4 ms·

15-30 minutes is a long time to marinate in thoughts about what we've just unleashed. Under pressure it's possible that MAD would fail due to mutiny, confusion

15-30 minutes is a long time to marinate in thoughts about what we've just unleashed. Under pressure it's possible that MAD would fail due to mutiny, confusion (determining who is still in charge and who is authorized to cancel strikes), conspiracy, or direct enemy intervention (assaulting a bunker where the un-launch codes are). If the decision theory behind MAD weakens due to those possibilities it makes a first strike more likely. Precommitments have to be irrevocable in order to work. Mutual disarmament is the way to go. It just takes a long time and a lot of stability.

notepad0x90 2y ago
Mutual disarmament does not work, if you think it would then you might be best served studying human history in warfare and human nature in general. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. the milk is spilled and you can't unspill it. disarmament is one of the few ways you can guarantee a nuclear war. in fact things would go the other way, with cheaper and smaller nuclear technology, newer, more precise and more efficient nuclear weapons are inevitable. Diplomatic deterrence, MAD doctrine and effective countermeasures against delivery systems are practical means of actually reducing the risk of nuclear war.
- benlivengood 2y ago
  I'm not optimistic about mutual disarmament in my lifetime, but that's because there's perpetual unstable geopolitics. I'm just saying the safest path away from MAD is mutual disarmament, not weakening the current precommitments to it.
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    let's say everyone in the world disarmed. it takes one unstable country or blood thirsty leader in one country to secretly build a nuke and use that dominate other countries. Is it unreasonable to anticipate that, given our species' history? When that happens, not only would it restart an arms race, other countries would be forced to use their newly developed nuke either in retaliation or preemptively. You also have to keep in mind the human prejudice, "a thief always suspects others are trying to steal from him." official stockpiles may be discarded with but secret and unofficial nukes will always be there because militaries and will always suspect other militaries to be as devious as they themselves are. Lastly, look at the START treaty, after Putin got all war hungry, he suspended Russia's participation, because he realized even a smaller country like Ukraine can challenge Russia's ability to dominate geopolitics or even remain sovereign without nukes. North Korea rightfully anticipated that nukes were the only way they could preserve their government (for better or worse). The problem of war itself would need to be solved before nuclear disarmament can be a practical solution.
a_vanderbilt 2y ago
Nuclear disarmament will only occur when defensive mechanisms and new weapons make contemporary nuclear weapons obsolete. I think this will happen in approximately 40 years. Once the codes are distributed to the stewards of the PALs, the confusion and mutiny won't matter, as at least some warheads will launch. Maybe there will be cancelations, but I find that to be a happy thought, not a practical one. I agree with your thought process though. Stability, be it through superseding technology or civics is what will cause these weapons to be cast aside. Mutual disarmament will occur when stability is at its apex.

notepad0x90 2y ago

Mutual disarmament does not work, if you think it would then you might be best served studying human history in warfare and human nature in general. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. the milk is spilled and you can't unspill it. disarmament is one of the few ways you can guarantee a nuclear war. in fact things would go the other way, with cheaper and smaller nuclear technology, newer, more precise and more efficient nuclear weapons are inevitable. Diplomatic deterrence, MAD doctrine and effective countermeasures against delivery systems are practical means of actually reducing the risk of nuclear war.

benlivengood 2y ago
I'm not optimistic about mutual disarmament in my lifetime, but that's because there's perpetual unstable geopolitics. I'm just saying the safest path away from MAD is mutual disarmament, not weakening the current precommitments to it.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  let's say everyone in the world disarmed. it takes one unstable country or blood thirsty leader in one country to secretly build a nuke and use that dominate other countries. Is it unreasonable to anticipate that, given our species' history? When that happens, not only would it restart an arms race, other countries would be forced to use their newly developed nuke either in retaliation or preemptively. You also have to keep in mind the human prejudice, "a thief always suspects others are trying to steal from him." official stockpiles may be discarded with but secret and unofficial nukes will always be there because militaries and will always suspect other militaries to be as devious as they themselves are. Lastly, look at the START treaty, after Putin got all war hungry, he suspended Russia's participation, because he realized even a smaller country like Ukraine can challenge Russia's ability to dominate geopolitics or even remain sovereign without nukes. North Korea rightfully anticipated that nukes were the only way they could preserve their government (for better or worse). The problem of war itself would need to be solved before nuclear disarmament can be a practical solution.

a_vanderbilt 2y ago

Nuclear disarmament will only occur when defensive mechanisms and new weapons make contemporary nuclear weapons obsolete. I think this will happen in approximately 40 years. Once the codes are distributed to the stewards of the PALs, the confusion and mutiny won't matter, as at least some warheads will launch. Maybe there will be cancelations, but I find that to be a happy thought, not a practical one. I agree with your thought process though. Stability, be it through superseding technology or civics is what will cause these weapons to be cast aside. Mutual disarmament will occur when stability is at its apex.