7 ms·

If everyone has nuclear weapons, humanity will destroy itself.

by DevNinjaS 2y ago

Cyph0n 2y ago
The only long-term equilibrium states are: no one does or everyone does.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  “Everyone does” have nuclear weapons, where “everyone” includes more than one independent sovereignty, is not a long-term equilibrium state, it is a metastable state, prone to rapid devolution to “no one does”, possibly with a side order if “there is no one to”.
  - Cyph0n 2y ago
    I don’t know what you are responding to. I clearly stated that equilibrium is only attainable if everyone has access to nuclear weapons - as in every single sovereign nation - or no one. I prefer an equilibrium of the latter kind.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      I am responding to you, and disagreeing with your claim that the first of your options is a viable long-term equilibrium, contending that that is only true under the degenerate condition of a single sovereignty, otherwise it is a metastable state [0], not a stable long-term equilibrium. [0] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100153247 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
      - Cyph0n 2y ago
        Ah I now see what you mean. I somehow misread your comment as “a single state with nuclear power implies everyone does”. Thanks for clarifying.
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      That gives you constant empire driven world wars. With those weaker and in danger of getting annexed trying to get nukes desperately. Maybe consider real humans while evaluating game theory?
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      I prefer later. As nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. A country with larger conventional army won't be able to bully smaller one... And you really need that sort of capability for equilibrium.
dragonwriter 2y ago
No one, for any practical purpose, cares extra about humanity, at least not enough for what is perceived as a more remote risk to matter. Everyone cares about themselves, where the lesson is increasingly: if you do not have nuclear weapons, someone will, possibly very soon, destroy you.
hackerlight 2y ago
Of course, but that doesn't deal with the cause of nuclear proliferation, which is the anarchy of a multi-polar security situation. In the extreme case of NATO breaking up, you should expect most central European countries will get nukes to deter Russia. If US becomes more uncertain as a security backstop, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam will seek nukes because they have no choice if they wish to be assured security against China. Small countries are observing Western appeasement and the US political right's betrayal of Ukraine and wondering if it'll happen to them. Remember the assurances Clinton gave them if they renounced nukes? Words and signed paper count for little.
int_19h 2y ago
You're right. And when that happens, let's remember that it is the path the Western countries have chosen by deciding that their immediate quality of life is more important, and skimped on military spending and foreign military assistance during an active invasion of a country that specifically surrendered its nukes in exchange for safety guarantees that were ultimately not honored in spirit. And it is still not too late to do something about this, but the clock is running out fast. Luckily, every single one of us can help it by making that clock run slower with donations directly to the Ukrainian military effort (not some wishy-washy "non-combat humanitarian aid" stuff). Every dollar spent on buying drones for Ukraine to blow up Russian tanks with buys that many more minutes on that clock.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Your first paragraph, yeah, but... "Every dollar spent on buying drones for Ukraine to blow up Russian tanks with buys that many more minutes on that clock.", really? How would that help us, everyone else? It has been so long yet no one knows fuck all about the Minsk agreement and how it all started. Funny that. I wonder if Wikipedia is still accurate on that one... but I get it, Russia is bad.
  - throwaway473825 2y ago
    The Minsk agreements happened after the Budapest Memorandum was violated. If the latter was upheld, the former wouldn't exist.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      The Minsk agreements began as an effort to address the conflict between Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, though. Do we have a disagreement here? I crystal clearly remember when pro-Russian Ukrainians were fighting against their own Ukrainian government. As for the rest: the failure to uphold the commitments made in the Budapest Memorandum contributed to the deterioration of relations between Ukraine and Russia, leading to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Minsk agreements were then pursued as a diplomatic effort to address and resolve the resulting crisis. Regardless of any of that, it was between pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine vs. the Ukrainian government. The conflict in eastern Ukraine involved clashes between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatist groups. These groups, often referred to as "separatists" or "rebels" declared independence in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and established self-proclaimed republics. Amidst the conflict, efforts were made to negotiate ceasefires and peace agreements. The Minsk agreements, as mentioned earlier, were one such attempt to bring about a cessation of hostilities and a political resolution to the conflict. However, the ceasefire has been repeatedly violated, and the conflict remains unresolved. Might I add that the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine has been repeatedly violated by both Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatist groups. Both sides have been accused of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreements outlined in the Minsk accords. You can read more about it. For the record, Donbass is often used as a term to refer to the eastern regions of Ukraine, particularly Donetsk and Luhansk, where the conflict between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatist groups has been ongoing since 2014. Those regions are where pro-Russian sentiment is significant.

