Hacker News Reader

Comment by alanh | Hacker News Reader

Well, I don’t think my eyes have ever bugged out so much over an HN submission title!

⁂

> The Presidential identification (ID) codes … could delay implementation long enough to prevent a rapid response

To me, a naïve human who doesn’t want to see a nuclear winter, it seems that we should be optimizing for human life instead of immediate revenge. I would even dare to hope the response to a nuclear launch would be to roll over and surrender for the greater good. And while I’m no expert in game theory, I suppose the official line is that guaranteeing mutually assured destruction was the only way to prevent all nuclear attacks.

View on HN

Thats the error nobody ever see in the MAD scenario - until the missiles are launched, it is absolutely in the interest of both sides to threaten to launch in the event the other side does so.

The moment the missiles are launched however, the side that didn't launch no longer has any advantage to launching a counter strike (assuming an all out strike was launched, not just one with a few missiles) and the leaders have every advantage to broker a deal for refuge in the other country, as theirs will soon be uninhabitable.

There have been hints that a number of politicians who might have had to issue a retaliation order might have refused to do so from purely moral reasons.

In Richard Rhodes Arsenals of Folly a close adviser to Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying:

"I think deep down he doubted that he could bring himself to strike another country with [nuclear weapons]"

Somewhat to my surprise, I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.

“I'm from the UK and was in my teens in the 1980s where Reagan wasn't exactly portrayed in a positive light, I've found myself believing that Reagan probably would have had the moral courage to do such a thing.”

That’s definitely what you want everyone to think. If I ever were in such a position of power I would leave no doubt about my will to strike back and in the critical moment don’t do it. I have no trouble believing that some other people think just like that.

About issuing orders to fire, some might find this clip from "Yes, Prime Minister" funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUzRJfAc-HU

edit: actually this one is even more appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjaAqY_KFdw

There are also the handwritten "letter of last resort" - which add a frightfully British aspect to the command and control of nuclear weapons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

>The moment the missiles are launched however, the side that didn't launch no longer has any advantage to launching a counter strike

My keen-jerk reaction is this: If your opponent wins without retaliation then they have probably won power over the whole globe. The hope of retaliation presumably would be to allow your allies, your nearest neighbours in cultural/ideological terms, to win the war despite you having won the battle.

Yes, winning the war might mean being the only few survivors in a world that was practically wrecked and having to start from nearly nothing to rebuild. But your own ideologies would be more likely to "win" if you retaliated, no?

If they don't respond quick enough mutually assured destruction quickly becomes America only destruction. No doubt any all out attack would quickly aim to incapacitate the other sides ability to respond.

How is America only destruction worse than mutual destruction? That's what I'm saying, it's not a humanistic or broadly moral outlook

Edit I’m not talking about hitting strategic targets (do those really require H-bombs anyway?). And thanks for clarifying that the lives of citizens in allied countries are worth so much more than Russian citizens.

Well, supposing motivation to totally destroy a country, allowing both to take out each others military installations may result in less loss of life that one side being totally dominant. Obviously either situation is beyond terrible.

Nuclear weapons (and all other sufficiently powerful weapons) really do suck.

Since it would be very hard, though, for nations to keep enough around for mutually assured destruction without anyone noticing (or so I think) I would think that disarmament is not an entirely crazy idea. I would even assume that an agreement by the US, Russia and China would be sufficient. (I’m not sure to what extent Pakistan and India can threaten the rest of the World and I really don’t think Israel and North Korea matter. I’m also pretty sure that France and the UK would follow the US because they would look pretty stupid if they wouldn’t.)

A successful retaliatory attack by America could prevent the enemy from attacking our allies after they've hit us.

Given the amount of American military infrastructure that was in the UK (and other allies) during the cold war any attack on the United States would almost certainly have included missile and bomber attacks on the allies.

Also with the fact that most Western European countries are quite small and densely populated compared to the United States and the Soviet Union the carnage here would have been indescribable (although if you want a feeling for what a "best case" attack might have been like feel free to watch Threads).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com