As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Nuclear Weapons Thread: Deterring You Since 1945

1235»

Posts

  • PolloDiabloPolloDiablo Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I found out the other day that there's actually a company that is building doomsday bunkers in undisclosed locations. This is their website: Terra Vivos. It's kind of creepy how their sales pitch amounts to "There's a lot of different catastrophic events that could occur; buy your doomsday shelter today!"

    Given that there website claims they can create vaults accomodating up to 200 people, this company seems like it might be the real world Vault-Tec.

    It may be crazy but that place looks cool as shit. I would live in a Vault if I could.

    PolloDiablo on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I bet if you asked they'd make a Vault-Tech style vault

    override367 on
  • PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I bet if you asked they'd make a Vault-Tech style vault

    Just be sure to pay extra for the spare water chip.

    Pellaeon on
  • Karrde1842Karrde1842 Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Pellaeon wrote: »
    I bet if you asked they'd make a Vault-Tech style vault

    Just be sure to pay extra for the spare water chip.

    The GECK would probably be useful as well.

    Karrde1842 on
  • TaxexemptionTaxexemption Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I say we pre-emptively nuke the entire world, even us. I mean, can you trust yourself? Cause I can't trust you, and I can't trust myself. We need more explosions so that the bad people will die, if I am a bad person I should die, therefore I should be nuked. Good people go to heaven, so good people are no worse off if they die.


    The last bit was a joke. My actual opinion is that we should establish a one world nation, and that one of its purposes should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should do this with diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.

    Taxexemption on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    The last bit was a joke. My actual opinion is that we should establish a one world nation, and that one of its purposes should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should do this with diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.
    How do you force a recalcitrant nation to give up its nukes? None of the current nuclear powers are going to be willing to give up their nuclear deterrent. And most of them are the countries least likely to be down with some sort of one-world government.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • TaxexemptionTaxexemption Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The last bit was a joke. My actual opinion is that we should establish a one world nation, and that one of its purposes should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should do this with diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.
    How do you force a recalcitrant nation to give up its nukes? None of the current nuclear powers are going to be willing to give up their nuclear deterrent. And most of them are the countries least likely to be down with some sort of one-world government.




    First negotiation, and diplomacy. Eventually you need to change your economics and culture. It is entirely possible to develop a super-culture so infatuating that all able bodied citizens of those countries who are above average intelligence will leave.


    As more countries become a part of your one world nation you become completely self sufficient. When that happens, you force all smaller countries to adopt certain standards and practices to do business with you. By forcing everyone else to do business on your terms you establish with the government and the citizens that you are the one in charge and that you have the power in the relationship. This will help those that do not want to, to see the benefits of joining your nation.


    The primary thing is the culture. If you developed a culture where everyone's social needs were met you would start attracting the brightest minds from longer distances. There is a reason people are willing to pay more to live in New york, and San Francisco, and it has more to do with culture than anything else.

    Taxexemption on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Eventually you need to change your ... culture.

    It would probably just be easier to take over the world the old fashion way.

    You're essentially saying that you need 6 billion people to operate entirely counter to human nature and thousands of years of history.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    The last bit was a joke. My actual opinion is that we should establish a one world nation, and that one of its purposes should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should do this with diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.

    The United States isn't going to conquer the world. Frankly, the majority of the world simply isn't worth owning. And all the places that are nice, where people wouldn't mind if say, Britain or Germany or Japan, etc. joined as the 51st state, they don't want to lose their national identity and either have nukes or could easily develop them.

    So, no offense, but your opinion is poorly thought out. Personally I like the world as it is, everyone is learning English (it's fun traveling in Europe and hearing people from different countries using English as a lingua franca, plus I always got a kick out of the aliens on Babylon 5 calling English the "Human Trade Language") and MAD assures world peace between all major powers.

    The only problem with nuclear weapons are the terrorist groups who are not bound by MAD.

    Lanlaorn on
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The last bit was a joke. My actual opinion is that we should establish a one world nation, and that one of its purposes should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should do this with diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.
    How do you force a recalcitrant nation to give up its nukes? None of the current nuclear powers are going to be willing to give up their nuclear deterrent. And most of them are the countries least likely to be down with some sort of one-world government.




    First negotiation, and diplomacy. Eventually you need to change your economics and culture. It is entirely possible to develop a super-culture so infatuating that all able bodied citizens of those countries who are above average intelligence will leave.


    As more countries become a part of your one world nation you become completely self sufficient. When that happens, you force all smaller countries to adopt certain standards and practices to do business with you. By forcing everyone else to do business on your terms you establish with the government and the citizens that you are the one in charge and that you have the power in the relationship. This will help those that do not want to, to see the benefits of joining your nation.


