whispering about really taking up arms against Putin. This is a very problematic line to cross, mainly because people are stupid and will trigger 'a revolution' about anything and everything. The information landscape is treacherous for false positives, now more than ever. Consider the example of the pitiable 1/6 insurrectionists. Every one of them thought they were defending their country against a threat. But they were all badly wrong, and now they suffer for it. But the instinct to put their lives on the line for their constitution is, in my old-fashioned belief system, admirable. They just got tricked into fighting for the wrong side.

Rury 5y ago

There's no getting around living under "authoritarian" control. You could categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority - Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority is authority - Anarchy: Power in everyone's hands, everyone is authority (or no one is depending on how you look at it) In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more power is equally distributed amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes. When you're in complete Anarchy, might/ability is what ultimately determines the outcomes in conflicts, and those who wield it typically end up becoming the "authority". Hence, over time, Anarchy will naturally develop into the other more stable forms of government. Notice however, all forms of government have the following issue: when there's a conflict in wants between people, someone (ie authority) will have their way, someone won't. You can't get rid of this reality, no matter how you structure government, which is to say: oppression is unavoidable so long as there exists conflicts in what people want. Thus, I honestly don't see why people think a dictatorship is necessarily more oppressive than other forms of government. Some people are quite happy with their dictators, even if there's other people living under the same dictator that aren't; but this is true of any form of government. And it's not hard to see why there can be people happy with their dictators, as dictatorships are highly efficient and effective at carrying out policy. If your dicator is competent & beneveloent towards your wishes, it's arguably the best - most effective form of government. But understandably, if your dicator is not competent or benevolent to you, its among the worst...

javajosh 5y ago
>oppression is unavoidable Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! I think we can all agree that even losing the vote on every issue is far preferable to losing the ability to vote on any issue. But that's not true if, by losing a vote, or a court case, or an administrative decision, you consider yourself 'oppressed'. You lost, true. Maybe unfairly. But that's necessary but not sufficient to prove oppression! Like, if I could wave a magic wand and grant all American voters the (apparent) super-power of gracefully losing, I would. If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence. No-one wants to live in that world, so we need to give people a way to take their licks at the polls and then work together to solve the world's problems. And you know what, if you want to go to war over abortion, have at it, but do you really want to die on that hill? Aren't there issues that are more urgent, and more clearly dire than abortion? Or gay people? Or racist people? Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change, nuclear armaggedon, income inequality and the backsliding of democracies into autocracies? And aren't all of these at least 5 orders-of-magnitude more important than whether or not a trans woman can compete in NCAA sport? (Why don't we hear our senators debating the important issues of the day? Why aren't they erudite men, well versed in many fields of endeavor, hosting daily podcasts of debates, singly and in groups? Is this not their job? And isn't it our job to second-guess all of them mercilessly??)