How do we game theoretically solve the issue of nuclear deterrence?
All it takes is ONE mentally ill person, or one sane person who has a psychotic break, and millions of people are dead, potentially in the case of the US and Russian arsenals, billions of people.
This is madness, this is insane beyond measure, I'm typing this on an anonymous online image board but this is the most serious issue that exists in the entire Earth right now, and people will respond think I'm exaggerating, but this alone is more important than any scientific progress, and mathematical genius - everything can be wiped out in an instant
Science itself quite literally caused this issue. It's TOO effective. How do we solve it. Is it just impossible to solve it? This problem will only get worse as more and more advanced technology is discovered
What's the next thing? Back then it was nuclear power, what are we going to find next? Some sort of quantum gravity distortion bombs or some weird ass shit? Science fiction now, but old news of the future.
Is this a political issue, or a scientific issue? Do you think scientists in general need to start taking political stances regarding the dissemination of this type of information?
>most serious issue Maybe for humans. If we blow ourselves up, who will be left to care?
All you can do is play to your outs. If you're dead to a draw, then there's no point in playing around it.
Nolan Nguyen
Any advanced civilization eventually acquires the capability to destroy itself, it's systematic. So the current situation had come, one way or another. Only solution is to become so interdependent that war isn't the most profitable solution. Requires an educated population so they can see the rewards even if it doesn't come within the next three months.
Josiah Johnson
>Maybe for humans. If we blow ourselves up, who will be left to care? This is insane thinking. I'm sick of this nihilism. "Who cares if we completely destroy our race! Better continue with our current path because it will help us get cooler technology to use for posting selfies of ourselves!"
Fuck that. Science itself causes this issue through the discovery of morally neutral powerful knowledge. It either needs a systematic way to avoid this knowledge being used for harm, or it needs to not find it to begin with. Who will be the next Manhattan Project? Is it happening right now?
Logan Collins
Anybody can kill anybody at any time
You dont make a valid point, because normal people arent having spontanious psychotic breaks that cause them to kill people. The people who have access to the weapons are likely vetted to some extent or on some basis, even thought the odds are probably already insane. Mental illness and psychotic breaks arent "sudden". there is generally symptoms before you "decide to murder millions of people" and ALSO those symptoms might disable you to the point where you cant sneak into a military base, and may be even more severe, making it difficult to maintain focus or remember what you are doing.
Andrew Ramirez
Putin controls the Russian nuclear arsenal, he is a murderous narcissist dictator who destroys his enemies. If you have any doubt in your mind that he would destroy the US if he thought he could get away with it, you are mistaken
And the American people can hypothetically elect a mentally ill person to be President, who would then control the arsenal.
You're engaging in apologism for this scenario, it is not rational either way
Jose Lewis
I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that we could kill off all humans using the existing nuclear arsenal.
We could get rid of a lot of people but surely not all.
Jeremiah Cooper
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
Kayden Perry
holy hell you cant make this shit up.
Buddy, i mean this, coming from a place of love for all life. Good luck. You are going to need it
Parker Walker
Hey I watch this pretty cool show called Rick and Morty you might like it.
Carter Perry
>All it takes is ONE mentally ill person, or one sane person who has a psychotic break, and millions of people are dead, potentially in the case of the US and Russian arsenals, billions of people.
Already been solved, we need 2 people to fire them. Also, there already has been numerous cases where one of them was mentally ill or had a psychotic break.
Luis Moore
>not evidence Try again.
Kayden Lopez
...
Jackson Collins
I'd say the problem will get better as technology advances. Once we can maintain nuclear fusion, or build orbital solar power plants there will be fewer reasons to fight over resources.
The only real current solution is multilateral disarmament, which would require most countries to be run by pacifists, which isn't going to happen.
Dominic Lewis
>worrying about meme threats like nuclear weapons >when normalfafs are starting to get work in labs
Sebastian Cooper
Vagueposters like you should be lynched
Robert Barnes
Science has proven that the universe can kick our ass. Atomic Bombs scarred enough assholes with power into realizing that.
Jonathan Hall
I mean, there's a hard cap on human race existence. We will die out someday. Every day, hundreds of species go extinct on earth. Worry about blowing ourselves up? Big deal. The universe, and life will go on.
Luke Wright
Stop the fucking nihilism
"Humanity will die out some day, who cares if dictators have weapons capable of causing it to happen at the press of a button?"
This isn't an argument unless you're willing to kill yourself right now to prove that you actually believe this, and even if you do nobody else does.
Jack Lee
Man this guy is a fucking tard. Nuclear weapons have been the greatest instrument of peace we have ever known. This also ceases to be a problem once we can reliably live away from Earth.
