Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

if only one side has nukes slavery will be much more widespread if everyone has them all the slave traders competing with each other will be at least mitigated

kind of crazy they saw all the graffiti license plate games that early



If everyone has them they are more likely to be used over minor issues.


When?

There’s no evidence that is the case.

It has been eighty years since a nuclear weapon was used in an act of aggression.

It would appear a state sort of only really comes to have nuclear weapons when it has got its act together sufficiently to be well enough behaved to not use them.

A sort of maturation process, if you will.

The meek[1] shall inherit the Earth, and all of that.

If we’ve got data, let’s go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let’s go with mine.

1. this is best as interpreted as those who have the ability to use force, but do not use it, except maybe to defend themselves.


It has been threatened recently by a few nations. It almost got set off by mistake.

Increasing the odds by introducing hundreds of players some willing to gas their own people is rolling the dice. The few countries that have the ability has been responsible but that does not mean that will always be the case or new players will be as responsible.


What does any of it matter?

In about five billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen and expand, engulfing Mercury, Venus, and likely Earth.

In the mean time, you could respond to the argument I actually made.

The level of organisation at the state level required to build a working nuclear weapon, along with the forces working against that, eg. how difficult it’s been for Iran to get across the line, and the fact of the near miss you mentioned, allows most of us, it would seem, to sleep well at night.


If power is not more or less evenly distributed then only the strongest really have rights.


This seems like a tautology. By definition someone with superior political power can grind down someone else with less, if they were maniacal enough about it, or at least negate their efforts.

If they couldn’t, then they wouldn’t be considered to have superior political power.


It's more than that.

With enough power differential that won't even be a consideration.


Even perfect equals in an ideal spherical cow world can still engage in a 1 v 1 drag down fight.


Spherical beef is better than Wagyu!


If you wanted to be ironic via literally meaningless comments, then that is pretty clever.


don't believe everything the slavers tell you :)

if everyone had a way to completely disintegrate the planet no one would be above another


All we need is nukes?

I think you might be counting on way too many decision makers to remain rational and wise enough to avoid and defuse non-trivial situations that want to escalate.

In the 8 billion times 8 billion potential nuclear exchanges that universal nuke would enable (64 quadrillion!), there is at least one scary bad one. At any time of day. That you are standing too near.

Please acknowledge my wisdom here. (Hard unblinking stare. Wiggling finger wanders toward red button… “Kind person, I have no interest in harming you, but my sources inform me you have at most one nuke. So I must be prepared to be first. Please keep those hands where I can see them while I only, and with full peaceful intent, rest my finger here.”)


you my digital friend have never met slavers and it shows :)

more than nukes one can survive nukes the ability to completely disintegrate the planet for everyone


Sounds like a very strong incentive for us to find a way to leave the planet and settle elsewhere.


And those settlements will be not be full of exactly the same human beings?


nah jesus says that's a sin we can only stay here with our heavenly chosen barons or go to heaven or hell


We have the test case for this. When one power had nukes and no one else did they weren’t used…


They were on Japan and plenty of people pushed for a preemptive strike on the USSR.

"John von Neumann" was a very famous and influential person defending just that.


Smart guy, von Neumann. We should've listened to him.


Converted to Catholicism in his deathbed and made serious errors in his Book on QM.

Plus all that nonsense on replicators/celular automata in later life.

Not worthy of the hype as far as I'm concerned.

A world with only the USA would have been far worse.


lmao think of all the jobs the CIA would have had to cut

bad citizen don't you want all the marines and special forces to be employed?

just wow what would jesus say we both know he hates all the savages but he loves jobs more


The people of Nagisaki and Hiroshima would like a word.


famously they were very much used


i’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic


if you ignore WW2 for some reason?


history is pick and choose these days the blight is spreading everywhere :(

well it was always pick and choose but i had high hopes for the tech barons sigh




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: