BF2S Forums Nuclear War

Anyone who thinks at some point one of these countries couldnt vote either a total evil dictator or a paranoid pussy as their leader who ends up using nukes is fucking naive.

However everyone assumes if one country nukes another everyone will nuke each other, its only the insane man and the defending person who will consider nukes, why would perfectly sane leaders who have nothing to do this endanger their entire population? Ie if pakistan and India nuke each other, im pretty damn sure no one else is gunna get involved. No country has a strong enough alliance to risk its entire population for another.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-08-27 06:17:01)

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If it were parallel dice rolls, then your point would be valid. But this scenario is akin to rolling a single die multiple times. Simply won't happen under that circumstance.

Multiple systems, multiple procedures, multiple people making calls. Each has a chance of fucking up. The point is that there are errors in all of the systems, no matter how well set up. Eventually a bunch of errors will happen to occur at the same time indicating the same thing and humanity may well end.

It's entirely akin to rolling a bunch of dice in parallel.

Given enough time this should happen.

You miss my point. Those things happen in serial. If there is a failure anywhere along the way, the procedures and systems stop the process. If they happened in parallel, then a failure in any one may cause what you describe. But that simply isn't how the system of checks and balances works.

It is absolutely nothing like rolling a bunch of dice in parallel. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite of that. The errors would have to happen one after the other, in cascading fashion from the first failure point to the very end, in both man and machine, in completely unrelated and unconnected networks, with nobody catching any of them at any point along the way.

Yes, if fifty consecutive miracles occur, it might happen. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

FEOS wrote:

Yes, if fifty consecutive miracles occur, it might happen.

It has nearly happened before.  The problem is, when you roll the dice enough times, you will end up with the unlikely result...eventually.  Now, whether that cascades into a full-on MAD style war is up for debate.  However, the chance of at least 1 warhead being accidentally launched only increases with time.  Fortunately, we are talking about a LONG probable time...at least trillions of "dice rolls" (or substantially more, perhaps)...and many layers of protection.  It takes a lot to even gain access to a Launch Control Facility (no, I'm not going to post that), much less actually work anything.

The phrase "all that is humanly possible" comes to mind, in regard to US safeguards.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as cautious and "humanly possible" can EVENTUALLY fail.

It is a No-Win, pandora's box situation.  You cannot stuff the genie back into the lamp.  So, we are left with doing all that we can, while still ensuring our national security.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Multiple systems, multiple procedures, multiple people making calls. Each has a chance of fucking up. The point is that there are errors in all of the systems, no matter how well set up. Eventually a bunch of errors will happen to occur at the same time indicating the same thing and humanity may well end.

It's entirely akin to rolling a bunch of dice in parallel.

Given enough time this should happen.

You miss my point. Those things happen in serial. If there is a failure anywhere along the way, the procedures and systems stop the process. If they happened in parallel, then a failure in any one may cause what you describe. But that simply isn't how the system of checks and balances works.

It is absolutely nothing like rolling a bunch of dice in parallel. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite of that. The errors would have to happen one after the other, in cascading fashion from the first failure point to the very end, in both man and machine, in completely unrelated and unconnected networks, with nobody catching any of them at any point along the way.

Yes, if fifty consecutive miracles occur, it might happen. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

As I said, it's massively unlikely, but the chances of it happening are not zero. This means that there are only three possible scenarios in the very long run:

1) An accidental launch wipes us out
2) Mankind is destroyed by something else
3) We reduce the chance of destroying mankind to zero

The US system is the safe one remember and there are serious concerns over that. The Russian one can only be speculated about, but who knows what state it's in? It doesn't actually matter which system goes wrong, if the Russian one fucks up (which appears far more likely) everyone dies just as much as if the US one does.

Also the series/parallel argument you're having makes absolutely no difference the the chances. The math is exactly the same. If I roll a million dice at the same time the chances of them all being 6 is the same as if I rolled each one seperately.

If you're talking about some other country's system breaking down, then please be clear about that. I'm talking about the US system, as I don't know how the other countries' systems work.

