Hacker News Reader

Comment by lwansbrough | Hacker News Reader

Tangential, but one thing that really irks me is when people advocate for nuclear proliferation as a safety feature.

Aside from just the potential for accidents, one has to consider the potential for irrational actors or those who choose to employ game theory more recklessly. And when I think of Metcalfe's law, I feel this sort of horror about the idea of proliferation and the loss of control in communication (which was of course vital in preventing Armageddon during the Cold War.)

I think ultimately, future security will come from defensive technology and I believe that's the most noble pursuit for engineers wishing to leave an indelible mark on humanity.

There is of course no defensive solution against those who wish to build Sundial [0] or Poseidon [1]. Humanity appears to be unequipped to carry the mantle of life.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial_(weapon) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon_(unmanned_underwater_...

View on HN

Your mistake is you think your point of view can be universal. It can't because "the game" you're talking about is already playing and if you were iranian being killed because you don't have the nuclear bomb, the only thing that would make sense for you is to have your own nuclear bomb. The same goes for any non white majority state which sees the return of colonialism and thinks the only way to stay safe from aggression is having the nuclear bomb.

You might like "The Bomb" documentary from 2016. "[It] explores the culture surrounding nuclear weapons, the fascination they inspire and the perverse appeal they still exert."

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5596034/

https://www.thebombnow.com/

Although I agree with the general sentiment, but I'll slightly push back on the "nobility" of any engineering pursuit. Such things are highly amoral (not immoral) and context specific

Assume an "Evil" state worked on defensive technology that can foil any nuclear attacks against it. Now, this allows this "Evil" state to use it's own nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. So in this example the innovation made in defensive technologies allowed for war and destruction

Well of course, which is why we prohibited the development of defence tech in the ABM treaty. But that doesn't stop non-nuclear states from developing anti-nuke defence technology. Perhaps the only reason why they don't is because it's harder than building a nuke.

It is incredible naïveté to associate technology as good and bad.

Which one is the Internet

Exactly, that's why I objected to the "noble" aspect of working on defensive technologies

Too much defensive technology makes an attacker bolder and surer there will be no retaliation, though

The truble is, that with current new world order, not having nuclear power means you are helpless sitting duck for active insatiable bullies.

Like, there is no other option - not having them means you will be turned into rubble or will have to pay a lot for not being tuned into rubble.

The most aggressive states have nuclear power. The countries they attacked dont.

You are arguing in favour of a nuclear apocalypse.

They're arguing in favor of MAD, which kept the US and Soviets from bathing the entire world in radioactive fire for approximately 45 years, and is the only thing keeping American and Chinese imperialism even slightly constrained.

If you have a better idea, we're all ears. Disarmament isn't an option, the destroyer is here so choose its form.

MAD assumes rational actors and perfect game play. Ultimately what stopped armageddon wasn’t MAD but the blind faith of Stanislav Petrov.

States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.

>States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power.

"Joining the nuclear umbrella of a greater power" implies MAD as a doctrine, unless there is only one nuclear power.

And that's just imperialism. Ask former Soviet states or Europe or Canada currently how things work out as a vassal of their liege lord.

I'm not saying MAD is a bad doctrine, I'm saying it breaks down as the complexity of diplomacy increases quadratically with the number of nuclear equipped actors.

I'm Canadian. Things are good here. Obtaining a bomb wouldn't make life materially better for anyone in Canada, nor would it defend us against the US. Not to mention anybody could drive a nuke into the middle of Manhattan and detonate it and you'd maybe never know who was responsible.

The importance of non-proliferation cannot be understated.

Non-proliferation is a dead end. No one trusts the US to act in good faith. Any nation that doesn't get a nuclear warhead and point it at Washngton DC knows they're just one American Presidential scandal away from getting their teeth kicked in.

Yes I believe this was the line of thinking that has lead us to the invasion of Iran. So it doesn't appear to be a viable strategy. The US can dispatch a strike group faster than any country can build a nuke, let alone enough nukes to actually make a difference. North Korea only succeeded because of its close ties with China and Russia, and perhaps because previous administrations weren't so brazen as to invade them.

An alternative, as always, is to work towards our strengths as middle-powers. Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical.

And of course, while Russia is the leader in this area, it's not the only country that could balkanize the US through "peaceful" means.

North Korea isn’t the only country that got a nuke by not playing the rules…

USA attacked Iran for no reason, because it was weak and Israel + probably saudi wanted so. It wont stop there either, it will go on to Cuba, Greenland and Canada. Meanwhile, Europe will become unstable due to new waves of refugees and expanding Russia.

USA dispatching strikes at will based on incoherent reasons, is just another reason why everyone needs nukes now. And they need them before they are an active target, because yes, it takes years.

And no, it is not about Iran being evil. Trump does not care about that at all. He even wanted to keep the regime as is (to the extend there was a vague concept of a maybe plan).

> Remain steadfast in our pursuit of diplomatic and economic ties. Make the world too complex and intertwined to make invasions practical.

That made everyone vulnerable to Trump.

> States seeking nuclear defence should join the nuclear umbrella of a greater power

Who? Trump, literally nazi Miller and Vance to destroy them and steal their resources? Putin, lets see how their satelite states do. Oh, China?

Americans WANT the imperialism and genuinely believe that becoming an American second tier citizen is something everyone wants.

I am saying giving up nukes allowed Ukraine to be attacked. Russia stopped there only because they are stuck. They would more westward until they would reach nuclear power.

Quickly growing war that USA started for no reason while threatening Cuba, Greenland and Canada is also a point here.

I am saying that USA wont stop attacking weaker coutries, unless they get similarly stuck. Likewise Israel, they will go on displacine hundreds thousands of people through the region - which they do literally now.

You are saying that all tge other countries should accept being sitting ducks for Russia and USA as they do what they do.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. There is not a country on earth without a nuke that has not been either attacked or pays a lot (whether it’s taking IMF loans, or assenting to coordinated central banking policy etc)

I disagree with the other comments that you are necessarily advocating that everyone gets a nuke. Not every state has to be fully free and sovereign. The world has never worked that way (now of course the striving and tension will always be there, the world is dynamic and people forget that)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com