Nuclear Weapons

[Tarvos]

Yes. There's a certain probability that a nuclear warhead will be used in any given year; the only way that this probability will be 0 is if there are no nuclear warheads. Thus, given sufficiently many years, the probability gets higher and higher. If we never get rid of nuclear weapons, that probability reaches (theoretically) 1. Thus the only solution is disarmament.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's not like we "have to" fire a nuke at some point. It's perfectly acceptable to just let them lay around as a threat. I don't think we should actually be considering any probability of using a nuke, and if there is one, it should be so low that when it reaches one, we'll all be dead and gone anyway due to the sun exploding or some shit.

It's not just a matter of statistics. We can actually defy statistics consciously and just keep them as a counter in case anyone ever wanted to nuke us. The whole bloody point of the exercise is to consciously tell statistics to shut the bloody hell up. There is no such thing as a probability we will fire a nuke at any given time.

We either fire a nuke or we don't. The chance that we fire a nuke is 1 if somebody else does and 0 if nobody else fires a nuke first. It's that simple.

All we need to know is that if someone wants to risk nuclear war, they are gonna be on the losing end of it. Considering we have more nuclear knowledge than Iran or North Korea, it doesn't matter anyway.

My point is: if we leave ourselves defenseless, sooner or later some git is gonna take advantage of it. And that's what I don't want. This is why I don't support full military abolition etc. We might as well remove all weaponry. It doesn't bloody work. You can't remove guns or weapons or nukes. Not unless you willingly give yourself over to the mercy of someone else who is capable of fucking you over any time he or she wants to.

In the long run, that is something on which I pass.

World peace and nuclear disarmament is all good and nice, but realistically there are too many people that can take advantage. The threat could even be corruption from within the US or Russia.

EDIT: Also, I think you and pretty much everyone in favour of nuclear weapons hugely overestimates the abilities of Iran and North Korea to actually use nuclear weapons.

It doesn't matter what rogue state it is or what name it is put under. If it's not them it's Zanzibar, who gives a shit.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Contrary to popular belief this doesn't actually make you look smart, nor does it mysteriously invalidate any sequence of events you haven't mentioned.

You're assuming a lot about me and bordering on ad hominem there. I'm aware that the presentation of a hypothetical scenario doesn't invalidate other hypothetical scenarios.

It only needs to happen once. If the probability of event A happening in any given year is x, in ten years the probability that it will have happened once is 10x.

Again, I'm probably misunderstanding some maths here but if the probability of event A happening in any given year is x, assuming event A is a nuclear war, doesn't that mean that there's exactly as much chance of it happening in 2009 as in 2010 and in 2010 as in 2011. Since the probability of it happening in any given year is x, doesn't the probability remain constant?

Just one example. And yes, that was a long time ago. It can still happen, and it only needs to happen once.

That perfectly validates my point. The person in charge was competent enough to know that the information was wrong. People aren't as stupid as they seem.

Also, thanks to the development of the Internet, fibre-optic cables, satellites and other nifty technologies, the chances of the military inaccurately detecting incoming ICBMs, confirming a false detection and ordering a nuclear strike is significantly lower.

Yes. There's a certain probability that a nuclear warhead will be used in any given year; the only way that this probability will be 0 is if there are no nuclear warheads. Thus, given sufficiently many years, the probability gets higher and higher. If we never get rid of nuclear weapons, that probability reaches (theoretically) 1. Thus the only solution is disarmament.

Like I said, I'm not on par with your mathematical skills but I can't see how the probability is increasing.

It seems to me that if the existence of nuclear weapons is a constant (because we haven't disarmed), the willingness of nations to use it is a constant (because of mutually-assured destruction) and the likelihood of a fuck-up can only be decreasing due to better communication, security and object-detection systems, that the probability of it happening should be decreasing every year if anything.

Even if the willingness of nations to use nukes is a variable, as more powerful weapons are getting produced, the willingness of nations to use them would only decrease further because of the even more mutually-assured destruction.

EDIT: Also, I think you and pretty much everyone in favour of nuclear weapons hugely overestimates the abilities of Iran and North Korea to actually use nuclear weapons.

