Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If one nuclear weapon is detonated, how much time until the human race's extinction? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KwungSun)
    How is there nothing to gain by retaliation? What about the taste of sweet sweet revenge?
    What utility does a leader get from destroying another country once his is already destroyed? It neither helps his own country nor helps his own reelection prospects, though it does hurt humanity, for which he might care at least a bit. Thus retaliating is not a rational outcome.

    Meanwhile, in order to deter a nuclear attack, a leader must show himself willing and capable of retaliating, which means he has to show he's irrational. Yet if he shows himself to be too irrational, the other side might think that their own nuclear deterrent won't deter and feel that they have no choice but to strike first. Fun stuff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    The next nuclear weapon fired upon others will be a terrorist attack
    GUYS AND GALS!!!

    Please note that terrorists will almost never be able to 'launch' a nuclear bomb.

    It is VERY difficult and requires hundreds of experts (literally) to launch a nuclear bomb successfully. It is the equivalent of saying that a terrorist organization hijacks a NASA space shuttle AND launch-center and goes to the moon. It's so improbable, it's almost not worth pondering.

    There seems to be a general idea here that you can grab a nuclear bomb and throw it off a plane, or detonate it manually in a street. This is not how modern nuclear devices detonate... You can even blow up a nuclear bomb with TNT and it will probably not explode...

    You can look at the old nuclear bombs (the ones that hit Japan). Those pieces of **** (compared to today's bombs) are not even made today. We can safely nuke a country with comparable low yield nuclear warheads. It will not cause much chaos to the world (again look at japan, it didn't devolve human beings or cause air pollution for us etc)

    Another interesting point is that we (most major countries) have early warning type systems. These systems can detect the radio waves that nukes use when launched. So we do have some time to send some cruise missiles AT THE NUKE to destroy it's communications (onboard computers/navigation). Thus saving ourselves. Then the country that launched it would be wiped off the face of the earth.
    Please remember we WILL know when someone has launched a nuke, and we do have the capability to defend against it.

    Finally, TACTICAL nuclear warheads have been used in modern wars (that's when you want to take out a few buildings, not a whole city). But they are nothing compared to the highest yield stuff.

    But on a serious note, let's look at Japan. Japan got totally FUDGED by USA's nukes. All those innocents died. It is a sad site. The entire city was destroyed. USA is in charge, they can do what they like. Never forget how many kids and innocents USA killed. That's why some of us are not sorry when certain Islamist extremists take a few thousand American lives in New York. You will reap what you sow...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    surely it depends on the radius of which the radioactivity spreads? There could be a nuclear bomb which only stretches as far from birmingham to london let say.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    What utility does a leader get from destroying another country once his is already destroyed? It neither helps his own country nor helps his own reelection prospects, though it does hurt humanity, for which he might care at least a bit. Thus retaliating is not a rational outcome.

    Meanwhile, in order to deter a nuclear attack, a leader must show himself willing and capable of retaliating, which means he has to show he's irrational. Yet if he shows himself to be too irrational, the other side might think that their own nuclear deterrent won't deter and feel that they have no choice but to strike first. Fun stuff.
    At the moment when that leader stands over the ruins of his city/country/whatever with his finger on the button would it not be conceivable that retaliation would be a good in and of itself (or enter his utility function so to speak)?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    Why would ETA want to nuke London in the first place? You make no sense, guy.
    Well i wrote it in the middle of the night, I should have said "London or Madrid".

    (Original post by swebits)
    GUYS AND GALS!!!

    Please note that terrorists will almost never be able to 'launch' a nuclear bomb.

    It is VERY difficult and requires hundreds of experts (literally) to launch a nuclear bomb successfully. It is the equivalent of saying that a terrorist organization hijacks a NASA space shuttle AND launch-center and goes to the moon. It's so improbable, it's almost not worth pondering.
    "The next" let me just make that clear for you. No nuclear super power will fire upon another with such a weapon and no nuclear super power would have reason to fire a nuke on a nation that has no weapons of such destruction in this modern era.

    Wars are still waged on the battlefield (Iraq, Afgan and Georgia). The next nuclear attack could be 100-1000 years from now. I wouldn't be so naive as to think that some nations with the technology or weapons would not condiser selling it to the likes of AL Q.

