3 ms·

Whenever I see things like this I think it's so cool, but it's always followed by this weird feeling that lasts a few hours where all I can think about is, "Wha

Whenever I see things like this I think it's so cool, but it's always followed by this weird feeling that lasts a few hours where all I can think about is, "What have we done?" Why does destruction come to easy to us? Why has it always been a prioirty?

jrockway 2y ago
Being able to destroy everyone else is what prevents them from destroying us. Something I think about and feel bad about is the "nuclear sponge". Why do we have a bunch of ICBMs in the midwest? So that if someone wants to nuke NYC, they have to nuke the Great Plains first, or face total destruction. Makes nuclear war that much more expensive. Of course, it's kind of an outdated assumption that that alone would be enough; we still have bombers and submarine-launched missiles. I have mixed feelings about mutually assured destruction; it would be nice if the human race couldn't destroy the entire planet. But, it does make sense on some level. Why don't you go up to lions in the zoo and pet them? I bet they're soft! The reason you don't is because you know it will bite your arm off. We hope the same logic applies to nuclear first strikes. (I also feel a little bad knowing that my country is the only one that ever used nuclear weapons. The world didn't end, but that's little consolation for the 200,000 civilians we vaporized in an instant.)
- redmajor12 2y ago
  I dont think "nuclear sponge" is a real concept that dates to the Cold War. Can you provide a reference? In a quick search, I just found poorly written and recent articles that just link to each other. Rather, the silo fields were dispersed to get out of range of sub launched missiles or soviet ICBMs that would go over the N pole, which is why some of them are very close to the Mexican border in NM (like the Titan IIs around Roswell). Of course, potential modern Russian ICBMs that have the range to go over the South Pole negate this defense and also any midrange ABM interception possibilities. I also suspect that silo locations were an early example of Congressional pork. Or, just located next to exiting SAC bases for logistical reasons, like Beale AFB in northern California.
  - redmajor12 2y ago
    Never mind. This is from 1978 with respect to the MX program (although this is quite late in ICBM deployment history and I think more of a specific problem for the MX- the "Peacekeeper" was supposed to be so accurate that it was reasoned that the Soviets would see it as a first strike weapon against their missile fields, making any potential US deployment necessitate an immediate soviet response. Hence crazy basing ideas like a network of underground trains carrying the missiles.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/07/24/fresh-challenge-voiced-to-missile-shell-game/7b2f8ae3-0109-43e3-a6bd-2bc04c56f6c8/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/07/24/f...
- NegativeLatency 2y ago
  I think I'd prefer to go instantly in a moment via nuke than say burn to death in one of the many firebombing raids the US did on Japan during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_194... > More than 90,000 and possibly over 100,000 Japanese people were killed, mostly civilians, and one million were left homeless, making it the most destructive single air attack in human history.
  - ipdashc 2y ago
    I know you didn't mean it literally, but it's still worth saying: They did not "go instantly in a moment". A few, sure. I'd assume most of them probably still burned to death, or were buried under rubble, or bled out after being cut by debris, or starved to death after being blinded. Firebombing is bad, but nukes are also really bad, there's no need to treat them as if they're merciful.
    - VoidWhisperer 2y ago
      Not to mention the further many, many people that died in excruciatingly awful ways from the radiation
- the_snooze 2y ago
