4 ms·

Tangential, but one thing that really irks me is when people advocate for nuclear proliferation as a safety feature. Aside from just the potential for accident

Tangential, but one thing that really irks me is when people advocate for nuclear proliferation as a safety feature. Aside from just the potential for accidents, one has to consider the potential for irrational actors or those who choose to employ game theory more recklessly. And when I think of Metcalfe's law, I feel this sort of horror about the idea of proliferation and the loss of control in communication (which was of course vital in preventing Armageddon during the Cold War.) I think ultimately, future security will come from defensive technology and I believe that's the most noble pursuit for engineers wishing to leave an indelible mark on humanity. There is of course no defensive solution against those who wish to build Sundial [0] or Poseidon [1]. Humanity appears to be unequipped to carry the mantle of life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial_(weapon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial_(weapon) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_...

hyperific 7mo ago
You might like "The Bomb" documentary from 2016. "[It] explores the culture surrounding nuclear weapons, the fascination they inspire and the perverse appeal they still exert." https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5596034/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5596034/ https://www.thebombnow.com/ https://www.thebombnow.com/
watwut 7mo ago
The truble is, that with current new world order, not having nuclear power means you are helpless sitting duck for active insatiable bullies. Like, there is no other option - not having them means you will be turned into rubble or will have to pay a lot for not being tuned into rubble. The most aggressive states have nuclear power. The countries they attacked dont.
- lwansbrough 7mo ago
  You are arguing in favour of a nuclear apocalypse.
  - krapp 7mo ago
    They're arguing in favor of MAD, which kept the US and Soviets from bathing the entire world in radioactive fire for approximately 45 years, and is the only thing keeping American and Chinese imperialism even slightly constrained. If you have a better idea, we're all ears. Disarmament isn't an option, the destroyer is here so choose its form.
    - lwansbrough 7mo ago
      MAD assumes rational actors and perfect game play. Ultimately what stopped armageddon wasn’t MAD but the blind faith of Stanislav Petrov. States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.
      - krapp 7mo ago
        >States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power. "Joining the nuclear umbrella of a greater power" implies MAD as a doctrine, unless there is only one nuclear power. And that's just imperialism. Ask former Soviet states or Europe or Canada currently how things work out as a vassal of their liege lord.
        lwansbrough 7mo ago
        I'm not saying MAD is a bad doctrine, I'm saying it breaks down as the complexity of diplomacy increases quadratically with the number of nuclear equipped actors. I'm Canadian. Things are good here. Obtaining a bomb wouldn't make life materially better for anyone in Canada, nor would it defend us against the US. Not to mention anybody could drive a nuke into the middle of Manhattan and detonate it and you'd maybe never know who was responsible. The importance of non-proliferation cannot be understated.
        krapp 7mo ago
        Non-proliferation is a dead end. No one trusts the US to act in good faith. Any nation that doesn't get a nuclear warhead and point it at Washngton DC knows they're just one American Presidential scandal away from getting their teeth kicked in.
- hammock 7mo ago
  Not sure why you’re being downvoted. There is not a country on earth without a nuke that has not been either attacked or pays a lot (whether it’s taking IMF loans, or assenting to coordinated central banking policy etc) I disagree with the other comments that you are necessarily advocating that everyone gets a nuke. Not every state has to be fully free and sovereign. The world has never worked that way (now of course the striving and tension will always be there, the world is dynamic and people forget that)
amdivia 7mo ago
Although I agree with the general sentiment, but I'll slightly push back on the "nobility" of any engineering pursuit. Such things are highly amoral (not immoral) and context specific Assume an "Evil" state worked on defensive technology that can foil any nuclear attacks against it. Now, this allows this "Evil" state to use it's own nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. So in this example the innovation made in defensive technologies allowed for war and destruction
- lwansbrough 7mo ago
  Well of course, which is why we prohibited the development of defence tech in the ABM treaty. But that doesn't stop non-nuclear states from developing anti-nuke defence technology. Perhaps the only reason why they don't is because it's harder than building a nuke.
- paulddraper 7mo ago
  It is incredible naïveté to associate technology as good and bad. Which one is the Internet
  - amdivia 7mo ago
    Exactly, that's why I objected to the "noble" aspect of working on defensive technologies
nextaccountic 7mo ago
Too much defensive technology makes an attacker bolder and surer there will be no retaliation, though
slim 7mo ago
Your mistake is you think your point of view can be universal. It can't because "the game" you're talking about is already playing and if you were iranian being killed because you don't have the nuclear bomb, the only thing that would make sense for you is to have your own nuclear bomb. The same goes for any non white majority state which sees the return of colonialism and thinks the only way to stay safe from aggression is having the nuclear bomb.