1) I am NOT, nor have I ever been, in favour of nuclear weapons.
2) I never mentioned Iran.
3) I am morally in favour of disarmament but in practical terms, it's currently infeasible.
4) In relation to North Korea's nuclear capabilities, as you have so accurately said, it only needs to happen once.

 

[opaltiger]

Oh man, I learned this in sixth grade! "Jimmy is standing in line for a carnival game. He's excited because it says one in four people will win, and the three people ahead of him in line lost the game. He believes he is automatically going to win. Is he correct?" The obvious answer is no, and this is the exact same situation. Every year, the slate is wiped clean. Let's say there's a one in ten thousand chance of a nuclear false alarm causing armageddon. The next year, it won't magically escalate to one in 9999 because the last year passed.

No, this is not the same. I'm not saying that if, say, the probability is one in ten a nuke will definitely be fired in the tenth year. I'm saying that, if the probability is one in ten the probability that it will be fired by the tenth year is fairly large (can't be bothered to do the calculation right now). I'm sorry, I realise making an argument based in theoretical probability is questionable at best, but please don't argue with my maths if you haven't actually done any serious probability.

We either fire a nuke or we don't. The chance that we fire a nuke is 1 if somebody else does and 0 if nobody else fires a nuke first. It's that simple.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because this sentence is enough to tell me you're over simplifying the situation to a gross extent. Yes, ideally, the only situation anyone would ever fire a nuke in would be in retaliation to another nuclear strike, thus no one would ever strike first. But that isn't how the world works.

Again, I'm probably misunderstanding some maths here but if the probability of event A happening in any given year is x, assuming event A is a nuclear war, doesn't that mean that there's exactly as much chance of it happening in 2009 as in 2010 and in 2010 as in 2011. Since the probability of it happening in any given year is x, doesn't the probability remain constant?

Ignore my first explanation, it was somewhat stupidly worded. But listen, you're missing the point. Things don't happen in discrete units of time - I'm talking about the probability of a nuclear war starting in any one of many years, and no matter how small the individual probability is, that would be very large, given a long enough timespan.

That perfectly validates my point. The person in charge was competent enough to know that the information was wrong. People aren't as stupid as they seem

That is a terrible conclusion to draw from that anecdote. The world came this close to nuclear war; it was only averted by one officer deciding to be cautious. This, remember, was to counter your point that David Cameron does not have a large nuke button in his office. That's true; however, other people in the world could very well have to make the decision to launch or not launch a nuclear missile. A similar situation happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It seems to me that if the existence of nuclear weapons is a constant (because we haven't disarmed), the willingness of nations to use it is a constant (because of mutually-assured destruction) and the likelihood of a fuck-up can only be decreasing due to better communication, security and object-detection systems, that the probability of it happening should be decreasing every year if anything.

You're simplifying. I'm simplifying, too, but that's necessary if you're going to do this sort of thing; I acknowledge that, but I'm not sure you do. Again, like Watershed, you assume that mutually assured destruction will ensure that no one ever uses nukes (or, rather, that they will always be extremely reluctant to do so). That simply isn't true. People are different; times are different; attitudes are different; and so on. But even if the probability were to decrease, the base point remains: as long as it isn't zero it will, at some point in the future, occur.

1) I am NOT, nor have I ever been, in favour of nuclear weapons.

You're against disarmament. For the purposes of this debate you are in favour of keeping nuclear weapons as opposed to getting rid of them. Yes?

2) I never mentioned Iran.

Yes yes, I was listing examples.

4) In relation to North Korea's nuclear capabilities, as you have so accurately said, it only needs to happen once.

So North Korea possessing three warheads and virtually no delivery systems is dangerous but the US and Russia keeping tens of thousands around isn't. Right.

 

[Ruby]

Look, Pwnemon and Teh Ebil Snorlax, here's the answer to the probability question. If I drive to work every day for a year, the chances of my having a car crash are one thing. If I drive to work every day for fifty years, the chances are higher.

Edit.

It's not just a matter of statistics. We can actually defy statistics consciously and just keep them as a counter in case anyone ever wanted to nuke us. The whole bloody point of the exercise is to consciously tell statistics to shut the bloody hell up. There is no such thing as a probability we will fire a nuke at any given time.

Of course. But we're talking about the statistical probability that someone else will fire nukes at us. And then we are assuming that that would trigger nuclear war, which I think is correct.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Ignore my first explanation, it was somewhat stupidly worded. But listen, you're missing the point. Things don't happen in discrete units of time - I'm talking about the probability of a nuclear war starting in any one of many years, and no matter how small the individual probability is, that would be very large, given a long enough timespan.

By this logic, everything will eventually happen, which simply isn't true.

That is a terrible conclusion to draw from that anecdote. The world came this close to nuclear war; it was only averted by one officer deciding to be cautious. This, remember, was to counter your point that David Cameron does not have a large nuke button in his office. That's true; however, other people in the world could very well have to make the decision to launch or not launch a nuclear missile. A similar situation happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Isn't that kinda the point of a failsafe? That when things come this close to going wrong, there's a measure that will stop them going wrong? The Cuban Missile Crisis was an hour away from becoming World War 3 but it didn't because people aren't that stupid.

You're simplifying. I'm simplifying, too, but that's necessary if you're going to do this sort of thing; I acknowledge that, but I'm not sure you do. Again, like Watershed, you assume that mutually assured destruction will ensure that no one ever uses nukes (or, rather, that they will always be extremely reluctant to do so). That simply isn't true. People are different; times are different; attitudes are different; and so on. But even if the probability were to decrease, the base point remains: as long as it isn't zero it will, at some point in the future, occur.

Okay even my limited knowledge of maths can tell me that there isn't a dichotomy between impossibility and inevitability.

Also, wouldn't human free will mess with any calculation of probability you try to make? Your maths seem to depend on nuclear war being a natural phenomenon that will occur anyway rather than something entirely dependent on conscious human decision to do so. Like you say, circumstances change, so you can't say that that it will inevitably happen, because people's extreme reluctance to fire nukes could increase to such a magnitude that the probability of nuclear war occurring becomes inconceivable.

Also, I understand that situations and people change but mutually-assured destruction will never be favourable (and if there is every a situation where mutually-assured destruction is favourable to the alternative, then some serious shit must be about to go down), so it stands to reason that the probability of nuclear war occurring will either remain constant or decrease, but not rise.

You're against disarmament. For the purposes of this debate you are in favour of keeping nuclear weapons as opposed to getting rid of them. Yes?

Yes.

So North Korea possessing three warheads and virtually no delivery systems is dangerous but the US and Russia keeping tens of thousands around isn't. Right.

You're drawing conclusions from nothing. I never said that the US and Russia possessing nukes wasn't dangerous, I fully acknowledge the danger, because that danger is the basis of mutually-assured destruction.

Also, sarcasm doesn't refute the fact that North Korea, just like any other state, only needs to fire one nuke to start a nuclear war, which is exactly what you said; "It only needs to happen once."

Look, Pwnemon and Teh Ebil Snorlax, here's the answer to the probability question. If I drive to work every day for a year, the chances of my having a car crash are one thing. If I drive to work every day for fifty years, the chances are higher.

Again, not up to scratch on probability but I'm pretty sure that analogy is incompatible with nuclear war.

Every time you drive a car, you create another opportunity for you to have a car crash. So if you drive a car twice a day for a year, you have 730 opportunities to crash a car and if you drive a car twice a day for fifty years, you have 3650 opportunities.

But if you have nukes, and they're just sitting there, they're not being used and no one is doing anything with them, then you only have one opportunity and if you don't take that opportunity, then nuclear war will never happen. And no matter how many years pass, only that single opportunity will exist, more opportunities will not present themselves, it will always be that one opportunity.

And if I'm right and the probability of nuclear war occurring either remains at the current constant (monumentally unlikely) or decreases, then the opportunity won't be taken.

EDIT: Actually, fuck it, I know that thing about nuclear war being inevitable is bullshit, infinite probability is not inevitability. Even if I flip a coin an infinite amount of times, there is no guarantee I will ever get heads.

