4 ms·

It is, as so often the case, a classic prisoner's dilemma problem [0]: "no nukes" is pretty clearly superior to "any nukes at all", but "they have nukes but we

It is, as so often the case, a classic prisoner's dilemma problem [0]: "no nukes" is pretty clearly superior to "any nukes at all", but "they have nukes but we don't" is game over, so... nukes for all (major world powers)! It's awful, but that's the prisoner's dilemma for you. I have a hard time respecting any anti-nuclear activist who doesn't at least acknowledge this facet of things, even if "no one has nukes and no one can easily get them" really would be best for the world. [0]: if anyone hasn't seen it before, the interactive https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ on the iterated prisoner's dilemma is excellent

tomp 2y ago
No, I disagree. There hasn't been a hot war between nuclear powered states, ever. This is pretty obviously superior compared with the previous "no nukes" era, that had plenty of hot wars...
- jhbadger 2y ago
  Define "hot war". There have been plenty of fighting in border regions of India and Pakistan in recent years, and both have nukes. India since 1974 and Pakistan since 1998.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Chinese troops and Soviet planes were there in Korea.
- exmadscientist 2y ago
  I would contend that it's really interconnectedness (aka globalization) and the general march of technology (especially long-distance weapons) that have contributed to the (very) relative peace of the post-WWII age, but I will readily admit that your point of view is very reasonable and there is a genuine discussion to be had here.
- keybored 2y ago
  There have been plenty of wars being fought. And even proxy wars between nuclear powers! But those don’t affect you. And I’m sure you are 100% convinced that if we could snap our fingers and give all sovereign states nukes then all fighting would stop. So what’s the point. And if you’re wrong? Then we only risk the permanent destruction of advanced human organization. No biggie.
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
If the past 8 years have shown us anything, it's that we are capable of electing incredibly stupid people who likely would get us into war if being blown back into the stone age weren't a possibility. I like nuclear weapons for that reason. It scares tyrants into complacency on the larger scale.
keybored 2y ago
God, spare the world from nerds and their game theories. There have been enough nuclear trigger close calls already.
- exmadscientist 2y ago
  > spare the world from ... game theories I don't think this point of view is at all defensible. The "game theory" I am referencing is the most basic thing, the very foundation of that discipline, and if you don't think it is applicable, I posit the following scenario: Consider the Cold War-era state of affairs (because we seem to be heading back that way, at least a little bit), with the following variations: A. Nuclear weapons do not exist. B. USA has nuclear weapons. Russia does not. C. Russia has nuclear weapons. USA does not. D. Both USA and Russia have nuclear weapons. Suppose you're an American. (WLOG, so adjust appropriately.) Now rank those four possible scenarios in order of your personal preference. Personally, I'd rank C dead last. If you don't... why?
  - keybored 2y ago
    [dead]

tomp 2y ago

No, I disagree. There hasn't been a hot war between nuclear powered states, ever. This is pretty obviously superior compared with the previous "no nukes" era, that had plenty of hot wars...

jhbadger 2y ago
Define "hot war". There have been plenty of fighting in border regions of India and Pakistan in recent years, and both have nukes. India since 1974 and Pakistan since 1998.
whatshisface 2y ago
Chinese troops and Soviet planes were there in Korea.
exmadscientist 2y ago
I would contend that it's really interconnectedness (aka globalization) and the general march of technology (especially long-distance weapons) that have contributed to the (very) relative peace of the post-WWII age, but I will readily admit that your point of view is very reasonable and there is a genuine discussion to be had here.
keybored 2y ago
There have been plenty of wars being fought. And even proxy wars between nuclear powers! But those don’t affect you. And I’m sure you are 100% convinced that if we could snap our fingers and give all sovereign states nukes then all fighting would stop. So what’s the point. And if you’re wrong? Then we only risk the permanent destruction of advanced human organization. No biggie.

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

If the past 8 years have shown us anything, it's that we are capable of electing incredibly stupid people who likely would get us into war if being blown back into the stone age weren't a possibility. I like nuclear weapons for that reason. It scares tyrants into complacency on the larger scale.

keybored 2y ago

God, spare the world from nerds and their game theories. There have been enough nuclear trigger close calls already.

exmadscientist 2y ago
> spare the world from ... game theories I don't think this point of view is at all defensible. The "game theory" I am referencing is the most basic thing, the very foundation of that discipline, and if you don't think it is applicable, I posit the following scenario: Consider the Cold War-era state of affairs (because we seem to be heading back that way, at least a little bit), with the following variations: A. Nuclear weapons do not exist. B. USA has nuclear weapons. Russia does not. C. Russia has nuclear weapons. USA does not. D. Both USA and Russia have nuclear weapons. Suppose you're an American. (WLOG, so adjust appropriately.) Now rank those four possible scenarios in order of your personal preference. Personally, I'd rank C dead last. If you don't... why?
- keybored 2y ago
  [dead]