Harold Hering
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
> The president alone authorizes a nuclear launch and the two-man rule does not apply to him.
These two sentences are quite frightening on their own, but even more so given the likelihood that this will become a reality at some point.
Many are worried about the advanced age of Biden.
There are many articles doubting Putin's mental capacity right now.
Also, sanity is not a binary switch. Dementia creeps slowly. So can other mental afflictions.
Philosophically, many would argue that to order international nuclear detonation nowadays is by definition, the action of an insane person.
Not at all. A first strike maybe, but a retaliatory strike can be perfectly sane, even if exceedingly cruel.
Everybody agrees that the retaliation doesn't magically undo the damage of the first strike.
The thing is that you need to pre-commit to a retaliatory strike, if you want deterrence.
If you are predictably not going to retaliate, and you are never going for a first strike; then you might as well not have any nukes at all.
Never having any nukes at all is also a sane position.
Not committing to immediate retaliation is not at all the same thing as "predictably not going to retaliate".
That is, the complement of "committing not to" is not "committing to" but "not committing not to"; the two nots do not cancel and leave the issue of retaliation open. Those intent on a first strike then have to gamble.
Which again puts you in the position of having to order a strike as a sane person.
My reasoning: the top level military are career professionals who would not trust or give such power to a politician who got the position by winning a popularity contest.
It was dry, but the funny bit, I think, is that Terran civilization can somehow get along without its billionaires.
Put aside the hereditary wealthy, whom I don't think you're thinking of, either. The existence of billionaires is an artifact of inefficient legal and economic systems, and the set of people who would work hard at whatever example you're thinking of for $billions but not for lesser, but still extreme, wealth is null.
Discuss.
If you think that a billion-dollar company can exist, then combining what we know about the inefficiency of committees with that fact we arrive at the conclusion that perhaps some people can reasonably be given control of billions as well.
Billionaires spend a small fraction of their money on superyachts and keep most of it invested which is the system working if you believe in it.
Some people use money to destroy or buy out their competitors. Some people use money to bribe or corrupt politicians and by extension to corrupt the entire democratic process. Some people use money to influence the media. And in these and many other ways, money can be used to make even more money in a runaway cycle without there being an efficient allocation of resources.
There are also a lot of harder-to-prove forms of political corruption, such as when a politician uses their power to benefit a company or industry, and then after retiring from politics they are given lucrative work with those same companies or in that industry. (And many many variations on this theme.)
Generally the law makers have made laws against Free agents (ie competitors) from colluding.
But in the event of a major war, and if it goes nuclear, biological or chemical, the billionaires can hole up on their yachts and ride it out in the relative safety of the middle of the ocean, just like the film Waterworld but less apocalyptic, so was the system working or is this why sanctions have been imposed? Its not like any of these billionaires can just take off now is it?
>totally resistant to any attack
it isn't possible for any non-minor period of time as the other side would go exponential in their effort to change that.
Both are predicated on the extra-Earth faction having overwhelming technological superiority and resources. Gravity is not that helpful.
So, not "initial colony" stages.