If everyone has nuclear weapons, humanity will destroy itself.

Cyph0n 2y ago

The only long-term equilibrium states are: no one does or everyone does.

dragonwriter 2y ago
“Everyone does” have nuclear weapons, where “everyone” includes more than one independent sovereignty, is not a long-term equilibrium state, it is a metastable state, prone to rapid devolution to “no one does”, possibly with a side order if “there is no one to”.
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  I don’t know what you are responding to. I clearly stated that equilibrium is only attainable if everyone has access to nuclear weapons - as in every single sovereign nation - or no one. I prefer an equilibrium of the latter kind.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    I am responding to you, and disagreeing with your claim that the first of your options is a viable long-term equilibrium, contending that that is only true under the degenerate condition of a single sovereignty, otherwise it is a metastable state [0], not a stable long-term equilibrium. [0] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100153247 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...
    - Cyph0n 2y ago
      Ah I now see what you mean. I somehow misread your comment as “a single state with nuclear power implies everyone does”. Thanks for clarifying.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    That gives you constant empire driven world wars. With those weaker and in danger of getting annexed trying to get nukes desperately. Maybe consider real humans while evaluating game theory?
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    I prefer later. As nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. A country with larger conventional army won't be able to bully smaller one... And you really need that sort of capability for equilibrium.

dragonwriter 2y ago

No one, for any practical purpose, cares extra about humanity, at least not enough for what is perceived as a more remote risk to matter. Everyone cares about themselves, where the lesson is increasingly: if you do not have nuclear weapons, someone will, possibly very soon, destroy you.

hackerlight 2y ago

Of course, but that doesn't deal with the cause of nuclear proliferation, which is the anarchy of a multi-polar security situation. In the extreme case of NATO breaking up, you should expect most central European countries will get nukes to deter Russia. If US becomes more uncertain as a security backstop, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam will seek nukes because they have no choice if they wish to be assured security against China. Small countries are observing Western appeasement and the US political right's betrayal of Ukraine and wondering if it'll happen to them. Remember the assurances Clinton gave them if they renounced nukes? Words and signed paper count for little.

int_19h 2y ago

You're right. And when that happens, let's remember that it is the path the Western countries have chosen by deciding that their immediate quality of life is more important, and skimped on military spending and foreign military assistance during an active invasion of a country that specifically surrendered its nukes in exchange for safety guarantees that were ultimately not honored in spirit. And it is still not too late to do something about this, but the clock is running out fast. Luckily, every single one of us can help it by making that clock run slower with donations directly to the Ukrainian military effort (not some wishy-washy "non-combat humanitarian aid" stuff). Every dollar spent on buying drones for Ukraine to blow up Russian tanks with buys that many more minutes on that clock.

johnisgood 2y ago
Your first paragraph, yeah, but... "Every dollar spent on buying drones for Ukraine to blow up Russian tanks with buys that many more minutes on that clock.", really? How would that help us, everyone else? It has been so long yet no one knows fuck all about the Minsk agreement and how it all started. Funny that. I wonder if Wikipedia is still accurate on that one... but I get it, Russia is bad.
- throwaway473825 2y ago
  The Minsk agreements happened after the Budapest Memorandum was violated. If the latter was upheld, the former wouldn't exist.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    The Minsk agreements began as an effort to address the conflict between Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, though. Do we have a disagreement here? I crystal clearly remember when pro-Russian Ukrainians were fighting against their own Ukrainian government. As for the rest: the failure to uphold the commitments made in the Budapest Memorandum contributed to the deterioration of relations between Ukraine and Russia, leading to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Minsk agreements were then pursued as a diplomatic effort to address and resolve the resulting crisis. Regardless of any of that, it was between pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine vs. the Ukrainian government. The conflict in eastern Ukraine involved clashes between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatist groups. These groups, often referred to as "separatists" or "rebels" declared independence in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and established self-proclaimed republics. Amidst the conflict, efforts were made to negotiate ceasefires and peace agreements. The Minsk agreements, as mentioned earlier, were one such attempt to bring about a cessation of hostilities and a political resolution to the conflict. However, the ceasefire has been repeatedly violated, and the conflict remains unresolved. Might I add that the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine has been repeatedly violated by both Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatist groups. Both sides have been accused of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreements outlined in the Minsk accords. You can read more about it. For the record, Donbass is often used as a term to refer to the eastern regions of Ukraine, particularly Donetsk and Luhansk, where the conflict between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatist groups has been ongoing since 2014. Those regions are where pro-Russian sentiment is significant.