Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | ... | 730
Glurp
9483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4484

Subscriber

  Reply # 1686722 12-Dec-2016 21:07
Send private message quote this post

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1686723 12-Dec-2016 21:14
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

tdgeek:

 

Sorry, but no. It was about the nuclear deterrent. If you do, I will too. Doesnt really matter who does as all will be killed. Its about deterrent. And about the US not being dumb, and the USSR not being dumb. 

 

Thats fine, but these days, ISIS, Iran maybe but not likely, India/Pakistan possibly, PRNK, who knows

 

 

Exactly - but the deterrent needs to be credible.  So if an aggressor can for instance do one large air-burst that generates an EMP and disables the deterrent, it greatly increases the chance of this being a valid strategy.

 

Similarly, if you have the hardware but a leader (eg Corbyn) who says he would never use it, that's not a credible deterrent.

 

 

I feel that the world these days is more credible. Even though we have had two Iraq/Afghan wars and now iSiS. We were probably better off when the USSR and USA were squaring off, neither were stupid. Threats, news, but nothing will happen.


 
 
 
 


1628 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 857


  Reply # 1686724 12-Dec-2016 21:15
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 

The point is that it has worked (up to now) and nobody has thought of a better way (up to now).  It's a hugely complicated subject involving probability and game theory, which is why it gets very annoying when people suggest we could just unilaterally give them up and everything would be lovely and peaceful.  Overkill, for example, is necessary to ensure that a first preemptive strike isn't a valid strategy.

 

I'm sure there are books and websites which can explain it fully if you're really interested in understanding how we got here and where we go next


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1686726 12-Dec-2016 21:18
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

shk292:

 

networkn:

 

I am honestly embarrassed by the tone of some of these posts toward other people. Honestly, you'd give Trump a run for his money. 

 

Can I recommend that before hitting the post button you take a few moments and re-read what you are proposing to post?

 

 

If you're referring to my post then be assured that I proof-read it very carefully before posting and I stand by what I said.  Just because I have a different view to yours and argue my case strongly, that doesn't make me wrong.

 

As someone who joined the armed forces during the height of the cold war and served as part of the NATO deterrent for 20+ years, I consider I have a reasonable level of knowledge of the subject.

 

 

It was not a specifically targeted comment, it was a general comment. I feel there are ways for people to communicate their points without using aggressive or belittling tones. If that applies to you, then so be it, if it doesn't then don't worry about it :) 

 

I find the distinct lack of respect shown from members here to each other in the course of discussions to be exhausting and sole destroying some days is all. 

 

Edit: I see why you thought this was directed at you specifically based on the fact I used the term "you" right after Your post, that was coincidental. I should have used "people" as it wasn't addressed at one person but as the group together. 

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

 

 

 

 

I AGREE caps intended. Its fine to discuss, disagree. But when its on the internet, an adult discussion can end in keyboard warriors. I have probably been guilty as well. Ive seen some very cool people disappear from here. Thats why. Not just here either. 


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1686727 12-Dec-2016 21:19
Send private message quote this post

shk292:

 

networkn:

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer. 

 

 

 

No problem and thanks for the clarification.  

 

 

Awesome. Some realism in this unreal virtual world. 


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1686728 12-Dec-2016 21:24
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 

 

 

I will shorten your post to one word, as bolded. It does work. It has worked. USSR vs USA, they both had many warheads aimed. Red button push. Never happened. Not ideal sure. The world has evolved as modern humans are very very young. Now we have ISIS, India/Pakistan/PRNK. That is actually better. Its manageable, but not ideal. 


936 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 303

Trusted

  Reply # 1686734 12-Dec-2016 21:50
Send private message quote this post

The whole India Pakistan argument is the same. 2 big guns pointing at each other. If one fires they both die. They may as well detonate their own bimbs and blow themselves up. Same as Cuban missile crisis and same with dprk. Kim fatty the third is not gonna attack china because well that's just stupid. He won't stack the USA because well that's just as stupid. And an attack on South Korea or Japan is the same as attacking the USA. Remember Kim is educated, it's a geopolitical bargaining chip, the fact he has these horrendous weapons does make other countries uneasy, however if he ever considered using them he would be signing his entire countries death warrant. So it is unlikely.

What I think trump is getting at is he wants to "renew" the arsenals. This means more tactical weapons will be developed. Rather than giant bombs they are just somewhat largeish SLBMs with tactical guidance systems.