However, if a single nuke gets launched, the odds are that single nuke will not make it to its target. If the entire Russian ICBM inventory gets launched, then it's bad all around.

BL: This ain't "War Games".

And you're wrong about the dice thing. If the subsequent roll weren't dependent upon the previous, you would be correct (as is the case with the simultaneous rolls). In your each die roll is independent of the others and if you roll all sixes on a single try, you "win". However, in mine, if you roll anything other than a six on any one roll, you have to start over. The number of attempts required for all die to turn up sixes in my situation is much, much higher. If there are ten die and you roll all ten at once, you've got a 1/6 chance every time you roll the set. I have a (1/6)^10 chance, because each die roll is dependent upon what I got previously. How you roll the dice makes all the difference.

there is no such thing as mutually assured destruction when the owners of the missiles have access to potentially limitless food and water and up to 1,000 hardened underground bases distributed globally.

this isn't to say there will be a global nuclear holocaust, just that it remains a possibility, and those willing to initiate the destruction stand to inherit the planet.

it will remain an outrageous or unbelievable thought until it actually happens. and if it does happen, our disbelief will quickly give way to a sad reality and the extinction of all further scrutiny of the power elite.

with that said, nuclear weapons aren't necessarily the most effective means to this end. i fear "global warming" more than nuclear weapons. anybody that can devise an inconspicuous method of accelerating global warming (with atmospheric spraying for example) could initiate the doomsday scenario without the accountability and necessity for complete annihilation of survivors that would be necessary when committing the great crime of a missile launch or conventional holocaust. the other obvious advantage is the reduced damage to assets and the reduced turnover time between an "apocalypse" and the reemergence of the privileged individuals which weathered the disaster with access to subterranean power generation and the water table.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-08-28 11:16:44)

RAIMIUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If there are ten die and you roll all ten at once, you've got a 1/6 chance every time you roll the set.

I haven't taken stats in a while, but I'm sure that is incorrect.  Think about it.  You would have a 1/6 chance that any, single die would be a 6 (and a 1/6 x 10 chance that some one of them would be a 6) but the chances of them ALL being 6 on one roll is still (1/6)^10...there is only one set in 6^10 possiblilities that is ALL sixes.

I'm sure it's not incorrect--I just clearly did a poor job of explaining, as evidenced by Fodder's comment:

PureFodder wrote:

Again the chances of rolling ten consecutive 6s is (1/6)^10. the chances of rolling 10 dice and getting all sixes is (1/6)^10.
The way you roll the dice makes no difference whatsoever.

If you roll all the dice at once, the odds of any single die coming up a six (failure of the system) is the same as if you rolled a single die (1/6), because each roll is independent of the others. In PureFodder's scenario, any single failure of a step along the way will result in an overall system failure (sort of like an <AND> function). So the odds of an overall system failure are 1/6.

In a serial situation (you can't roll the following die unless the previous die comes up six), it is cumulative up through the last die rolled. The odds for the first die are 1/6. The odds for the second die are 1/6, but you can only attempt the try if the first one comes up six. So there's only a 1/6 chance you will even get to the next 1/6 chance. And so on. Therefore, with ten dice, there is only a (1/6)^10 chance of rolling through the entire set of dice with a six on the first attempt for each. Chance of overall system failure is (1/6)^10.

Regardless, PureFodder's assumption of how the process works (parallel) induces more risk of compromise of the process. The reality of the process (serial) ensures a better chance of catching a failure at any point along the way.

PureFodder wrote:

My point is that the US system has a potential for disaster. The Russian one is presumed to be even worse. They are both an issue.
...
You seem to be under the assumption that a mistake could only result in a single US missile being launched, but a series of unlikely errors in the intel could result in a full lauch being intentionally carried out as the right response to the intel which is unfortunately filled with errors.

Then you are crediting the nuclear C2 system for errors in the intel system. They are separate and distinct. I was talking specifically about the nuke C2 system. In the situation you describe (intel errors), the failure is not in the nuke C2 system...it would work as specified.