Is one obligated to turn the key?

Farm Boy said:

Reagan being Reagan, which is neither a saint nor a devil, the idea that he would have been insane enough to launch 5 ICBMs at Siberia for funzies is so patently insane that only a pretty severe mistake in recollection is going to explain that.

Click to expand...

The idea is that those first 5 ICBMs trickle down, creating a stronger nuclear strike.

If they are the aggressors, I would turn the key.
The entire point and strength of deterrence is that you WILL strike back.
If you don't, it can make an even more dreadful precedent : that you can annihilate a country and get away with it.

If I am the agressor... Well, it would require a lot more informations, but by default I wouldn't (but then you'd wonder why I was the agressor in the first place, which is why I would need more informations).

Hygro said:

I think you linked to the wrong wiki. It says "game theory".

Click to expand...

I think it's the right Wiki - it's about the choices taken in different scenarios. It's applied to game, but the reasoning are not limited to that and apply to the subject at had.

Akka said:

I think it's the right Wiki - it's about the choices taken in different scenarios. It's applied to game, but the reasoning are not limited to that and apply to the subject at had.

Click to expand...

While all decision making can be reduced to game theory, the choice to annihilate the opposing "player" is not well represented by classic game theory in this example. While you could make the argument that destroying them stops a horrible society from:

a) getting away with it
b) imposing its twisted will on the world
c) letting all third parties know that there is a precedent for shooting back, so don't emulate the attacker (or do, I suppose)

There's not a good representation of utility maximization in the OP's hypothetical.

I would contend that one is obligated not to turn the key, because turning innocent people into radioactive ash is intrinsically abhorrent. The rest, the politics, can not, will not and has never excused this kind of indiscriminate slaughter.

I don't mean to seem like I'm being flippant, but I honestly don't think there's anything more to it than that.

For those involved in politics, ethics are often of lesser importance than politics itself. The state is a secular god, from which all ethics flow from.

Traitorfish said:

The rest, the politics, can not, will not and has never excused this kind of indiscriminate slaughter.

Click to expand...

The obvious counterpoint being that by not retaliating at all, you ARE excusing indiscriminate slaughter.

Traitorfish said:

I don't mean to seem like I'm being flippant, but I honestly don't think there's anything more to it than that.

Click to expand...

No, you've explained your position enough. I was thinking about jokey answers with that line in the OP.

Traitorfish said:

I would contend that one is obligated not to turn the key, because turning innocent people into radioactive ash is intrinsically abhorrent. The rest, the politics, can not, will not and has never excused this kind of indiscriminate slaughter.

I don't mean to seem like I'm being flippant, but I honestly don't think there's anything more to it than that.

Click to expand...

How innocent are people if their government is first-strike nuking others. Takes a lot of steps to that point.

Reagan being Reagan, which is neither a saint nor a devil, the idea that he would have been insane enough to launch 5 ICBMs at Siberia for funzies is so patently insane that only a pretty severe mistake in recollection is going to explain that.

Click to expand...

let's up this a bit . The Colonel of course already knew the trajectory was up and down for an empty part of Siberia , his not-reporting-the incident stuff is also quite out of line since he immediately alarmed the Alert ICBM for such incidents . ı hear in 1970 this was a single 1 megaton warhead aimed at Frenchman's Flats or something in Nevada , an isolated location where the US used to conduct nuclear tests in the 1950s . Had anything impacted , the response would have been entirely legal . And of course it's quite feasible with sunlight reflecting from a satellite and this suddenly appearing to be an ICBM launch ; but 4 extras ? This is some yeah , right moment . Obviously people in the US wouldn't want the signal lost in some feeling of "Gotta be a mistale."

what follows would be increasingly off topic as the reader continues reading . The 1 megaton in 1970 thing is straight from Lord Vader : Nixon was in China and in the spirit of the new found frienship was offering to lend an hand to save the Chinese honour . There had been some border clashes with the Soviets ; America had acquired some MiGs through clandestine means . Bingo ... A proposal to mount a CAP by those superb American pilots in planes with Chinese markings to teach a lesson to them Russkies with all bragging left to Beijing . The Chinese informed the Russians with an addition -there wouldn't be any issues if none of those "Chinese" planes returned to Manchuria ... They were out for swindling the US , not for fighting America's war or anything . Though the situation demanded the Chinese not to voice the thing and it was the Russians who took it "West" ... A request on Vader to pass the thing that French-something was "close" to Nellis , the USAF Airbase , or that CIA installation where those American MiGs were kept .

going even more off-topic there were repercussions of '83 , the year which was once before 1984 -the 70th anniversary of WW1 hence before '87 when the Red Menace was to complete its existance and go to hell . One was that a cheesy B-Movie got word of the mouth support and nary a "negative" review in due course ; am advised to say nothin' against the hairdo of the 1980s , as if ı wasn't there and it didn't look so natural at the time - ı do like Terminator in any case ... You know , people had to be against such glorious ideas , like lobbing stuff around . Else other "third parties" might arise -like the unstoppable hordes of China riding horses with gas masks .


from www.dakkadakka.com . Things you find on the web ...

stupid ? Why , ı am stupid . Was good for James Cameron until he crossed the Neo-cons with the Avatar ; (after the theft of the Oscars to get Hollywood crying "Uncle") that seems to be the only outcome of the post 9/11 meeting where White House met the directors : There had to be no questioning of Dabya in any sense , right ? Cameron got it from the ex- with the Hurt Locker ...

back to the 80s again . With the realization that they had come this close to getting rid of the entire human race , Moscow and Washington decided to make friends for a while . As a confidence increasing measure even those clandestine MiGs in Nevada were to be a tool . Duly a Russian delegation arrived in the US and American officers were "ordered" , really ordered to be polite to them . Robert Gates in his latest book claims the American Military is not ordered , being the vanguard of Freedom and Liberty and whatever . Anyhow as some book has it :

[An American officer's] sense of humor sometimes got him into trouble with his commanders, particularly when it was for the benefit of the Russian satellites. Tonopah was a magnet for satellite interest as it was ... " ... put a T-38 nose out of the front of a hangar, and an F-5’s tail out of the back, so that from the air it looked like we had an airplane about 108ft long. In the end, it actually attracted more satellite attention...”

... “We knew that they [the Soviets] knew [about the MiGs], but we knew that they didn’t know how many, how often we flew them, or to what degree we were using them – they had no idea how many pilots we were training against them.” He added: “At around that time, some Soviet general officers and other dignitaries came to Nellis on a ‘be good to each other’ tour. Myself, the squadron commander, and some Aggressors were having dinner with them and everyone was being cordial.

Then, one of these Soviet Air Force generals interrupted one of our generals mid-speech: ‘So, General, how many MiGs do you have at Tonopah?’ Without batting an eye, he turned around and said, ‘I don’t know. Maybe 300, or 350?’ and then went back to his conversation. It didn’t phase him a bit. The Russian guy almost passed out.”

gates probably didn't hear about that failure to follow commands ... And doubtful that the Russian almost passed out . Here they were playing the American script and getting snubbed unscripted . He simply shut up and didn't come up with the planned "answer" that back in Russia they loved the Phantom very much , with at least two in operation ... Or a drunkard's whisper that they had put this '60s American helmet sight system VTAS or something back onto theirs ... To be followed that with some revelation the VTAS wasn't much of a help against the helmet sights in the MiG-29 ... To be discussed and decided upon -for a "mutual" benefit for both sides .

back then Russia's problem was the F-4 , still capable at the time and available in abundant numbers . The coming Flankers and Fulcrums , while super , were also real expensive . Considering the impressive numerical lead America had with the Teen series of fighters , a modernized F-4 wasn't something the Soviets desired . This balance of forces thing drive lots of budgets all around the world ... And America's problem was the F-4 , because of Lavi -an Israeli plane then in development . Started as an A-4 replacement and "sold" to US , considering the hold Tel Aviv has on Washington . Yet it had "some" creep to challenge the F-16 in sales ... America was supposed to fund a competitor to a prime export of its own industry and develop that competitor as well . Say , the engine for Lavi ? P&W 1120 , something originally done to replace the existing F-4 powerplant . So a modernized Phantom would eat funds USAF could better use on the ATF -badly needed to defeat the Flankers and the Fulcrums- make F-16 more expensive considering there would be less exports to drive unit costs down and increase the risk to American aircrews in a shooting war even with a third tier country , considering there was nothing to make the Phantom less visible Stealth-wise ... Kinda luckily for originators of the idea who spent months haggling about the details of who would say what , only to see it blown apart since no USAF General could miss a chance to "humiliate" the Russkies , a primary tenet of the American "Fundamentalism" is the conversion of the Jews at gunpoint at the end of the world . Which would be easier if Jews didn't have so many guns of their own and used all of them on killing as many Ayrabs as possible ... America finally shut the Lavi down and the Phantom soldiers on - true to the original .