    (Original post by cornford4)
    Sorry I can't see how a nuclear weapon is that easy to come by, to be frank Immigrants cannot be compared to Weapons of mass destruction.
    I haven't said it will be easy to come by nor said the threat is imanent but a nuclear weapon can defnatly be compared to immigrants, drugs, weapons etc etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KwungSun)
    At the moment when that leader stands over the ruins of his city/country/whatever with his finger on the button would it not be conceivable that retaliation would be a good in and of itself (or enter his utility function so to speak)?
    No, because he would gain nothing from it. Emotions aren't rational.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    No, because he would gain nothing from it. Emotions aren't rational.
    Fair enough, though it boils down a bit to one's definition of rationality (as these things always do).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KwungSun)
    Fair enough, though it boils down a bit to one's definition of rationality (as these things always do).
    The definition typically used in the social sciences is one where the actor attempts to maximize their utility. Some models assume bounded rationality, but I don't believe that allows any room for emotions either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It presents heads of state as a vengeful, rash, mindless, inhumane rabble, who don't contemplate the consequences of their actions.
    What a stupid post. Who is presenting world leaders in that way? In the history of mankind nuclear weapons have only been used on two separate occasions, ordered by just ONE man. Have you not heard of MAD? If I was to create a discussion on this topic I would at least steer it towards theory and not ********. Can I ask you to validate the passage I've quoted?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The definition typically used in the social sciences is one where the actor attempts to maximize their utility. Some models assume bounded rationality, but I don't believe that allows any room for emotions either.
    Models of rationality and utility optimisation in the social sciences allow for concepts such as fairness and rewarding or punishing actions (eg Rabin's fairness equilibrium in behavioural economics). If a nuclear strike is seen as "unkind" by one player then a counter-strike could be rational in these models.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KwungSun)
    Models of rationality and utility optimisation in the social sciences allow for concepts such as fairness and rewarding or punishing actions (eg Rabin's fairness equilibrium in behavioural economics). If a nuclear strike is seen as "unkind" by one player then a counter-strike could be rational in these models.
    The purpose of rewards and punishments is to create incentives for future behavior. They're not just done for the sake of it. And once your country is nuked, there's no reason to care about how the other country will behave in the future.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The purpose of rewards and punishments is to create incentives for future behavior. They're not just done for the sake of it. And once your country is nuked, there's no reason to care about how the other country will behave in the future.
    That's a very pragmatic view. A lot of people would tell you that the purpose of rewards and punishments is to deliver "justice" to those that have been wronged (not that I'm religious, but eternal damnation, though a deterrent, doesn't leave much room for changing the incentives of those already in hell. Part of the appeal is that people get what they are due). Someone who values such justice and thinks that a counterstrike is just would be rational in ordering one, no?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screwyouguysimgoinghome)
    What a stupid post. Who is presenting world leaders in that way? In the history of mankind nuclear weapons have only been used on two separate occasions, ordered by just ONE man. Have you not heard of MAD? If I was to create a discussion on this topic I would at least steer it towards theory and not ********. Can I ask you to validate the passage I've quoted?
    I said the argument that they'd retaliate as soon as they're attacked with a nuclear weapon would necessitate world leaders being of that nature. Look at the context before you post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have nothing relevant to offer to this thread except:

    The Bio-Bombs in Artemis Fowl are epic win against any nuke
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I said the argument that they'd retaliate as soon as they're attacked with a nuclear weapon would necessitate world leaders being of that nature. Look at the context before you post.
    I fail to see how that presents world leaders in that manner though.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KwungSun)
    That's a very pragmatic view. A lot of people would tell you that the purpose of rewards and punishments is to deliver "justice" to those that have been wronged (not that I'm religious, but eternal damnation, though a deterrent, doesn't leave much room for changing the incentives of those already in hell. Part of the appeal is that people get what they are due). Someone who values such justice and thinks that a counterstrike is just would be rational in ordering one, no?
    But again, doing something for the sake of justice isn't rational. It provides you no benefit. Justice is a means toward a stable social order. If a social order no longer exists, justice is pointless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Russia has nukes pointed at all the major capitals of the world for a reason.

    All one has to do is push the buttons. Everything is already set up.

    It's really beautiful if you think about it.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Nobody who's legitimately come into power and is mentally sane will ever launch a nuclear weapon. Ever.

    And even so, most of the world will remain uninvolved
    Is there any other type of sanity?

    Frankly, I think that if an A-bomb is dropped, it' be by some terrorist group, and the world's governments will have the sense not to use those in retaliation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allthewayhome)
    No matter what country did I think they'd be fried within 24hours.
    Why would anyone want to nuke Switzerland for example? They are so neutral no country has any beef with them!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    lol at the Swiss girl who thinks she's going to escape the effects of nuclear war just because nobody will nuke Switzerland.

    When the earths atmosphere is clogged with dust and theres a lengthy nuclear winter I hope you got lots of canned beans.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.