[HN Gopher] Nuclear strike odds moved from "single" to "double d...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Nuclear strike odds moved from "single" to "double digits" in past
       week
        
       Author : xqcgrek2
       Score  : 17 points
       Date   : 2022-10-01 21:20 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
        
       | rogerkirkness wrote:
       | Single most important project for any government right now is
       | avoiding this.
        
         | jpeter wrote:
         | So nuclear blackmail is ok now. Surrender Ukraine or I nuke
         | you. Surrender eastern europe or I nuke you. And what's next?
        
         | xqcgrek2 wrote:
         | Only India, China and perhaps Latin America might hold some
         | sway over Putin. Even that seems doubtful given recent events.
        
         | hodgesrm wrote:
         | This was job #1 in US defense policy from the late 1940s to the
         | early 1990s. There was a lull after the wall came down but it's
         | back.
         | 
         | In my opinion the only way to avoid nuclear war is to get rid
         | of nuclear weapons entirely. Humans being what they are, it may
         | take a war to get that point across.
        
           | im3w1l wrote:
           | The way I see it we live in a markov process where nuclear
           | annihilation is an absorbing state. With mitigations we can
           | increase the "halflife" of humanity so to speak, but only so
           | much.
           | 
           | The only long term solution is for civilization to go multi-
           | planetary.
        
           | peteradio wrote:
           | How do you get rid of nuclear weapons entirely? Do you
           | somehow erase the knowledge required to build nuclear
           | weapons? How does this prevent knowledge/building from moving
           | out of sight rather than actually disappearing? When I worked
           | in a recycling facility in college I would collect old books
           | off the conveyor describing nuclear engineering, how do you
           | track me down to prevent that knowledge from proliferating?
        
             | throwaway5959 wrote:
             | The same way we don't make general artificial intelligence.
             | We all agree not do it. It's just too dangerous. Dismantle
             | all the nuclear warheads, destroy the materials, erase the
             | research and focus on nuclear power instead.
             | 
             | Whether or not we'll be smart enough as a species to avoid
             | these research paths and behaviors... I'm not holding my
             | breath.
        
               | peteradio wrote:
               | If you require 100% compliance in an endeavor, count on
               | it failing.
        
               | thfuran wrote:
               | You can't destroy the knowledge required to make nukes.
               | It's too widespread and they're too easy to make. There's
               | some moderately difficult engineering involved in the
               | material processing, but the basics are dead simple.
               | 
               | And someone is totally going to make an AGI.
        
               | throwaway5959 wrote:
               | That's where avoiding behavior is important. Nuclear
               | weapons don't spontaneously appear.
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | sterlind wrote:
             | Not a workable idea, but a good sci-fi plot: get the major
             | powers to give up their nukes. create a single, tiny
             | nation, a nuclear Vatican, populated by citizens from all
             | former nuclear powers. give them a number of ICBMs. have
             | them nuke whoever else develops the tech.
        
               | salawat wrote:
               | Something about the phrase "nuclear Vatican" makes me
               | giggle more than it should.
        
               | arthurcolle wrote:
               | Nuclear Vatican should just be the US
        
         | Mountain_Skies wrote:
         | Do you truly mean this? Because if you do, the answer is to
         | simply capitulate. There are lots of reasons not to do that but
         | if your goal above all others is to lessen the potential for a
         | nuclear exchange, it is the way to go. There are of course
         | other consequences to capitulation but immediate nuclear war
         | isn't one of them.
        
           | throw310822 wrote:
           | > Do you truly mean this? Because if you do, the answer is to
           | simply capitulate.
           | 
           | Yes! Has the world gone crazy? Everyone is talking about the
           | sacrifices they're willing to make to avert the risks
           | potentially connected with climate change in many decades-
           | and yet it seems that many accept the idea that in order to
           | defend some principles it's fine to risk nuclear armageddon
           | in the next month.
        
             | vhgyu75e6u wrote:
             | So your answer is let every nation that has a nuclear
             | weapon do as it pleases? Can't wait for NK to demand SK or
             | Israel demand Palestine or Iran demand for everyone to be
             | Muslin.
        
             | heydemo wrote:
             | Capitulation rewards nuclear blackmail and invites
             | emulation, causing future episodes of brinkmanship. It is
             | far from clear this path is more likely to avoid
             | "armageddon."
             | 
             | You can dismiss freedom from mass rape, arbitrary
             | execution, tyranny and the rights to dignity and self-
             | determination as "some principles"- but without these
             | principles there is no world that is worth saving.
        
       | cmurf wrote:
       | What he is doing is exactly what's proscribed in the UN Charter,
       | and was argued to be the supreme international crime by a Soviet
       | jurist at the Nuremberg trials: a war of aggression, intended to
       | expand border or subjugate people. If Ukraine wins, there might
       | be a nuclear detonation. If Ukraine backs down, it will be
       | exterminated.
       | 
       | It's better to have tried to stop this tyranny and die anyway,
       | than to see it succeed and spread. This is blackmail. The world
       | needs to categorically reject it. Importantly this means China
       | and India need to reject this path.
       | 
       | Ukraine has a right to exist, to free its people and territory.
       | That Russia considers this so terrible that it's threatening to
       | use nukes proves it cannot responsibly be a nuclear power. Free
       | nations can't survive if it rolls over to this blackmail. Russia
       | will come for more, having been shown the world will cower and
       | give them whatever they want.
        
         | rightbyte wrote:
         | > a war of aggression [...] If Ukraine backs down, it will be
         | exterminated.
         | 
         | There has been many wars of aggression that does not end in
         | countries being exterminated.
         | 
         | Having Ukraine make it a do or die situation is nothing the US
         | should support.
        
           | detaro wrote:
           | > _There has been many wars of aggression that does not end
           | in countries being exterminated._
           | 
           | In how many of those was a) erasing the target the stated
           | goal of the aggressor and b) successful resistance was not
           | the reason for it not ending that way?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-01 23:01 UTC)