and the Wikipedia presents it as if it is 100% Russian fault that the world nearly ended this time or that time , while the West was like some paragon of virtue ... Quoting a defector or something says the page on Colonel Petrov : [ If he] had declared the satellite warnings valid, such an erroneous report could have provoked the Soviet leadership into becoming bellicose. Kalugin says, "The danger was in the Soviet leadership thinking..." As if lobbing stuff over the fence is not bellicose in itself . Almost as good as the Politruk who saved the world with arguing his submarine commander that he shouldn't like start the WW III in '62 with firing a nuclear torpedo at an USN Task Force which has been depth charging that Soviet Sub for something like 13 hours straight . Almost . Sometime around 2010 some Turkish idiot got into some Cessna and crossed the American-Canadian border . USAF jets scrambled , all the public buildings evacuated in some State Capital ... Made great sense , if the Turkish Military did not take the kangoroo courts manly on the chin , some link between El Kaide and Turks be established and we all be seeing how bellicose Uncle Sam be ... Hubris is incredible ; once one starts looking at it .

even the celebrated Cuban Missile Crisis was no biggie for Washington . The primary concern for the White House ? Measures to see Italians and we don't try to take over Jupiter warheads after we get bombed by the Russians . Italians being away from the action get a pat on the back and some "Guido, it's not worth it and it will soon pass." ; we get live bullets as per instructions from the White House . Russians overflying Turkish territory just like they have always done after each U-2 penetration , the Turkish Airforce in full alert and Americans declare nothing to worry : "It's some flock of birds." which funnily enough was the same thing back in 1956 , as it seems .

r16 said:

even the celebrated Cuban Missile Crisis was no biggie for Washington .

Click to expand...

well duh, he already had french support after saratoga. the cubans didn't stand a chance.

Hygro said:

How innocent are people if their government is first-strike nuking others. Takes a lot of steps to that point.

Click to expand...

How innocent are the people getting nuked in the first place?

ParkCungHee said:

How innocent are the people getting nuked in the first place?

Click to expand...

Some are murderers. Some rapists. Some robbers. Some who beat their children. Some are bad people.

Some work in soup kitchens. Some save lives. Some treat everyone kindly. Some are good people.

Most are somewhere in between. Most are not good or bad. Most just are.

well duh, he already had french support after saratoga. the cubans didn't stand a chance.

Click to expand...

reading on books here and there one finds the account of the commander of the RF-8 units that did low level photography of the island and he totally rejects any of his jets were damaged by flak . Hurting Kevin Costner's depiction in some movie where the peaceful White House is struggling to maintain peace in the face of all those hawks and stuff . And you seriously seem to be omitting the power of one single T-33 that "stopped" the Bay of Pigs and a whole Carrier Battle Group turned tail or whatever .

otherwise ı can't make much of the quote .

Zack said:

Some are murderers. Some rapists. Some robbers. Some who beat their children. Some are bad people.

Some work in soup kitchens. Some save lives. Some treat everyone kindly. Some are good people.

Most are somewhere in between. Most are not good or bad. Most just are.

Click to expand...

So 'not very.'

Zack said:

The obvious counterpoint being that by not retaliating at all, you ARE excusing indiscriminate slaughter.

Click to expand...

How do you figure?

Hygro said:

How innocent are people if their government is first-strike nuking others. Takes a lot of steps to that point.

Click to expand...

I'm not comfortable assuming that residence within a given territory implies complicity in state atrocities, or in assuming that the proper response to such complicity is vaporisation. There are too many tenuous leaps, there, certainly too many to bear the weight of millions of lives.