Grayson Cook
This is the issue with nihilists. They hardly ever fulfil their burden of self-proof.
Benjamin Reyes
peace is a meme
Jonathan Barnes
>thinks we live in a world with infinite resources
either a viral pandemic or climate change is going to cull out overpopulated planet eventually. What difference does it make with a nuclear war?
>muh nihilism
you can always feel free to burrow your head in the sand with religion if reality is too much for you to grasp
Jason Miller
>Thinks things are so black and white that it's either religion or nihilism
user I just don't want tons of people to die from a nuclear war, I want us to build a good society that will last even if there is no inherent meaning to the universe. It's not hard to understand, autistic retard
Camden Turner
>Anybody can kill anybody at any time
TO contribute to the discussion. I want to point out what this user said. It is true, anyone can kill anyone else. So what happens when anyone can defend against anyone else?
given it failed but the boxer rebellion, which spawned a tradition of civil defense and militia in pre communist china.
Also consider the justification behind the second amendment.
So to make the MAD, nuclear wargame a complete and utter moot point we need 1)technology to disarm nuclear warheads from a distance, (re: star wars missile defense program, EMP) 2)That technology needs to be mass produced (much like how america was churning out the rifles and revolvers) 3)That technology needs to be cheap so it can be put in the hands of everyone on the planet.
once everyone has the ability to just fire a lazer in the sky to disarm a nuclear missile, The "nuclear threat" is pretty much just going to be the shoddy construction and oversight of nuclear power plants.
Mason Peterson
Wow great post user. Seems simple when you put it that way
But can it ever exist?
Noah Peterson
well any joe can get a lazer and point it at one of the moons reflecting mirrors placed there by the apollo mission.
And defense is a national imperative.
Could totally see old satellite dish companies, retrofitting their dishes to beam something.
While there's a bunch of liberties at stake and an assumption that nations want to conserve population. . Could also see a nation giving a free nuclear deterrent system to any homeowner.
Bentley Martinez
Are you aware of the concept of an "arms race", user? So if someone invents a cheap, easily mass produced method of reliably shooting down ICBMs, all the nuclear armed countries are just gonna say "ah well, this renders our arsenal useless, guess we need to find peaceful solutions to our conflicts hereafter"? Rather than inventing countermeasures to the new defences?
It's already happened to some extent, when the idea of "star wars" type laser defences was mooted, ICBMs were designed with multiple warheads that split off and reenter the atmosphere separately, making it harder to shoot them ask down... You just haven't really thought this through, have you? Like when they started putting thicker armour on tanks, anti tank missile designers didn't just think "oh damn, we might as well just accept it, tanks are now indestructible " did they?
Owen Edwards
>This isn't an argument unless you're willing to kill yourself right now to prove that you actually believe this, and even if you do nobody else does.
Straw man. An acceptance that we have no greater purpose or that humanity is eventually doomed has no bearing on my will to live.
The nihilism is from the objective standpoint, does not mean I refuse to create my own subjective purpose or that survival instinct can be ignored.
Isaiah Jones
*all, not ask...
I also think your hypothetical points 1, 2 and 3 are rather large assumptions. You are basically saying "someone just needs to invent a cheap way of making nuclear weapons reality easy to defend against...problem solved! Can I have my Nobel peace prize now, or do I have to wait for the boffins to actually invent this magical defence system? "
Andrew Lee
*really, not reality. Damn this faulty auto correct technology; it's almost as if making technology 100% reliable is harder than it sounds.
Anthony Jenkins
This shit is probably constantly happening anyway, someone creates a new missile, someone else builds a counter, then a counter is built for the counter. Your theory presumed that people give up with weapons development.
Kevin Evans
>well any joe can get a lazer and point it at one of the moons reflecting mirrors placed there by the apollo mission.
Yeah, that should do it. Well that was easy, guess we can all beat our swords into plowshares now, the threat of nuclear holocaust has been averted by a genius user on a Mongolian calligraphy foundation imageboard
Wyatt Cooper
It was not my theory, maybe you replied to wrong post, you are making the exact same point as I am?
Andrew Davis
Yeh replied to wrong post, disregard my retardation.
Anthony White
So I admit this will be only effective in how well and how well dispersed the defense measures are handed out to the population.
Sure ICBMS can split off into a million different tiny warheads. but America has 100 million homes armed with said defense system.
being cheap and easily produced
I mean the question is how do we solve the issue of nuclear deterrence. case in point the leaders of our nations don't give a fuck about the nuclear threat. They probably got a plan, and a bunker already. Its the citizens of the nation that are left to worry. So you give them the means to defend against a nuclear missle instead of the nation. and the nuclear threat isn't seen as much of a threat anymore.
but yes theres always going to be an arms race. people are always looking to outstrategize some way to kill others.
we cannot stop the arms race until every last human being to now and forever takes a hardline stance in favor of pacifism. An -ism that only works under unanimous consent.Atleast when it comes to their fellow human.