15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1686736 12-Dec-2016 21:57
Send private message quote this post

darylblake: The whole India Pakistan argument is the same. 2 big guns pointing at each other. If one fires they both die. They may as well detonate their own bimbs and blow themselves up. Same as Cuban missile crisis and same with dprk. Kim fatty the third is not gonna attack china because well that's just stupid. He won't stack the USA because well that's just as stupid. And an attack on South Korea or Japan is the same as attacking the USA. Remember Kim is educated, it's a geopolitical bargaining chip, the fact he has these horrendous weapons does make other countries uneasy, however if he ever considered using them he would be signing his entire countries death warrant. So it is unlikely.

What I think trump is getting at is he wants to "renew" the arsenals. This means more tactical weapons will be developed. Rather than giant bombs they are just somewhat largeish SLBMs with tactical guidance systems.

 

India/Pakistan its not about them, its about physical fallout to others. In these modern times, there should be no nuclear risk. Yesterdays Idi Amin is todays Kim Jong Un. Needs to be cut at the knees. None of this oil for food BS. India and Pakistan need to be told by the united world, DONT. DO and your both cut off


936 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 303

Trusted

  Reply # 1686753 12-Dec-2016 22:15
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

darylblake: The whole India Pakistan argument is the same. 2 big guns pointing at each other. If one fires they both die. They may as well detonate their own bimbs and blow themselves up. Same as Cuban missile crisis and same with dprk. Kim fatty the third is not gonna attack china because well that's just stupid. He won't stack the USA because well that's just as stupid. And an attack on South Korea or Japan is the same as attacking the USA. Remember Kim is educated, it's a geopolitical bargaining chip, the fact he has these horrendous weapons does make other countries uneasy, however if he ever considered using them he would be signing his entire countries death warrant. So it is unlikely.

What I think trump is getting at is he wants to "renew" the arsenals. This means more tactical weapons will be developed. Rather than giant bombs they are just somewhat largeish SLBMs with tactical guidance systems.


India/Pakistan its not about them, its about physical fallout to others. In these modern times, there should be no nuclear risk. Yesterdays Idi Amin is todays Kim Jong Un. Needs to be cut at the knees. None of this oil for food BS. India and Pakistan need to be told by the united world, DONT. DO and your both cut off



Yes well that is the biggest concern. What makes you think Kim Jong wants to use these weapons apart from his direct rhetoric. He DPRK has had weapons since October 2006.

Don't get me wrong any use would be an absolute disaster, but what would have to change to get any of the 9 countries to use them?

I completely agree with you a united world voice is definitely influential but it hasn't done much for proliferation.





7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4325


  Reply # 1686756 12-Dec-2016 22:21
Send private message quote this post

Getting a bit off topic here, IMO.

 

Closer to topic, Trump's starting to annoy the Chinese re Taiwan. 

 

I note on the English language Chinese news sites, there's mention now of Trump's posturing, but still overshadowed by photos of joint Chinese:US naval exercises off San Diego, mention of the "WTO being the best way to expand trade" etc. To me, those are subtle but clear messages.

 

I don't agree with the One China policy, but Trump better realise that China is actually a friend in a world where the USA needs friends.  Now isn't the time to be making the friendship conditional IMO.


Mad Scientist
19794 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2673

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1686760 12-Dec-2016 22:37
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

I'm amazed at the ability of the President-elect to cause so much destruction on the internet 10,000 miles from New York. I can only applaud him. We lost the war on Trump.





Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


BDFL - Memuneh
62628 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13283

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1686762 12-Dec-2016 22:48
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 

It's based on game theory. Yes, both sides can be annihilated. But both sides also know there's no escape because once one fires there's ample time for the other to fire. So what's the profit? Nobody wins. Playing to not win is not worth it. The best outcome is not to play. So both sides keep their guns pointed at each, certain that the other is not going to fire first because that would be suicidal.





7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4325


  Reply # 1686768 12-Dec-2016 23:28
Send private message quote this post

freitasm:

 

Rikkitic:

 

What is credible about a deterrent that destroys the whole world? What point does that make? To scale it down, imagine again two people with guns pointed at each other. They are entirely capable of destroying each other. Now imagine that one also has a bazooka. So what? What does that add? You can only be dead once. An effective deterrent is one that costs the opponent more than they want to give up. More than that is just literally overkill. Again, what is the point?