If a man committed some ghastly murder, and the police went to his house and slaughtered his entire family, without trials, without even formally arresting and charging them, simply massacred them in the street, we'd consider that abhorrent, the act of depraved and wicked people. Yet if we scale it up a million times, it becomes good political sense? I can't see the logic.

Traitorfish said:

If a man committed some ghastly murder, and the police went to his house and slaughtered his entire family, without trials, without even formally arresting and charging them, simply massacred them in the street, we'd consider that abhorrent, the act of depraved and wicked people. Yet if we scale it up a million times, it becomes good political sense? I can't see the logic.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense because that's not an apt metaphor.

Could be. Where do you think I'm going wrong with it?

IRL There are only two countries with the nuclear capacity to obliterate any other country completely, so we can reasonably model those two countries' capabilities as our scenario countries.

Traitorfish said:

Could be. Where do you think I'm going wrong with it?

Click to expand...

Scaling up individual interactions to understand larger systems is always a dodgy proposition. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. It fails miserably in economics which is why the field of macro was invented. It fails in biology too--imagine if we took an understanding of single cells and said larger forms are single cells interacting in aggregate and then pictured their holistic being--we'd have quite a meat blob and not the superstructure that informs the meat blob's real shape and functionality (like humans). Sometimes we have to start at the top and fill in the pieces.

In your example, you are scaling up everything. There's now a giant family unit with lots of bad guys and a bunch of probably not bad guys, with a bunch of dead folks, but not lots of dead folks, and there's a whole lotta police serving an even larger police institution who show up after the fact, and then there's the observer who isn't any of the parties... it just doesn't connect. So if you make that your metaphor for nuclear retaliation, it seems crazy.

In the OP scenario, there are no police. There are no societal rules to attend to the attack. There's no time or mechanism for there to be a trial-no-trial dichotomy. There's no after-the-fact murder to attend to, there's group about to kill you and everyone in your group (as defined by them) and you can't stop it. But you can decide to take them and the people they are proximate to down with you.

How you decide, how you figure out what's moral, in the OP vs dealing with a murderer are not merely a matter of scale but of different categories.

For example:
In the police scenario, there's no family industrial/science/institutional base necessary for the murderer to murder again. There might be an issue of family culture, but not so much of requisite practicality.

There's no reason to think that now the murdered person is gone, the murderer will begin a campaign of world domination. But in the nuclear scenario, that's a real concern.

In the murder-scale world, the murder can act alone and with certainty one can deal with the murderer as an individual. In the nuclear scenario, the level of uncertainty is far greater in proportion of blamable-agents that scaling up the numbers.

In the nuclear scenario, and here's where Mouthwash and Akka weren't terribly far off in asserting game theory, there is a cost-benefit issue at stake with that uncertainty. How many more, after you're gone, will they kill or threaten to kill? How many of them need to be stopped to prevent that? How much comes from their roots and will re-grow if you merely take out the leadership or military installation? All the factories, the technology, the labor, the national psyche, the internal momentum, it's all there. If my country loses 100 million, and their country loses 200 million in my retaliation, and let's say 199.98 million of them are innocent, is it still worse than risking the remaining 6.7 billion people on earth to their reign? Or the reign of emboldened copycats?

Maybe you can play it safe--maybe you're the bad guy and after their strike, if you don't strike back, it's freedom and Utopia for all the billions of survivors. Han Solo shot first. But if they're the bad guys and you leave survivors, will they rise up and do more harm than if you killed every last one of them?

I doubt that a country that just nuked another country into oblivion is going to have many nukes left. Or friends.

Moreover, no country on Earth, not even America, has enough might to take over the world, even if their biggest rival were destroyed. So I don't think there's much of a risk of the aggressors launching a campaign of global conquest with an exhausted arsenal and a somewhat or largely hostile world.

Traitorfish said:

I'm not comfortable assuming that residence within a given territory implies complicity in state atrocities, or in assuming that the proper response to such complicity is vaporisation. There are too many tenuous leaps, there, certainly too many to bear the weight of millions of lives.

Click to expand...

How do you feel about a limited retaliatory strike on military and control facilities used to carry out the attack on your country?