= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
christopherj comments on Thomas C. Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
I think that, by the time you've reached the point where you're about to kill millions for the sake of the greater good, you'd do well to consider all the ethical injunctions this violated. (Especially given all the different ways this could go wrong that UnholySmoke could come up off the top of his head.)
Kaj, I was discussing a hypothetical nuclear strategy. We can't discuss any such strategy without involving the possibility of killing millions. Do the ethical injunctions imply that such discussions shouldn't occur?
Recall that MAD required that the US commit itself to destroy the Soviet Union if it detected that the USSR launched their nuclear missiles. Does MAD also violate ethical injunctions? Should it also not have been discussed? (How many different ways could things have gone wrong with MAD?)
And the world as we know it is still around because Stanislav Petrov ignored that order and insisted the US couldn't possibly be stupid enough to actually launch that sort of attack.
I would pray that the US operators were equally sensible, but maybe they just got lucky and never had a technical glitch threaten the existence of humanity.
Of course not. I'm not saying the strategy shouldn't be discussed, I'm saying that you seem to be expressing greater certainty of your proposed approach being correct than would be warranted.
(I wouldn't object to people discussing math, but I would object if somebody thought 2 + 2 = 5.)