 

[Ruby]

There are a number of points you've made that I could reply to, but some of them (like the one about everything eventually happening) will distract from the debate and not add to it. I'm just going to ask a couple of questions.

If it is "monumentally unlikely" that anyone will ever fire a nuclear weapon, why are you against them?

If it is "monumentally unlikely" that anyone will ever fire a nuclear weapon, why did both sides spend the whole Cold War making plans in case somebody should fire a nuclear weapon?

(There's more to be said, but I've got to go for today, and opal's already logged off.)

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

There are a number of points you've made that I could reply to, but some of them (like the one about everything eventually happening) will distract from the debate and not add to it. I'm just going to ask a couple of questions.

If it is "monumentally unlikely" that anyone will ever fire a nuclear weapon, why are you against them?

Because no matter how unlikely something is, it is still only unlikely, not impossible. So as long as nuclear weapons exist, there is a possibility, however small, that they will be used.

However, I am opposed to disarmament because there is only a zero probability of a nuclear war happening if nuclear weapons don't exist and there is no way to guarantee that any plan of disarmament will actually get rid of all nuclear weapons.

So for the same reason that you in favour of disarmament, I am opposed to it; there is always a chance.

If it is "monumentally unlikely" that anyone will ever fire a nuclear weapon, why did both sides spend the whole Cold War making plans in case somebody should fire a nuclear weapon?

It is currently monumentally unlikely that anyone will fire a nuclear weapon. Because during the Cold War, people made plans and contingencies that produced the nuclear Mexican standoff known as mutually-assured destruction.

People made those plans because there is always a chance and there should be a plan and a contingency for every conceivable problem. If the US wasn't prepared for a nuclear attack from Russia, Russia would have been more likely to attack, but since Russia knew that the US was prepared, the chances of it attack decreased and vice versa.

 

[Tarvos]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because this sentence is enough to tell me you're over simplifying the situation to a gross extent. Yes, ideally, the only situation anyone would ever fire a nuke in would be in retaliation to another nuclear strike, thus no one would ever strike first. But that isn't how the world works.

Oh yes it is. Nuclear war doesn't need to occur. We have free will. We are free not to fire a nuke if we don't want to.

Ideally we should not wanting to be using nukes. But I find that people respond to fear very well as a threat. Those tyrannical leaders who I presume would use nukes are afraid that if their expansionist ideas can be halted with a simple "blow the world up, including your country" will think twice about expanding if their greed can be effectively halted. Even Kim Jong Il is not that retarded.

I am simplifying the situation because that is how it works.

Of course. But we're talking about the statistical probability that someone else will fire nukes at us. And then we are assuming that that would trigger nuclear war, which I think is correct.

Which is zero as long as they have their doom hanging over their heads. So I fail to see the problem.

Ignore my first explanation, it was somewhat stupidly worded. But listen, you're missing the point. Things don't happen in discrete units of time - I'm talking about the probability of a nuclear war starting in any one of many years, and no matter how small the individual probability is, that would be very large, given a long enough timespan.

The probability of pigs flying is very low. Does that mean that in 300 million years, pigs will eventually have learned to fly? I doubt it.

 

[Tarvos]

So you believe we are going to get nuked eventually anyway? In that case, might as well all kill ourselves.

 

[#1 bro]

I'm a bit confused on this issue. Even if every country did get rid of their nukes, it's not like people would just forget how to make them. I don't see why some crazy dictator in the future couldn't just create a stockpile in secret, assuming their country was developed enough scientifically . After that, whoops, we would all be taken over by this dictator, because we got rid of our nukes and can't defend ourselves. Right? Or am I missing something.

Maybe every country should just pool all of their nukes together in one big stockpile, with no one country given the power to launch one of their own. That way, the threat of annihilation would still deter crazy dictators from taking over the world, but because no one country would have the power to launch nukes without the others' consent,nit would be impossible for an actual war to result. I don't know.

Also I think I might be writing a paper on this in school, so uh yeah.

 

[Tailsy]

"But we told you not to fire the nuke!"
"... *palmshrug*"

I think that plan has exactly the same problem.