4 ms·

Would they prefer that only USSR had an H-bomb, but not USA?

by stackedinserter 2y ago

bobthepanda 2y ago
Do two wrongs make a right?
- xp84 2y ago
  That's not the point, GP is pointing out how we only control (at least theoretically, lol) our own government, and basic game theory can tell you that countries that adopt pacifist ideas and refuse to pursue anything that might be dangerous will always at some point be easily defeated by others who are less moral. The point is that it's complicated, it's not a black and white sound bite like the people who are "against nuclear weapons" pretend it is.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    And people don't have to feel comfortable with complicated things. The GP posted "would you prefer" as a disingenous point to invalidate the commenter's parents' feelings. I eat meat. I know some vegans feel uncomfortable with that. But personally I feel secure in my own convictions that I don't need to run around insinuating vegans are less than or whatever.
    - stackedinserter 2y ago
      Your survival doesn't depend on the amount of meat you consume.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        Your survival also doesn’t depend on somebody’s discomfort or comfort with nuclear weapons, either. What’s the point of thought policing?
        stackedinserter 2y ago
        With enough anti-military, anti-nuclear, anti-whatever-looks-scary-to-them people we'll stand with our pants down, just like EU or Canada these days. There was a lot of activism during the Cold war of that kind, lucky for US there weren't enough "discomforted" people back then.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  Three rights make a left.
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
I don't think that's the nature of the argument that I was responding to.
- stackedinserter 2y ago
  So what? Would they?
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Nuclear arms races are a form of multipolar trap, and like any multipolar trap, you are compelled to keep up, making your own life worse, even while wishing that you and your opponent could cooperatively escape the trap. The discussion I was responding to is whether the next generation would grow up seeing pervasive AI as a normal and good thing, as is often the case with new technology. I cited nuclear weapons as a counterexample, while I agree that nobody felt that they had a choice but to keep up with them. AI could similarly be a multipolar trap ("nobody likes it but we aren't going to accept an AI gap with Russia!"), which would mean it has that in common with nuclear weapons, strengthening the argument against the next generation being comfortable with AI.
    - stackedinserter 2y ago
      You don't need that much warheads to saturate your military needs. Number of possible targets is limited, in older plans there was clearly absurd overkill when a few nukes were assigned to a single target. Also, nukes don't write code or wash your dishes, it's nothing but liability for a society.

Would they prefer that only USSR had an H-bomb, but not USA?

bobthepanda 2y ago

Do two wrongs make a right?

xp84 2y ago
That's not the point, GP is pointing out how we only control (at least theoretically, lol) our own government, and basic game theory can tell you that countries that adopt pacifist ideas and refuse to pursue anything that might be dangerous will always at some point be easily defeated by others who are less moral. The point is that it's complicated, it's not a black and white sound bite like the people who are "against nuclear weapons" pretend it is.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  And people don't have to feel comfortable with complicated things. The GP posted "would you prefer" as a disingenous point to invalidate the commenter's parents' feelings. I eat meat. I know some vegans feel uncomfortable with that. But personally I feel secure in my own convictions that I don't need to run around insinuating vegans are less than or whatever.
  - stackedinserter 2y ago
    Your survival doesn't depend on the amount of meat you consume.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      Your survival also doesn’t depend on somebody’s discomfort or comfort with nuclear weapons, either. What’s the point of thought policing?
      - stackedinserter 2y ago
        With enough anti-military, anti-nuclear, anti-whatever-looks-scary-to-them people we'll stand with our pants down, just like EU or Canada these days. There was a lot of activism during the Cold war of that kind, lucky for US there weren't enough "discomforted" people back then.
Der_Einzige 2y ago
Three rights make a left.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

I don't think that's the nature of the argument that I was responding to.

stackedinserter 2y ago
So what? Would they?
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Nuclear arms races are a form of multipolar trap, and like any multipolar trap, you are compelled to keep up, making your own life worse, even while wishing that you and your opponent could cooperatively escape the trap. The discussion I was responding to is whether the next generation would grow up seeing pervasive AI as a normal and good thing, as is often the case with new technology. I cited nuclear weapons as a counterexample, while I agree that nobody felt that they had a choice but to keep up with them. AI could similarly be a multipolar trap ("nobody likes it but we aren't going to accept an AI gap with Russia!"), which would mean it has that in common with nuclear weapons, strengthening the argument against the next generation being comfortable with AI.
  - stackedinserter 2y ago
    You don't need that much warheads to saturate your military needs. Number of possible targets is limited, in older plans there was clearly absurd overkill when a few nukes were assigned to a single target. Also, nukes don't write code or wash your dishes, it's nothing but liability for a society.