Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, definitely.

84 (53.8%)

Probably.

32 (20.5%)

Maybe, maybe not.

15 (9.6%)

Probably not.

14 (9%)

No, definitely not.

6 (3.8%)

Don't know.

5 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 155

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Since the begining of the Cold War, people have feared the impending end of the world in a nuclear holocaust. But do you think we have it in us? Could someone really push the button and kill all of humanity? Everyone you know? Everyone alive? Could you do that? Could anyone do that?

Personally, I don't think anyone could. In a social situation, no one wants to be "that guy", and no one wants to be the person responsible for the destruction of our species. I think even a religious extremist sociopath who wants the world to die so that he will be rewarded after death would begin to have some level of doubt when the time actually came to bring about the end. I also present to you the case of Stanislav Petrov. He received satellite data suggesting that the USA had launched five nuclear missiles at the USSR, and decided to report the data as a false alarm instead of informing his superiors. Finally, I find support in the revelation after the end of the Cold War that the USA and USSR both never intended to make the first strike, only to retaliate. The one incident in history of nuclear weapons being used as weapons was very early in the history of nuclear weapons, and against a country that could not retaliate in turn. Even that has caused a major moral debate that continues to this day. (Note that this is not the thread to debate the morality of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) So I don't think we have it in us. No way, no how.

[Cthulhu]

A government, maybe not.  What I'm worried about is shortsighted fanatics getting a hold of one. Sure, they couldn't make the world burn with just one nuke, but they could cause a global catastrophe, and I'm sure there are lots of people capable of doing that with the resources to do it.

[Levi]

Well considering the amount of other horrifying atrocities committed in war, I'd totally believe someone could do it.  In the worst case they'd only have to delude themselves into thinking "This probably won't end up killing everybody".  I have great faith in the human ability to lie to themselves.

Thankfully I don't think anything is currently set up in a way where a single button would cause this.   

[RedKing]

Absolutely. If you look at the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were a number of staff officers within the Pentagon urging Kennedy to INITIATE a nuclear first-strike against the Soviets.

We don't need wild-eyed fanatics to start a nuclear war, just hubris and the inability to accept a changing world. The planet has both of those in spades.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Thankfully I don't think anything is currently set up in a way where a single button would cause this.   

"Push The Button" is an established phrase for launching nuclear missiles.

[Levi]

Thankfully I don't think anything is currently set up in a way where a single button would cause this.   

"Push The Button" is an established phrase for launching nuclear missiles.

Oh yeah, I mean that even if a nuke was launched by accident at this point, I don't think it would lead to immediate retaliation.  Not like in the cold war where one nuke launched might mean all out war.

[Criptfeind]

I don't think anyone will do so because everyone that have nukes at this point are much more interested in economics then war. And everyone dieing is expensive.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Absolutely. If you look at the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were a number of staff officers within the Pentagon urging Kennedy to INITIATE a nuclear first-strike against the Soviets.

But the responsiblity wasn't on them. It's easy to advocate that sort of thing when you aren't the person who can authorize the nuclear strike. Kennedy was the one who held the responsibility of a nuclear strike in that situation. And we're still here.

[Strife26]

Yes yes yes yes yes.


If I was looking at a bunch of soviet (or Chinese) missiles coming my country's way, I'd damn well retaliate. Without that mindset (or the threat of that mindset) MAD doesn't work.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I was looking at a bunch of soviet (or Chinese) missiles coming my country's way, I'd damn well retaliate.

Then I present to you the question: Why? Why would you ensure the destruction of others because your destruction is ensured? You might manage to kill the people in China who ordered the strike (although that's acutally less likely, given that they would have a bunker), but you'd certainly kill more people innocent of ordering any nuclear strikes against the USA.

[Levi]

If I was looking at a bunch of soviet (or Chinese) missiles coming my country's way, I'd damn well retaliate.

Then I present to you the question: Why? Why would you ensure the destruction of others because your destruction is ensured? You might manage to kill the people in China who ordered the strike (although that's acutally less likely, given that they would have a bunker), but you'd certainly kill more people innocent of ordering any nuclear strikes against the USA.

I think a lot of people would want revenge if their friends and families were killed.

Hell, look at 9/11.  The US(and I think Canada?) carpet bombed the hell out of the poor Afghanistans in retaliation to one terrorist group that happened to live there.

[Heliman]

Actually, you're breaking directly into the policy of mutually assured destruction. The possibility of our retaliation is the only deterrent from being bombed ourselves.

[EmperorNuthulu]

True, but people tend not to care about mutually assured destruction and whatnot when they see their relatives being turned into radioactive vapour.

[Heliman]

That's more or less the point where the "mutual" part of the argument kicks in.

[Criptfeind]

If you don't bomb back after you have been bombed, then what can stop them from bombing you again?