4 ms·

> Others believe -- mainly on the political -- that Brilliant Pebbles is a classic fallacy that attracts those who believe there is a technological solution to

> Others believe -- mainly on the political -- that Brilliant Pebbles is a classic fallacy that attracts those who believe there is a technological solution to everything without understanding the value of diplomacy and the fundamental interdependence of humanity. It is thought unlikely to be reliable and will inevitably lead to an arms race where either side shortens the time to launch nukes (by pre-launching / staging them in orbit or otherwise). Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives. Several countries have enough nukes to kill the whole population of earth multiple times over. Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death. The question for this type of system isn't "Could I picture any scenario where it works?" but rather "Can I picture any scenario where it doesn't?"

bloopernova 2y ago
I was interested in the claim that we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe ourselves out. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-enough-nuclear-weapons-to-wipe-out-all-of-humanity https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-... I guess it depends on how you want to wipe out humanity. Nuclear winter or ecosystem disruption might do it, but explosions and radiation probably won't.
TMWNN 2y ago
>Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives. There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. (See my full comment elsewhere.) >Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death. No such alternative delivery method is 100% guaranteed to get through to the target as ICBMs were (until recently). There is always the risk that a ship carrying nukes is intercepted, that a weapon smuggled into the enemy's territory is detected, that counterintelligence will identify agents before they can act, etc. In a MAD scenario, nuclear weapons have to be 100% effective, barring the odd technical failure. Otherwise the enemy will respond in kind.

bloopernova 2y ago

I was interested in the claim that we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe ourselves out. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-enough-nuclear-weapons-to-wipe-out-all-of-humanity https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-... I guess it depends on how you want to wipe out humanity. Nuclear winter or ecosystem disruption might do it, but explosions and radiation probably won't.

TMWNN 2y ago

>Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives. There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. (See my full comment elsewhere.) >Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death. No such alternative delivery method is 100% guaranteed to get through to the target as ICBMs were (until recently). There is always the risk that a ship carrying nukes is intercepted, that a weapon smuggled into the enemy's territory is detected, that counterintelligence will identify agents before they can act, etc. In a MAD scenario, nuclear weapons have to be 100% effective, barring the odd technical failure. Otherwise the enemy will respond in kind.