So I was trying to stay reasonable within the realms of possibililty but if you want a real deterrant .
-countering a fusion bomb with a fission bomb -some sort of phase destabililzer that causes everything to vibrate on a different frequency.
-teleportation
-evolve humanity to have a resistance against nuclear explosions.
Kevin Butler
you also forgot
-giant dome that can withstand all nuclear blasts
David Wright
bump
David Myers
Let me one up you by saying this. The world and its leaders drive this world like a car. By diverting their attention to the road, the avoid a crash. Same with nukes. Ignore it. Hope it goes away. Prepare for the worst. Expect the best.
Noah Bennett
"any advanced civilization eventually acquires the capability to destroy itself"
nope nope nope
we just have shitty leaders
Chase Ramirez
>Using calories >Metric system
Kayden Murphy
>All it takes is ONE mentally ill person, or one sane person who has a psychotic break, and millions of people are dead, potentially in the case of the US and Russian arsenals, billions of people. lolno
>everything can be wiped out in an instant >Everything Also no
Alexander Mitchell
>Sure ICBMS can split off into a million different tiny warheads. Try 10.
>-countering a fusion bomb with a fission bomb >-some sort of phase destabililzer that causes everything to vibrate on a different frequency. >-teleportation >-evolve humanity to have a resistance against nuclear explosions.
Are you actually retarded?
Andrew Baker
OP may be retarded but he haves a point
As techonology advances , nuclear bombs may become easier and easier to do, at some point a radical group like isis will be able to develop them, how we could counter a terrorist launching a nuke killing millons? The position of big countries seems increasingly fragile
Matthew Barnes
>All it takes is ONE mentally ill person, or one sane person who has a psychotic break, and millions of people are dead, potentially in the case of the US and Russian arsenals, billions of people.
Best Korea's Kimmy for Example
Mason Reed
Give everyone a nuclear weapon so avoiding apocalypse becomes so improbable that you quantum suicide your way into reality where nuclear weapons were a hoax all the time and aren't even physically possible.
Cameron Green
Kim is perfectly sane, nukes are his life insurance.
Matthew Campbell
-antinuke button
Thomas Miller
Disassemble all nuclear weapons\facilities\launchers . use all the newly freed up money for other shit like better education , research grants , wind farms...
Owen Sanchez
WUBBA LUBBA FUCKING DUUUUUUUUB BUUUUUURP
Jayden Price
>Disassembling ALL nuclear weapons >Freeing up money
Jayden Ortiz
Ah yes science caused this and can prevent it. Yes, now tell me how two of the most powerful human urges, the urge to know and the urge to control can be controverted by ethics. The moment man started thinking is the moment he thought how to make a weapon.
Logan Jenkins
Maybe its not about the leaders, its the human himself and his greed.
Zachary Cox
You need a better understanding of the system you are in. Without the nuclear power we wouldn't be able to have the economic power. Correct me if Im wrong.
Jeremiah Thompson
You can't do shit about it. Information wants to be free. Eventually weapons like nuclear bombs or devices even more destructive than them and the means to create them will become accessible to the general public and it'll be as pointless to try to stop that as it is pointless to try to stop people from downloading freely available internet copies of for profit entertainment media. The best you can do is to start colonizing the stars so that any one nuclear catastrophe isn't enough to end the entire enterprise of human civilization.
Adam Martin
>All it takes is ONE mentally ill person, or one sane person who has a psychotic break, and millions of people are dead Wrong. All systems are designed to prevent this. In the cold war nuclear silos it is impossible to launch a nuke by yourself, this hasn't changed.
It is also game theoretically pretty clear, launch if you are attacked. This is already completely stable and has given us ~7 decades of political stability.
>Is this a political issue, or a scientific issue? Purely political. Science is fundamentally unable to deal with such question, how could you apply rationalism to something as fundamentally irrational as geopolitics or war? The development of the nuke was just the tip of a giant iceberg, a consequences of all the science before it. And the rest of the iceberg could not have foreseen what the tip might do.
>Do you think scientists in general need to start taking political stances regarding the dissemination of this type of information? Absolutely not. The fewer people who get a say in politics the better. Understanding how a nuke works does not give you a thorough understanding of geopolitics.
Logan Baker
>Disassemble all nuclear weapons\facilities\launchers That is a loosing strategy. OP already talked about game theory, maybe you should take a look at it too.
>use all the newly freed up money ??? You do not get money because dismantle nukes.