    The primary thing is the culture. If you developed a culture where everyone's social needs were met you would start attracting the brightest minds from longer distances. There is a reason people are willing to pay more to live in New york, and San Francisco, and it has more to do with culture than anything else.

    I'm sorry but it doesn't actually work like in Civilization. Also people move to the United States and live in NYC, etc. because of the economic benefits, not for cultural reasons.

    Lanlaorn on
  • TaxexemptionTaxexemption Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Imagine your a teenager who believes in a particular popular religion. A really nice looking girl comes over to you and tries to tell you about her beliefs, you don't want to hear it because your pretty sure she believes in something else. She offers to blow you in exchange for hearing her out.


    1: Would you have listened to her?

    2: Do you think most people would listen to her?

    Taxexemption on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    The primary thing is the culture. If you developed a culture where everyone's social needs were met you would start attracting the brightest minds from longer distances. There is a reason people are willing to pay more to live in New york, and San Francisco, and it has more to do with culture than anything else.
    This is getting horribly off-topic. But given that the nuclear powers of China, India, the USA, Russia, France and the UK comprise a big chunk of the world's population and economy, I'm not seeing some sort of hypothetical world government taking off without their participation. Where are you going to set up your new world order, Antarctica?

    I'm skeptical of this idea that a world government is in any way realistic. One of the reasons that countries get nukes is to make sure that no outsiders can tell them what to do.
    Imagine your a teenager who believes in a particular popular religion. A really nice looking girl comes over to you and tries to tell you about her beliefs, you don't want to hear it because your pretty sure she believes in something else. She offers to blow you in exchange for hearing her out.


    1: Would you have listened to her?

    2: Do you think most people would listen to her?
    The standard of "what would a teenager do" isn't really relevant to anyone other than horny teenagers, I guess. But I get where you're going with this metaphor, so I'll play along.

    Imagine you're in your 30's, married with one kid and another on the way. The same girl comes along and offers to blow you in exchange for hearing her out on whatever crazy she's selling. I"m betting your (actually, my) answer would be quite different than the aforementioned horny teenager.

    You're making your new world order sound like a creepy cult.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Oh boy analogies.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Now you're just trolling.

    Lanlaorn on
  • TaxexemptionTaxexemption Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    We go through most of our lifes with pre-concieved notions about things we believe when we are teenagers. A good portion of people only live their lives the way they do because they are seeking certain end results, a job, sex, a relationship.


    If being part of a particular culture or group that's defining characteristics were all choices (not race or gender) made it so that you could get most of the things you wanted out of life you would join it. You would be crazy not to. The current culture in America and most countries does not actively try to help people with their problems or meet their social needs in any sort of meaningful way.


    Edit: I could actually respond to all the further questions my post brings up, however I feel that I've already derailed the topic a bit too much.

    Taxexemption on
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    The current culture in America, Europe and the developed regions in Asia are all about education and economy. When you have a good job the other "social needs" will come. This is why people in poorer countries immigrate to these countries, for a chance at a better life.

    I don't even know what you're advocating, that the government somehow provides everyone with all their needs and desires (including sex) in an effort to lure the population of all other countries into a mass exodus? Really?

    I mean who's going to pay for it and where do you get enough whores, for one thing, and how are the people working to support this craziness at all happy with the situation? Everyone loves the idea of a post scarcity future where automatons endlessly produce whatever you or anyone wants and all your days are spent in leisure, but it's not feasible today.

    Lanlaorn on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    That was sort of the plot of Crimson Tide. Not sure if that's based on any real-world events.

    Crimson Tide was based on that very world event. Making Vasili Arkhipov the only person badass enough to have been played by both Liam Neeson (K19: The Widowmaker) and Denzel Washington (Crimson Tide).

    enc0re on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    Yeah, I'm aware that it worked. It's just that that's pretty much irrelevant to whether or not it was an acceptable margin of safety. When arguing that a safety measure is inadequate, arguing that it hasn't failed yet isn't a valid rebuttal, and when talking about past events, the fact that something didn't happen doesn't mean there wasn't a significant risk of it happening.

    No. What I am saying is that for a danger of this magnitude, three guys on a sub is not enough of a failsafe. Against which you're arguing, essentially, that because the failsafe worked its success must have been assured, which is clearly fallacious. Similarly, I can consider the use of two parachutes to be an acceptable level of security, even if presented with a situation when both parachutes failed to deploy. The outcome of an event doesn't affect the probability of that outcome before the event. That should go without saying.

    Relevant to the statement it was addressing - that the fact that disaster didn't occur that proves acceptable safety measures were in place - it is absolutely applicable.

