Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Cold war doctrine was the other way around; it was assumed that once the other side's missiles launched, you were already dead, and the only way to prevent that launch was as strong a commitment to retaliation as possible. Hence the UK deploying its nuclear deterrent at sea, since the UK is small enough that Soviet ICBMs had enough coverage to destroy all military installations on the island several times over. Along with most of the population.

Mutual assured destruction may be the only thing limiting the Kashmir conflict, for example.

The definitive film on this is of course Dr Strangelove.

View on HN

GP stated:

> I don't think leaders would really retaliate a nuclear attack

This is actually a fairly reasonable assumption, and is a major headache for deterrence - credible threats are hard to make. Cold War policy was designed around discrediting the assumption, but only because it is such a reasonable one. Once the missiles are flying, there is no rational reason to retaliate; and states have an incentive to exaggerate their willingness to retaliate. This is the whole motivation of a branch of deterrence theory called "signaling", whose main study is the way that actors can commit themselves to escalation in a way that is costly to back down from, in order to make an opponent think you're not bluffing. See also madman theory.

This was one reason for the switch from the "massive response" of the Eisenhower years to the "flexible response" of the Kennedy years; it strained credulity that anyone would actually go through with massive response in reaction to minor conflicts. In related policy, the USAF may crack down on nuclear missile crews who are unwilling to fire in the case of a nuclear war, but they're even more paranoid about crews publicly saying they wouldn't pull the trigger.

>Once the missiles are flying, there is no rational reason to retaliate

I've seen this written a lot, but I find it confusing. There certainly seem to be a number of rational reasons to retaliate, even if one wishes to engage in a bit of definition play and claim that simple revenge isn't rational (though in game theory successful strategies must include some degree of retaliation alongside forgiveness).

But on a purely practical basis, one issue is that in reality it appears the most likely outcome of nuclear war isn't "the total extinction of humanity" as so many stories go. Yes many people will die, but there will be lots and lots of survivors as well. They will then have to continue on and rebuild, and hopefully (at least to members of the previous culture in power) that rebuilding will involve some level of the better parts of the old culture. Ie., after nuking a lot of Americans might hope that while a New America would undoubtedly be quite different in some respects and make some new choices that would be better, it'd still have liberty and much of the bill of rights and such remain as ideals.

But however unlikely that is, it would be even harder/impossible if a hostile nuclear power remained completely undamaged, as the last unattacked nation left standing would de facto become the world superpower or even fully conquer everything left. If every hostile is reduced down equivalently in contrast than at least the survivors are on a more even starting point, it won't be whatever can be scrounged together facing a fully operational military industrial complex.

In summary: anyone who'd choose to fire a ton of nukes at you in a first strike (*differing from first use) isn't someone you want to trust to take care of you afterwards. It's rationally arguable that making sure they're left in a recovery state too increases your survivors' chances.

>> It's rationally arguable that making sure they're left in a recovery state too increases your survivors' chances.

But if you are in position to launch the counterattack(say sitting in a missile silo with your hand on the launch button), then once the missiles are on their way to you, you are dead. It might take them 30-60 minutes to actually get there, but you are dead anyway. Absolutely nothing you can do at that point will change that. Retaliating will not improve your current situation. And yes, it might improve the chances of the survivors, but at the same time, you know that if you press that button millions of people will die. I think I'd just leave it at that point.

>But if you are in position to launch the counterattack(say sitting in a missile silo with your hand on the launch button), then once the missiles are on their way to you, you are dead.

Can you explain why you think this is relevant? Military/security personnel accepting their own deaths as part of winning is hardly some alien concept. If you're sitting in a missile silo ready to launch then you will have gone through a lot of training (and/or indoctrination), mental prep, and practice for the event that is hoped to never come and knowing that if it does your life will be one of many gone. In fact, even for civilians if you're guaranteed to be dead anyway but have a few minutes left to make a difference, that could just as easily trigger a "well, might as well spend whatever I've got left trying to take the enemy with me and ensure my side still has a chance" mindset.

Also, thinking out the implications of your argument the moral position appears dubious in other ways. For example, it suggests that it'd be preferable to initiate a first strike, and wipe out all those millions, if you knew that would save your own hide and side vs a second strike after already being attacked in the hope of helping others beyond yourself. And if not that then it ends up "well I wouldn't push it no matter what", in which case you wouldn't be there right? And what if it's not "millions" in for your launch? You need to define how many it's ok to kill, like if your particular silo is aimed at military targets, other silos out in the middle of nowhere. Or does your argument boil down to total pacifism?

>And yes, it might improve the chances of the survivors, but at the same time, you know that if you press that button millions of people will die.

Millions of people will die anyway. Millions of your people. Whereas the millions (or hundreds/dozens, see above, many missiles aren't aimed at cities) you kill by pushing the button will be the millions who were on the side that killed your millions and may well be reasonably expected to then come and finish the job for your millions of survivors [1]. Remember, the argument here is whether there is a rational position in favor of launching. Many debates have multiple fully rational but conflicting positions, nothing wrong with that! But that doesn't mean they aren't all rational in and of themselves.

You can certainly hold the moral position that every life is valuable and that leaving the enemy, no matter how horrid, to profit from mass nuclear attack and take over the world is the right thing to do anyway. I'm just saying that such a position is not the only rational one at all.

>I think I'd just leave it at that point.

I think you wouldn't pass screening to be put into that position in the first place, even assuming you volunteered for it which it doesn't sound like you would. I can't say I'd want to be in that position either, though at the same time I want to be cognizant of my shared responsibility for it as a citizen.

