Let us say that the proposal is: let us just destroy 1000 nukes according to the plan. Everyone's arsenal will be reduced by 10%. That should be no big disadvantage. And yet that would still be progress. That is pretty much what the rest of the world wants.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
The Nuclear Disarmament Game
- Thread starter amorrow2
- Start date
I fear you may be the one confused here: it was you fantasizing about forcibly sterilizing newborns, and in this thread you're offering a cunning plan to reduce the number of nuclear missiles nations have by having nations reduce the amount of nuclear missiles they have.
I wonder whether the rest is projection too - certainly I could imagine breathing being a plausible contender as the brain does need a constant supply of oxygen to maintain all its functions. An oxygen deficit could explain why you're indulging so deeply in the Dunning-Kruger effect and actually believing these 'plans' are credible, serious, practical or possess any degree of legitimacy or even coherence.
Perhaps after all this is why you won't address all the factual problems with your ideas; because you really actually think you're offering something sensible and all those 'details' are just unimportant? I'm no longer convinced you grasp the real world sufficiently to even have a coherent caricature of an idea, let alone something possessing actual value. I'm open to being proven wrong and changing my mind, but writing code to effect your nonsensical 'plan' isn't really going to produce that outcome
The only other option is that this is all a big joke. Am I supposed to be laughing? Tell me, and I'll see if I can raise a smirk.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Careful, now. You might incline admins to believe that you were just taking the piss with these really stupid threads.
I'm still waiting on an answer to my previous question, by the way: what's the practical difference between a plan that no one will abide by, and no plan at all?
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Personally, I feel like fostering international codependency would be the greatest way to incentivize disarmament, but I can't think of a way aside from markets, and I'm not sure that's actually feasible as things are now.
Akamia
Member
Y'know, reading the conversation thus far on both this thread and the other... Amorrow, they may or may not work as premises in a work of fiction of some sort – believe me, I've read worse – but neither are workable in the real world. Real life isn't an episode of Yu-Gi-Oh! where the villain of the week is defeated by losing at a children's trading card game, and real people certainly aren't going to decide how to disarm their nuclear weapons – if indeed they even want to – based on some algorithm you wrote.
To tell the truth, I don't know how we're going to get rid of nukes, or if we ever will. I certainly hope we do – I don't want this apocalypse-in-a-can hanging over our heads anymore – but this... whatever it is, is not a viable solution. It's science fiction.
To tell the truth, I don't know how we're going to get rid of nukes, or if we ever will. I certainly hope we do – I don't want this apocalypse-in-a-can hanging over our heads anymore – but this... whatever it is, is not a viable solution. It's science fiction.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Nah Akamia ... heads of countries have done much more idiotic things over the course of history, some have been completly infantile numbskulls *cough* Trump *cough*.
So there certainly is a possibility, just needs to come from the right idot, backed up by enough money and firepower, at the right time. And most importantly, everyone involved has to want to do it. Then completly idiotic solutions work like a charm and get you a nobel peace prize.
Hell, a go to solution for complicated geo political problems has been "Lets just not talk about it anymore". Especially the US and UK have employed that "tactic" pretty often. For example, technically the US is still at war with Vietnam, since the peace treaty that has been put out, has never been ratified ... or Hawaii is still a sovereign country under military occupation ... nevermind that the UK just gave up most of its colonies .. and then never mentioned it again. Wanna know what the UK said when Greece, Egypt, India and other countries demanded their cultural treasures back that the UK literally stole? "Naw .. we are still looking at them."(I am paraphrasing here). Or even better ... "Lets not talk about Brexit'" is actual government policy in the UK, Johnson put that out as a gag order on his own ministers.
You know, this notion, that countries are rational actors, led by smart people .. is a bit naive. Realitically we are led by bumbling, selfish fools, that have no clue what they are doing, do not have the capacity to look down the road more than 4 years and just wing it the best they can. Sometimes it works out, sometimes countries get burnt down.
So there certainly is a possibility, just needs to come from the right idot, backed up by enough money and firepower, at the right time. And most importantly, everyone involved has to want to do it. Then completly idiotic solutions work like a charm and get you a nobel peace prize.
Hell, a go to solution for complicated geo political problems has been "Lets just not talk about it anymore". Especially the US and UK have employed that "tactic" pretty often. For example, technically the US is still at war with Vietnam, since the peace treaty that has been put out, has never been ratified ... or Hawaii is still a sovereign country under military occupation ... nevermind that the UK just gave up most of its colonies .. and then never mentioned it again. Wanna know what the UK said when Greece, Egypt, India and other countries demanded their cultural treasures back that the UK literally stole? "Naw .. we are still looking at them."(I am paraphrasing here). Or even better ... "Lets not talk about Brexit'" is actual government policy in the UK, Johnson put that out as a gag order on his own ministers.
You know, this notion, that countries are rational actors, led by smart people .. is a bit naive. Realitically we are led by bumbling, selfish fools, that have no clue what they are doing, do not have the capacity to look down the road more than 4 years and just wing it the best they can. Sometimes it works out, sometimes countries get burnt down.
Last edited by a moderator:
I expect we'd only do so by making them obsolete.
Whether that's because there's such good missile defense technology that they no longer pose a serious threat, or because we develop something so absurdly devastating that nukes no longer pose as significant a deterrant by contrast.
Probably would be a good point for you to look up the concept of a rational agent lest you build an argument atop a falsehood.
Akamia
Member
Don’t misunderstand, 21st Demon Lord; I don’t necessarily believe we’re being led by smart people, or rational agents. But I don’t expect the likes of Donald Trump, for example, to cede to disarmament by losing to what may as well be a game of StarCraft.
It has to be something with more teeth. Sparhafoc has the right idea; make nukes obsolete, and we have no reason to keep them around. Though I hope it’s because defenses became too good for them to handle and not because we got a real life Death Star instead.
It has to be something with more teeth. Sparhafoc has the right idea; make nukes obsolete, and we have no reason to keep them around. Though I hope it’s because defenses became too good for them to handle and not because we got a real life Death Star instead.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Nope, rational actor, not agent.
International Relations
Bruce Russett, in Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 2005Country
The primary focus of international relations theory has been on the behavior of countries, rather than of individuals or nonstate actors such as international organizations. Often this requires an assumption that the country, or state, behaves as a unitary rational actor. Although this assumption is often sharply challenged, heads of state typically speak in the name of their countries, so information about their pronouncements and actions may be treated as information about the country itself. Country- level information, however, includes much more, notably about the economic, political, and social characteristics and institutions of the country.You said
The only prior discussion of rational agents in this thread you will find in post 49 and 53, both posts by me, so...
No, rational agent.
Rational actors are a subset of rational agents specifically related to economic choices.
The idea that the word 'rational' in the sense of this term as being anything connected with logical thinking or capacity to reason is a misapprehension - the term 'rational' therein actually means 'able to identify self-interest'. Children as young as 2 can be rational agents despite having no formal reasoning skills and an obviously low intelligence compared to adults.
The only prior discussion of rational agents in this thread you will find in post 49 and 53, both posts by me, so...
No, rational agent.
Rational agent - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Rational actors are a subset of rational agents specifically related to economic choices.
The idea that the word 'rational' in the sense of this term as being anything connected with logical thinking or capacity to reason is a misapprehension - the term 'rational' therein actually means 'able to identify self-interest'. Children as young as 2 can be rational agents despite having no formal reasoning skills and an obviously low intelligence compared to adults.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Not referencing anything you said.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
The current - or next - state of the arms race is hypersonic missiles. Nuclear versions of these will require hypersonic counter-missiles, if not energy/beam weapons, to neutralise..
If such missiles became so fact that there's no realistic defence against them, then I'd hope that the various super-powers would realise that a tipping point has been reached, where they need to cooperate better than they've been doing up to that point.
The only thing I can see being a greater threat is climate change - I'd hope that we'd have learned to cooperate to deal with this before we end up fighting over resources in an all-out war.
Sadly, it's six-of-one and half-a-dozen of the other, in my view.
Kindest regards,
James
The current - or next - state of the arms race is hypersonic missiles. Nuclear versions of these will require hypersonic counter-missiles, if not energy/beam weapons, to neutralise..
If such missiles became so fact that there's no realistic defence against them, then I'd hope that the various super-powers would realise that a tipping point has been reached, where they need to cooperate better than they've been doing up to that point.
The only thing I can see being a greater threat is climate change - I'd hope that we'd have learned to cooperate to deal with this before we end up fighting over resources in an all-out war.
Sadly, it's six-of-one and half-a-dozen of the other, in my view.
Kindest regards,
James
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
To my mind, two things are realistic contenders for that cognitive tipping point:
1. Matter transference technology.
2. Alien visitation.
One of them is in our hands.
1. Matter transference technology.
2. Alien visitation.
One of them is in our hands.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
How do we hold governments culpable if we can't describe them as rational agents? How do we even begin to describe their behavior?