Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kenji | Hacker News Reader

I always say, just like revolvers are equalizers for humans, nukes are equalizers for countries. I think nuclear proliferation is a good thing.

View on HN

Agreed. Of-course this also raises the possibility that somewhere, a perfectly rational actor would see no way out but to use one. There are historical examples where things were quite on the brink:

1. Israel threatened to use them in the opening days of 1973 war: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinion/the-last-nuclear-m...

2. Pakistan threatened to use them in 1986-87 during operation brasstacks: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/03/29/on-the-nuclear-...

3. North Korea today.

>Of-course this also raises the possibility that somewhere, a perfectly rational actor would see no way out but to use one. There are historical examples where things were quite on the brink

And, of course, the one time it actually happened.

you mean couple times.

and they didn't forget. they just internalize what that supposed rational actor would count on: that by wining, you get to be the good guy in history's eye.

I'm counting both as the result of a single "decision by a rational actor."

If a rational actor sees no way out but to use a nuke, then there is a much larger irrational actor that is tyrannizing the world and needs to be destroyed. And since the actor is rational, it will have carefully considered the choice and have come to the conclusion that the loss of life was worth it, for an end of tyranny.

Both actors could be perfectly rational and fighting over a scarce resource such as fresh water.

"I think nuclear proliferation is a good thing."

Except, you know, when we accidentally blow up the entire world:

Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Thank you Vasili Arkhipov, the man who stopped nuclear war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

oh god. you must have never heard the words INDIA, or PAKISTAN, OR BROKEN ARROW, or CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS, or FIRST STRIKE....

This is perhaps the most inanely dumb thing I've ever read. I am sorry. I need to remove my veneer of politeness. It will probably be fine with North Korea...but NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION is unquestionably, unquestionably bad. The chance for irrational behavior or mistakes or bad actors obtaining weapons or nation states losing control of events....

good god man. go douse your face with cold water. you need to get your head on right.

There is a difference between something being rational in the context of one nation's foreign policy...and "GOOD"

Sure, the US and Russia should go first in ridding themselves of nuclear weapons since they seem to have the most. Then we can really talk about non-nuclear proliferation. There's really no reason anyone should have these immensely dangerous weapons, other than for MAD. But should these nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth states push others around while largely keeping their own nukes, what kind of message does that send?

the US and Russia will never disarm fully. never. don't even bother discussing it. Russia will never disarm because without nukes they believe they could be crushed at will by the conventional weapons of the west. they feel encircled by NATO. The united states will never disarm fully because russia will never disarm. the best we can hope for is reductions in forces and greater transparency and communication to reduce the risk of misinterpreting the other's intentions or some terrible accident. The reason states have nuclear weapons is deterrence (aka MAD) which is quite a compelling reason... Honestly I don't really think you and I have any disagreement? It is hard to convince people to disarm when they have seen the consequences thereof- see Iraq, see Libya, see Ukraine. As for nuclear armed to the teeth states pushing people around, this is because the United States and Russia have large conventional militaries. The nuclear option is more a constraint on the aggression of others- since any offensive use of nuclear weapons could induce a massive chain reaction. Nuclear armed-to-the teeth states push others around (by this I assume you mean the US and Russia) because they have the conventional means.

Do you also always wear a suicide vest in case anyone wants fight you?

In cease "someone" overpowers you and threatens to kill you with knife up in the ass, then yes - you better wear suicide vest.

Nice strawman, but in reality you can punch back at someone who wants to fight or run away. When all you have is one planet and there exists a few cunning and belligerent actors with immense resources and oversized military budgets, you don't have the same options when you're cornered.

I only bring a metaphorical suicide vest when I am being honest on hackernews. I have spectacularly unpopular opinions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com