----

1: At least for America, most of the population is urban, but with a total of over 320 million that still leaves a lot of people in rural areas. Specifically (based on the last census numbers I found) about 97% of the land area of 3.8 million mi^2 is classified as "rural", and it contains about 19% of the population (so about 60 million people). Even in the case of all urban centers being destroyed that's still a lot of people left in absolute terms. It is for example more people than the total national population for the first century of the country's existence (up until around 1890).

>Military/security personnel accepting their own deaths as part of winning is hardly some alien concept.

Sure - on paper. The guy in the field sure as hell doesn't accept his own death. _I Don't Want To Die_ is one of the strongest urges in the human psyche, we, collectively, lionize people who put the needs of others before their own. The armed forces, who as you say spends a lot of time getting people to accept their mortality, and denigrates the individual in favour of the collective's goals, gives out medals to people who do this _because it's really rare_.

>If you're sitting in a missile silo ready to launch then you will have gone through a lot of training (and/or indoctrination), mental prep, and practice for the event that is hoped to never come and knowing that if it does your life will be one of many gone.

At least in the US, the men and women manning the the silos have some of the worst morale in the entire armed forces. Rolling Stone did a bit on this[1]. How happy would you be, stuck in the middle of North Dakota, working shifts in a subterranean hell hole from the 1950s, knowing that your job is to _literally end the world_ and that you are sitting on a bullseye? As you said, these are the people who volunteered, who were screened, who are getting the propaganda shoved down their throats and they're literally killing themselves because of the stress.

[1] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/are-we-o...

I recall it was mostly because of the installation of the code systems. Originally their morale was among the highest in the military. But when they were turned into drones typing codes, instead of trusted citizen/soldiers with a mission, morale tanked?

Regarding your note on people in rural areas:

Many of our ground-based missile silos are "in rural areas" - a good portion of the midwest would be reduced to a no-go zone for a long time.

>Once the missiles are flying, there is no rational reason to retaliate

Why is that? It appears to me that most humans value getting revenge on an enemy who has harmed them.

Like it was discussed, if you're already dead, why kill your enemy? It's vain and childish, because in this case killing doesn't serve any purpose. Revenge comes from an emotion, that's why I'm saying it's not really rational.

Nuclear weapons are weird, because it's not really designed to kill soldiers, and even if it does, you can't hide from it.

It's an honorless weapon. And remember why it was designed.

>because in this case killing doesn't serve any purpose. Revenge comes from an emotion, that's why I'm saying it's not really rational.

Rationality is a means of achieving a goal. Rationality says nothing about what the ultimate goal should be. If one's system of ethics places value on punishing those who misbehave, then it would be perfectly rational to launch a revenge counterattack. And I think it is quite plausible that humans evolved to behave in accordance with a system of ethics that places value on retributive justice. Viewed from the perspective of game theory, being able to credibly pre-commit to punishing defectors even at one's own expense can be quite helpful in the long run.

Perhaps you think that launching a revenge counterattack is wrong. But I contend that that is a question of ethics, not a question of rationality.

you're being pedantic

I don't think there's value to retributive justice

How does a fail-deadly deterrent factor in?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

Supposedly this is real - and likely still in operation.

As long as it's publicly known, it's the perfect deterrent - the equivalent of a famous game theory idea about playing chicken. You and an opponent are driving towards each other, and the first to turn aside loses; a quick way to win is to publicly and conspicuously rip out your steering wheel and throw it out the window.

Making something like that and keeping it secret, though, defeats the point. Note that the Wikipedia article mentions it also for its domestic political purposes - reassuring those who are really committed to the revenge theory of nuclear weapons.

This is one of the reasons the "letter of last resort" the British submarines carry must remain secret. It’s the not knowing which helps keep the balance of peace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36824917/trident-what-...

I can't find a source for it, but I'm fairly sure at least two prime ministers have, in their later years, gone on record saying that their instructions were to paraphrase 'don't retaliate'. Edit: Also, Britains nuclear deterrent is quite often out of service for maintenance.

I was under the impression we have a continuous patrol policy and there is always at least one submarine out on patrol.

> Mutual assured destruction may be the only thing limiting the Kashmir conflict, for example.

On the contrary, Kashmir militancy project was started by Pakistan in the late eighties after a botched attempt by the central government in India to rig an election in the state. This was well after the first Indian nuclear tests in 1974. Subsequently, India did another round of nuclear testing 1998 and that too resulted in an attempted stealth invasion of Kargil. So if anything, nuclear weapons have escalated the conflict not the other way around.

Just to be clear, there were always separatist elements in Kashmir, just like there used to be some in Punjab and there still are in Balochistan. But with development and intra-country migration, it becomes hard to sustain a separatist movement and that's why all the other movements in India have all but petered out. It is likely this would've happened in Indian-controlled Kashmir too, given that the valley was largely peaceful after 1948 and until the 1990s.

But a concatenation of unfortunate circumstances -- first the rigged election, then Pakistani arming of the separatists, the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets winding up which meant the ISI and their jihadi cousins-in-arms were looking for a new project, the Indian Army's human rights violations and introduction of AFSPA in the valley, harassment of and violence against Kashmiri Hindus which caused a mass exodus of pro-India elements from the valley, and the western policy of ignoring jihadi violence in Kashmir until 9/11/2001 because they were historically aligned with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia rather than India which was assumed to be in the Russian sphere of influence --- resulted in the conflict blowing up to where it is now.

You'll notice that many of these contributing factors have disappeared and the situation is likely to get better in the next couple of decades.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com