Hacker News Reader

Comment by formvoltron | Hacker News Reader

The obvious problem with mutual assured destruction is that an insane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all of current and future humanity.

How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive.

View on HN

Because then a sane person could get ahold of the weapons, launch first, and kill all current opponents.

Even worse, the aggressor would come to believe there are no deleterious consequences to massive nuclear first strikes.

As counter intuitive as it may sound, a massive retaliatory strike would render a more safe future world for non combatant nations. Yes, despite what Hollywood may have told you in films, most of those nations would survive. Especially nations in the Southern Hemisphere not called Australia.

The US actually believed that for many years, at the start of the atomic age.

"Mutual Assured Destruction" isn't a policy of anyone. It's a game theoretical idea that requires pre-conditions that don't necessarily apply. I mean, you hit on one of them: insane people. Most of the large nuclear powers have checks on that: the guy at the top can order the launch, but there's a bunch of relaying of the order. So the guys who turn the keys can refuse. So you need a bunch of insane people to make it happen.

And... also the Soviets once upon a time had a plan to nuke everyone, not just the US, in order to make sure that you don't have countries that build back up faster than they did. There weren't going to be any other countries that weren't radioactive.

Source on that last bit? How close to reality did that plan really get?

I’d imagine world war 2 ending just 2-3 years early prevented nuclear holocaust. Certainly the Nazis and Soviets were not going to have any reluctance pushing that button.

What do you mean, had?

Do you have any evidence their doomsday device isn't running anymore?

  Dr. Strangelove:
  Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

  Ambassador de Sadesky:
  It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

"How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive."

The word for that is "surrender".

Wish you weren't downvoted, it's a valid question (if not beaten to death).

I highly recommend the movie By Dawn's Early Light if you haven't seen it. I will offer no spoilers.

Because then there would be no deterrent to stop people nuking you.

"Turn the other cheek" doesn't work for nukes.

Why not? Japan surrendered. They're fine.

Nobody else had nukes back then, so the calculus was completely different.

I've always thought nuclear war is basically Newcomb's Paradox. You want to be perceived as a one boxer (will retaliate) until the exact moment to make a choice when you two box (hold retaliation to let others live).

"Oh hey, we nuked those guys and nobody cared! Let's nuke some other country too!"

Those don't exist, hence why the OP didn't refer to them. They were referring to something from the actual article.

Game theory doesn’t work that way

If game theory was how reality works, WW3 would have started several times already. Game theory is a guide, not the actual playbook.

I love what you're doing here. There is a logical, rational argument. And that's MAD (the acronym). You're saying you "obviously" don't believe people will act rational in 2 different ways

1) with second-strike guarantee people will act irrationally and launch nukes

2) without second-strike guarantee people will NOT act rationally and use nuclear strikes as a threat in negotiation, or outright launch and eliminate opponents without warning

And you present that people will act irrationally without any evidence, in a way that comes off as smug and arrogant despite YOU being the one that presents the far-fetched argument.

Did Game theory prove that Nixxon's Madman theory was the best approach to handle a scenario of mutually assured destruction? I would have expected that playing an irrational, trigger happy bluffer would not be the best approach. Conversely, I do think that the Soviets expected to play rationally.

Let's compare it with the COVID response. Did world leaders listen to their scientists, or did many act irrationally because they have the last word? If some of them don't follow science, why would they follow game theory perfectly? What about their whole pyramid of underlings?

I don’t see how anyone conceivably can compare getting nearly 8 billion individuals to follow COVID orders where failure only requires 1 individual leaking the virus compared to a select few people who can launch nukes who all have to agree to go ahead with it and use that comparison to try to make a point.

Actually that is an amazingly good proxy for how effective MAD would be. Look at each world leader. Did they follow overwhelming scientific advice (backed up by peer pressure from all other world leaders) and publically promote lockdown, or did they publicwlly disown the science, announce their own solutions / policies etc.

Those that made official advice to "use aromatherapy" or something are people not likely to follow Game Theory.

The count is well above zero

Reply on news.ycombinator.com