 

 

It's based on game theory. Yes, both sides can be annihilated. But both sides also know there's no escape because once one fires there's ample time for the other to fire. So what's the profit? Nobody wins. Playing to not win is not worth it. The best outcome is not to play. So both sides keep their guns pointed at each, certain that the other is not going to fire first because that would be suicidal.

 

 

 

 

With some close calls when one side mistakenly thinks the other side might have launched a first-strike.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

 

They only need to completely stuff up once.


12549 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1686770 12-Dec-2016 23:39
Send private message quote this post

darylblake: The whole India Pakistan argument is the same. 2 big guns pointing at each other. If one fires they both die. They may as well detonate their own bimbs and blow themselves up. Same as Cuban missile crisis and same with dprk. Kim fatty the third is not gonna attack china because well that's just stupid. He won't stack the USA because well that's just as stupid. And an attack on South Korea or Japan is the same as attacking the USA. Remember Kim is educated, it's a geopolitical bargaining chip, the fact he has these horrendous weapons does make other countries uneasy, however if he ever considered using them he would be signing his entire countries death warrant. So it is unlikely.

What I think trump is getting at is he wants to "renew" the arsenals. This means more tactical weapons will be developed. Rather than giant bombs they are just somewhat largeish SLBMs with tactical guidance systems.

 

It's even more crazy when you think that until the Indians insisted on it in 1947, there was no India and Pakistan, just India!






Glurp
9483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4484

Subscriber

  Reply # 1686772 12-Dec-2016 23:52
Send private message quote this post

I am familiar with game theory (the concept, not the details). I still think it is absurd. But there are different aspects to this discussion. I wasn't referring to the US-Soviet stand-off initially, but to an item I read the other day (no citation, sorry) that 200 warheads exploded anywhere on earth would be sufficient to end human civilisation, and possibly all higher life forms. The article pointed this out in reference to the confrontation between India and Pakistan, with the implication that the situation there is more unstable, and potentially more life-threatening, than anywhere else and also at any other time.

 

I just think that the notion that you can protect yourself by threatening your enemy is self-defeating in the long term. The way to come to terms with an opponent is not to point a gun at them. Also, the cold war only happened once. The fact that no-one shot first could be a fluke. There is no guarantee it would go that way a second time. Game theory is just that, a theory. What if it is wrong?

 

Finally, we  have the emergence of ISIS, which has rightly been called a death cult. It and other organisations like it seem able to produce an endless stream of fanatics glad to die for their cause as long as they can take others with them. I am sure there are plenty of these people who would have no hesitation to destroy the whole planet and everyone on it if they had the power. These are not people concerned with game theory, or their own destruction. Suicide is a higher calling to them. If any of them ever get their hands on some of Pakistan's bombs, what is there to restrain them? Certainly not the fear of their own deaths.

 

I think the notion that we can somehow defend ourselves by accumulating bigger and better bombs is fundamentally silly, as well as dangerous. The problem is to get rid of the bombs we already have.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1 | ... | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | ... | 730
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Donate via Givealittle


Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

A call from the companies providing internet access for the great majority of New Zealanders, to the companies with the greatest influence over social media content
Posted 19-Mar-2019 15:21


Two e-scooter companies selected for Wellington trial
Posted 15-Mar-2019 17:33


GeForce GTX 1660 available now
Posted 15-Mar-2019 08:47


Artificial Intelligence to double the rate of innovation in New Zealand by 2021
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:47


LG demonstrates smart home concepts at LG InnoFest
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:45


New Zealanders buying more expensive smartphones
Posted 11-Mar-2019 09:52


2degrees Offers Amazon Prime Video to Broadband Customers
Posted 8-Mar-2019 14:10


D-Link ANZ launches D-Fend AC2600 Wi-Fi Router Protected by McAfee
Posted 7-Mar-2019 11:09


Slingshot commissions celebrities to design new modems
Posted 5-Mar-2019 08:58


Symantec Annual Threat Report reveals more ambitious, destructive and stealthy attacks
Posted 28-Feb-2019 10:14


FUJIFILM launches high performing X-T30
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:40


Netflix is killing content piracy says research
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:33


Trend Micro finds shifting threats require kiwis to rethink security priorities
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:27


Mainfreight uses Spark IoT Asset Tracking service
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:25


Spark IoT network now covers 98% of New Zealand population
Posted 19-Feb-2019 09:28



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.