  MAD makes sense if you assume the participants are rational and have accurate information. That's probably true on average in the long-run. But what bothers me is that it only takes one accident or miscalculation or crazy president to bring about the end of the world. And we've certainly had our fair share of close calls with bad sensor readings or training tapes being put into a live operational setting.
  - jrockway 2y ago
    Yeah, I think MAD and "launch on warning" are distinct concepts. If we survive the first strike, we can rationally plan our second strike. So training tapes being played on the live system won't cause us to accidentally make a first strike; we can still assure destruction after taking a first strike. (That's why there's the nuclear triad.) I think that "launch on warning" was an official policy at some point. I am not sure if it is anymore. I don't think it's a good one and it's not necessary to deter a first strike. The missiles are underground and at unknown locations in the ocean for that reason. As for crazy presidents, yup, that is a legitimate concern. I am not sure why we put commanding the armed forces into the hands of one person. (The advantage is that one person can decisively retaliate after a surprise strike on Washington. The disadvantage is that a drunk Twitter war can escalate to ending the world. Sigh!) As for irrational actors, that's another big problem. What does North Korea lose if they nuke the US? Not much; they don't have a huge economy as it is. It's a nice "fuck you" if the reigning dictator sees that the end of their regime is inevitable. MAD doesn't help with that at all. It's all actually pretty scary. We like to think that the cold war is over, but really, not all the countries of the world are at peace right now, so everything could be over in the blink of the eye and you won't see it coming. I guess keep all that in mind as you plan your day!
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      Good argument for a defection retirement program to offer by the west. We bring your family to safety and grant your retirement in style, so you do not get MAD. Let's negotiate with terrorism quitters.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  > that's little consolation for the 200,000 civilians we vaporized in an instant. And they’re the lucky ones.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    My grandpa was there as a Marine as soon as the armistice was over (he went from the horror of burning out japanese from tunnels with flamethrowers to that). He didn't talk about it much, but he sure hated Reagan and Reagan's love for nukes. By the time I was around his hips had melted away and had to be replaced. I have the Rossarie he carried there. I'm not really religious, but I figure if it could get him through a post nuclear attacked city it can be my lucky talisman as well. People make fun of the fifties 'just make it look like everyone was happy' mindset, but can you blame these people? He was a young Iowa farm boy. He grew up riding his horse to school, no cars. Then off to be a Marine in the Pacific (because he and everyone from his town was too recent of German descent to be trusted to go to Europe, plus the town had a German language newspaper before the war, which of course, by the end, no trace of being German was left. Only red blooded American English speakers) who saw the effects of nuclear war. Dude just wanted to drink a beer and listen to polka music on Laurence Welk.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  The longer MAD works, the better I feel about it. We're at 77 of nuclear peace thanks to MAD. That's a pretty good record.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    On the flip side, it's pretty hard for human systems to keep a nine nines success rate forever.
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      What’s the numerator and what’s the denominator? Numerator is nuclear wars? Nuclear bombs dropped? People killed by nuclear bombs? Years with a nuclear bomb dropped? Denominator is total wars? Number of bombs dropped? People killed in war? Years passed? By some numerators and denominators, we’re well into 99.99999x territory.
eternauta3k 2y ago
Coordination is hard?