hyperific 7mo ago

You might like "The Bomb" documentary from 2016. "[It] explores the culture surrounding nuclear weapons, the fascination they inspire and the perverse appeal they still exert." https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5596034/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5596034/ https://www.thebombnow.com/ https://www.thebombnow.com/

watwut 7mo ago

The truble is, that with current new world order, not having nuclear power means you are helpless sitting duck for active insatiable bullies. Like, there is no other option - not having them means you will be turned into rubble or will have to pay a lot for not being tuned into rubble. The most aggressive states have nuclear power. The countries they attacked dont.

lwansbrough 7mo ago
You are arguing in favour of a nuclear apocalypse.
- krapp 7mo ago
  They're arguing in favor of MAD, which kept the US and Soviets from bathing the entire world in radioactive fire for approximately 45 years, and is the only thing keeping American and Chinese imperialism even slightly constrained. If you have a better idea, we're all ears. Disarmament isn't an option, the destroyer is here so choose its form.
  - lwansbrough 7mo ago
    MAD assumes rational actors and perfect game play. Ultimately what stopped armageddon wasn’t MAD but the blind faith of Stanislav Petrov. States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.
    - krapp 7mo ago
      >States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power. "Joining the nuclear umbrella of a greater power" implies MAD as a doctrine, unless there is only one nuclear power. And that's just imperialism. Ask former Soviet states or Europe or Canada currently how things work out as a vassal of their liege lord.
      - lwansbrough 7mo ago
        I'm not saying MAD is a bad doctrine, I'm saying it breaks down as the complexity of diplomacy increases quadratically with the number of nuclear equipped actors. I'm Canadian. Things are good here. Obtaining a bomb wouldn't make life materially better for anyone in Canada, nor would it defend us against the US. Not to mention anybody could drive a nuke into the middle of Manhattan and detonate it and you'd maybe never know who was responsible. The importance of non-proliferation cannot be understated.
        krapp 7mo ago
        Non-proliferation is a dead end. No one trusts the US to act in good faith. Any nation that doesn't get a nuclear warhead and point it at Washngton DC knows they're just one American Presidential scandal away from getting their teeth kicked in.
hammock 7mo ago
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. There is not a country on earth without a nuke that has not been either attacked or pays a lot (whether it’s taking IMF loans, or assenting to coordinated central banking policy etc) I disagree with the other comments that you are necessarily advocating that everyone gets a nuke. Not every state has to be fully free and sovereign. The world has never worked that way (now of course the striving and tension will always be there, the world is dynamic and people forget that)

amdivia 7mo ago

Although I agree with the general sentiment, but I'll slightly push back on the "nobility" of any engineering pursuit. Such things are highly amoral (not immoral) and context specific Assume an "Evil" state worked on defensive technology that can foil any nuclear attacks against it. Now, this allows this "Evil" state to use it's own nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. So in this example the innovation made in defensive technologies allowed for war and destruction

lwansbrough 7mo ago
Well of course, which is why we prohibited the development of defence tech in the ABM treaty. But that doesn't stop non-nuclear states from developing anti-nuke defence technology. Perhaps the only reason why they don't is because it's harder than building a nuke.
paulddraper 7mo ago
It is incredible naïveté to associate technology as good and bad. Which one is the Internet
- amdivia 7mo ago
  Exactly, that's why I objected to the "noble" aspect of working on defensive technologies

nextaccountic 7mo ago

Too much defensive technology makes an attacker bolder and surer there will be no retaliation, though

slim 7mo ago

Your mistake is you think your point of view can be universal. It can't because "the game" you're talking about is already playing and if you were iranian being killed because you don't have the nuclear bomb, the only thing that would make sense for you is to have your own nuclear bomb. The same goes for any non white majority state which sees the return of colonialism and thinks the only way to stay safe from aggression is having the nuclear bomb.