    You don't think there were any changes to the system, orders or doctrine afterwards? There were, Cuban Missile Crisis defined MAD. Even then, the ("inadequate") failsafes were enough to prevent any accidents from happening so that the system could further be perfected and a problem solved - which counts as a success in my book. Most systems need major accidents before they are even touched.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I know things were changed for the better. My sole reason for originally bringing it up was as a counterexample to the idea that we never came close to nuclear war. I really wasn't expecting people to try and portray it as a positive example of the safety of the system, but they did.

    Many systems need major accidents before people bother to fix them, but then in most systems a "major accident" doesn't constitute a literal doomsday scenario, so I'm not surprised people sat up and took steps to fix the inadequacy.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I'll point out that the reason so many systems need to suffer major accidents before they get fixed is because of the exact same erroneous thinking being used in this thread: that because an accident hasn't occurred yet, the safety precautions must be adequate.

    Aroused Bull on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    It was definitely closest we came to a nuclear war, though it wouldn't have been a literal end of the world. Would have killed millions, in U.S. too, but the Soviet nuclear arsenal was not enough to destroy United States itself. That was one of the motivations for deploying missiles in Cuba. Soviet Union and Germany would have been complete toast, as well as some nearby European countries, but most of the world would have survived nearly unscathed - unlike in comparison to eighties when everyone would have been wiped out.

    Not that it changes your point in any fashion.
    I'll point out that the reason so many systems need to suffer major accidents before they get fixed is because of the exact same erroneous thinking being used in this thread: that because an accident hasn't occurred yet, the safety precautions must be adequate.

    It's erroneous thinking to believe that an accident will occur because there hasn't been one yet.

    There is no reason to believe MAD isn't working. It's one of the most rigorous and deeply contemplated systems in the world with hundreds of thousands in manpower and trillions of dollars behind it.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I'll point out that the reason so many systems need to suffer major accidents before they get fixed is because of the exact same erroneous thinking being used in this thread: that because an accident hasn't occurred yet, the safety precautions must be adequate.

    It's erroneous thinking to believe that an accident will occur because there hasn't been one yet.

    That's true, but it's a bit of irrelevancy, what? It doesn't contradict what I'm saying.

    You're right, the USSR had only a fraction of their later stockpile at the time of the CMC. So, not a literal doomsday, then. Just massive destruction.

    I do think MAD is working, by the way. I don't like it, but it does work. Or, at least, it's worked so far, and shows no signs of being likely to fail any time soon.

    Aroused Bull on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2011
    I think one of the reasons MAD is going to work pretty much eternally is because it removes the barrier between the suffering of soldiers, the poor, the rich and powerful. It's just pure destruction. If everybody is going to be fucked, nobody wants to start anything.

    DarkCrawler on
  • TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I think one of the reasons MAD is going to work pretty much eternally is because it removes the barrier between the suffering of soldiers, the poor, the rich and powerful. It's just pure destruction. If everybody is going to be fucked, nobody wants to start anything.

    As dark as this sounds I agree, on some romantic level. Way more often then not, leaders convience themselvs that they are waging war for the betterment of thier people; so if wars target leaders first, none would start.

    TheOrange on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    It's a lot easier to send young men fight overseas for you then hunker down in a bunker and hope for the best.

    DarkCrawler on
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The last bit was a joke. My actual opinion is that we should establish a one world nation, and that one of its purposes should be to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should do this with diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.
    How do you force a recalcitrant nation to give up its nukes? None of the current nuclear powers are going to be willing to give up their nuclear deterrent. And most of them are the countries least likely to be down with some sort of one-world government.




    First negotiation, and diplomacy. Eventually you need to change your economics and culture. It is entirely possible to develop a super-culture so infatuating that all able bodied citizens of those countries who are above average intelligence will leave.


    As more countries become a part of your one world nation you become completely self sufficient. When that happens, you force all smaller countries to adopt certain standards and practices to do business with you. By forcing everyone else to do business on your terms you establish with the government and the citizens that you are the one in charge and that you have the power in the relationship. This will help those that do not want to, to see the benefits of joining your nation.


    The primary thing is the culture. If you developed a culture where everyone's social needs were met you would start attracting the brightest minds from longer distances. There is a reason people are willing to pay more to live in New york, and San Francisco, and it has more to do with culture than anything else.

    And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Life isn't like star trek, you can't just sit down and develop a "culture" that every person on earth will love and want to be a part of. We don't have the resources or technology to meet the "social needs" of 6 billion people.

    Your plan boils down to "we'll make everything better then everyone will want disarm and hold hands". Not to burst your bubble or anything but a lot of people already had that idea, what no one has come up with is an actual way to make it happen that's more realistic than "we should all get high".

    Casual on
Sign In or Register to comment.