jrockway 2y ago

Being able to destroy everyone else is what prevents them from destroying us. Something I think about and feel bad about is the "nuclear sponge". Why do we have a bunch of ICBMs in the midwest? So that if someone wants to nuke NYC, they have to nuke the Great Plains first, or face total destruction. Makes nuclear war that much more expensive. Of course, it's kind of an outdated assumption that that alone would be enough; we still have bombers and submarine-launched missiles. I have mixed feelings about mutually assured destruction; it would be nice if the human race couldn't destroy the entire planet. But, it does make sense on some level. Why don't you go up to lions in the zoo and pet them? I bet they're soft! The reason you don't is because you know it will bite your arm off. We hope the same logic applies to nuclear first strikes. (I also feel a little bad knowing that my country is the only one that ever used nuclear weapons. The world didn't end, but that's little consolation for the 200,000 civilians we vaporized in an instant.)

redmajor12 2y ago
I dont think "nuclear sponge" is a real concept that dates to the Cold War. Can you provide a reference? In a quick search, I just found poorly written and recent articles that just link to each other. Rather, the silo fields were dispersed to get out of range of sub launched missiles or soviet ICBMs that would go over the N pole, which is why some of them are very close to the Mexican border in NM (like the Titan IIs around Roswell). Of course, potential modern Russian ICBMs that have the range to go over the South Pole negate this defense and also any midrange ABM interception possibilities. I also suspect that silo locations were an early example of Congressional pork. Or, just located next to exiting SAC bases for logistical reasons, like Beale AFB in northern California.
- redmajor12 2y ago
  Never mind. This is from 1978 with respect to the MX program (although this is quite late in ICBM deployment history and I think more of a specific problem for the MX- the "Peacekeeper" was supposed to be so accurate that it was reasoned that the Soviets would see it as a first strike weapon against their missile fields, making any potential US deployment necessitate an immediate soviet response. Hence crazy basing ideas like a network of underground trains carrying the missiles.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/07/24/fresh-challenge-voiced-to-missile-shell-game/7b2f8ae3-0109-43e3-a6bd-2bc04c56f6c8/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/07/24/f...
NegativeLatency 2y ago
I think I'd prefer to go instantly in a moment via nuke than say burn to death in one of the many firebombing raids the US did on Japan during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_194... > More than 90,000 and possibly over 100,000 Japanese people were killed, mostly civilians, and one million were left homeless, making it the most destructive single air attack in human history.
- ipdashc 2y ago
  I know you didn't mean it literally, but it's still worth saying: They did not "go instantly in a moment". A few, sure. I'd assume most of them probably still burned to death, or were buried under rubble, or bled out after being cut by debris, or starved to death after being blinded. Firebombing is bad, but nukes are also really bad, there's no need to treat them as if they're merciful.
  - VoidWhisperer 2y ago
    Not to mention the further many, many people that died in excruciatingly awful ways from the radiation
the_snooze 2y ago
MAD makes sense if you assume the participants are rational and have accurate information. That's probably true on average in the long-run. But what bothers me is that it only takes one accident or miscalculation or crazy president to bring about the end of the world. And we've certainly had our fair share of close calls with bad sensor readings or training tapes being put into a live operational setting.
- jrockway 2y ago
  Yeah, I think MAD and "launch on warning" are distinct concepts. If we survive the first strike, we can rationally plan our second strike. So training tapes being played on the live system won't cause us to accidentally make a first strike; we can still assure destruction after taking a first strike. (That's why there's the nuclear triad.) I think that "launch on warning" was an official policy at some point. I am not sure if it is anymore. I don't think it's a good one and it's not necessary to deter a first strike. The missiles are underground and at unknown locations in the ocean for that reason. As for crazy presidents, yup, that is a legitimate concern. I am not sure why we put commanding the armed forces into the hands of one person. (The advantage is that one person can decisively retaliate after a surprise strike on Washington. The disadvantage is that a drunk Twitter war can escalate to ending the world. Sigh!) As for irrational actors, that's another big problem. What does North Korea lose if they nuke the US? Not much; they don't have a huge economy as it is. It's a nice "fuck you" if the reigning dictator sees that the end of their regime is inevitable. MAD doesn't help with that at all. It's all actually pretty scary. We like to think that the cold war is over, but really, not all the countries of the world are at peace right now, so everything could be over in the blink of the eye and you won't see it coming. I guess keep all that in mind as you plan your day!
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Good argument for a defection retirement program to offer by the west. We bring your family to safety and grant your retirement in style, so you do not get MAD. Let's negotiate with terrorism quitters.
xanderlewis 2y ago
> that's little consolation for the 200,000 civilians we vaporized in an instant. And they’re the lucky ones.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  My grandpa was there as a Marine as soon as the armistice was over (he went from the horror of burning out japanese from tunnels with flamethrowers to that). He didn't talk about it much, but he sure hated Reagan and Reagan's love for nukes. By the time I was around his hips had melted away and had to be replaced. I have the Rossarie he carried there. I'm not really religious, but I figure if it could get him through a post nuclear attacked city it can be my lucky talisman as well. People make fun of the fifties 'just make it look like everyone was happy' mindset, but can you blame these people? He was a young Iowa farm boy. He grew up riding his horse to school, no cars. Then off to be a Marine in the Pacific (because he and everyone from his town was too recent of German descent to be trusted to go to Europe, plus the town had a German language newspaper before the war, which of course, by the end, no trace of being German was left. Only red blooded American English speakers) who saw the effects of nuclear war. Dude just wanted to drink a beer and listen to polka music on Laurence Welk.
pyuser583 2y ago
The longer MAD works, the better I feel about it. We're at 77 of nuclear peace thanks to MAD. That's a pretty good record.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  On the flip side, it's pretty hard for human systems to keep a nine nines success rate forever.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    What’s the numerator and what’s the denominator? Numerator is nuclear wars? Nuclear bombs dropped? People killed by nuclear bombs? Years with a nuclear bomb dropped? Denominator is total wars? Number of bombs dropped? People killed in war? Years passed? By some numerators and denominators, we’re well into 99.99999x territory.

eternauta3k 2y ago

Coordination is hard?