3 ms·

>"The replies here seem to indicate that this will be an unsolvable problem, forever." I can imagine that in a very long term people might evolve to the point

by FpUser 4y ago

>"The replies here seem to indicate that this will be an unsolvable problem, forever." I can imagine that in a very long term people might evolve to the point of not needing to kill each other. But as it stands now every country is more than willing to commit murders at scale to achieve their goals assuming they're reasonably safe from "proper payback" or big economic losses.

consumer451 4y ago
What drives me nuts about the current situation is that the power over nuclear annihilation currently rests in the hands of a number of people who could be fit into a small hotel. This is one of the few benefits of the centralization of power which we currently experience. You really just need a few hundred people to reach this consensus. We may never be in a better place in history to solve this problem as we are in today.
- NhanH 4y ago
  That is decidedly not the case. Even dictator is backed by a decent numbers of allies within his country, and he will need to get their agreement to actually do the disarmament, even if he already agreed to outside parties. And in country like China (authoritarian but not quite dictator yet), the top guy is backed by a huge power pyramid, there are tens of thousands of politicians and strategists funnel their plans and ideas upward for discussions. The good news is that it goes both way too: even dictator can’t unilaterally decide to go ham and nukes everywhere. Sure, nuke your direct enemy is still an option, but anything more than that, or risks escalation more than that will probably be hard to be decided by just one or few guys. If you want to be optimistic, just realize that any time in the past where things might go wrong, actual human beings had stepped up to prevent fullscale nuclear war to happen. From Bayesian point of view, the odd is still on our side. I know that tactical nuke could be unfortunately escalated to larger scale, but then again, this needs people to agree to escalate in some sense. And there is still the obvious Murphy’s law of anything that can go wrong will go wrong. But we are trying to be optimistic, aren’t we?

by FpUser 4y ago

consumer451 4y ago

What drives me nuts about the current situation is that the power over nuclear annihilation currently rests in the hands of a number of people who could be fit into a small hotel. This is one of the few benefits of the centralization of power which we currently experience. You really just need a few hundred people to reach this consensus. We may never be in a better place in history to solve this problem as we are in today.

NhanH 4y ago
That is decidedly not the case. Even dictator is backed by a decent numbers of allies within his country, and he will need to get their agreement to actually do the disarmament, even if he already agreed to outside parties. And in country like China (authoritarian but not quite dictator yet), the top guy is backed by a huge power pyramid, there are tens of thousands of politicians and strategists funnel their plans and ideas upward for discussions. The good news is that it goes both way too: even dictator can’t unilaterally decide to go ham and nukes everywhere. Sure, nuke your direct enemy is still an option, but anything more than that, or risks escalation more than that will probably be hard to be decided by just one or few guys. If you want to be optimistic, just realize that any time in the past where things might go wrong, actual human beings had stepped up to prevent fullscale nuclear war to happen. From Bayesian point of view, the odd is still on our side. I know that tactical nuke could be unfortunately escalated to larger scale, but then again, this needs people to agree to escalate in some sense. And there is still the obvious Murphy’s law of anything that can go wrong will go wrong. But we are trying to be optimistic, aren’t we?