Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#31

Post by Someone »

"The process was rigorous, thorough and fully governed by a checklist that was, to our knowledge, without defect. The room for human error was minimal."

So, this would be easy to automate. I often wonder whether part of the reason both the USSR and the USA put people in this process was that the hope was that those humans would not go through with real orders.

If the idea was that it (also) would help in detecting cases where the electronic parts of the system fail, that is clear indication that those in charge thought the humans in would sometimes deviate from the script.

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#32

Post by smallnamespace »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #21
douche wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we ever achieve some form of reasonable, in-system spaceflight, then we are really going to have to start worrying about every crazy person with a spaceship bumping a smallish space rock into an impact orbit with earth. Or even just unfortunate accidents. But it wouldn't take much of an asteroid to burn down through the atmosphere and create a Tunguska-level impact. The most recent Expanse novel is an interesting…

It would take incredible energy over a long burn time to accomplish that.

It also takes a lot of energy to make intrasystem travel a quotidian reality.

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#33

Post by merpnderp »

pythia__ wrote: post #27
TeMPOraL wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this will ever change now. As technology goes forward, we're creating a world in which an individual can gain more and more destructive power, and in which when something goes terribly wrong, it can wider and wider consequences. We're at global level now, and fast approaching extinction-level. Two areas to highlight the point: - High-energy anything. There's a saying that any propulsion system that could…

On the other hand, if a lot of countries had apocalyptic weapons (a phase that naturally precedes such weapons becoming available to individuals), it could all but eliminate war. Countries behave surprisingly like rational agents in international relations. This period would be the window of opportunity for one lucky winner to bootstrap an AGI.

The US and USSR were moments away from war several times. As Pakistan and India show, being nuclear armed does tend to end conventional wars. But as more countries become nuclear armed, the higher the chances one of them will actually use them.

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#34

Post by sehugg »

madengr wrote: post #29

Why does the author state MAD is obselete?

I don't know, since those silos were dug in an era when the idea of a winnable nuclear war (i.e. anti-MAD) was a less-radical position.

This may just be more whistling past the hypothetical graveyard, which seems distressingly common these days.

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#35

Post by merpnderp »

avs733 wrote: post #30
madengr wrote: post #29

Why does the author state MAD is obselete?

there is an argument by some that the rise of suicide bombing as a weapon of war meaningfully changed the parameters of mutually assured destruction, because there are people entirely comfortable/supportive of their own destruction for a cause.

This outlook seems historically ignorant. In the midst of the very first use of nuclear weapons there were hundreds of suicide attacks in the form of kamikazee suicide runs by aircraft, ships, and soldiers.

One of the likely reasons no terrorist group has tried too hard to obtain a nuclear weapon is they know whoever it is they fight for will be targeted for in kind retaliation. Aka MAD.

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#36

Post by ceejayoz »

glorp wrote: post #23
icebraining wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like confirmation bias. If an algorithm had made the right call against human judgment, would you be arguing for the opposite position?

In Dr. Strangelove, the absurd behavior of buffoonish humans contributes to the doomsday scenario. Idiots blindly following the orders of a madman on one side, and psychos constructing a completely automated self-destruct mechanism attached to a retaliatory weapon on the other side. Both are bad, but people playing the game at all, were the real problem.

You know that was a satirical fictional film, right?

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#37

Post by TeMPOraL »

pdkl95 wrote: post #15
TeMPOraL wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this will ever change now. As technology goes forward, we're creating a world in which an individual can gain more and more destructive power, and in which when something goes terribly wrong, it can wider and wider consequences. We're at global level now, and fast approaching extinction-level. Two areas to highlight the point: - High-energy anything. There's a saying that any propulsion system that could…

Exactly. We need to find ways to manage powerful technology socially, or we are going to have serious problems in the near future. Unfortunately, I'm not sure[1] our species can adapt fast enough. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916033

Thanks for linking to your old comment, it's pretty insightful. I agree that we seem to be accumulating technological advances faster than we're maturing as a civilization to handle them.

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#38

Post by alttab »

Someone wrote: post #31

"The process was rigorous, thorough and fully governed by a checklist that was, to our knowledge, without defect. The room for human error was minimal." So, this would be easy to automate. I often wonder whether part of the reason both the USSR and the USA put people in this process was that the hope was that those humans would not go through with real orders. If the idea was that it (also) would help in detecting ca…

In the age of the internet, having safe-guards from hacks and redundancies in place to ensure that messages are not misread seems like standard engineering IMO. AFAIK, every nuke that was ever launched was supposed to be launched, and we haven't had a single misfire, or lack of launch, that I'm aware of.

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#39

Post by JoeAltmaier »

smallnamespace wrote: post #32
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take incredible energy over a long burn time to accomplish that.

It also takes a lot of energy to make intrasystem travel a quotidian reality.

Still several zeros apart. Moving a small ship vs moving a mountain

Re: In Nuclear Silos, Death Wears a Snuggie (2011)

#40

Post by digi_owl »

merpnderp wrote: post #33
pythia__ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if a lot of countries had apocalyptic weapons (a phase that naturally precedes such weapons becoming available to individuals), it could all but eliminate war. Countries behave surprisingly like rational agents in international relations. This period would be the window of opportunity for one lucky winner to bootstrap an AGI.

The US and USSR were moments away from war several times. As Pakistan and India show, being nuclear armed does tend to end conventional wars. But as more countries become nuclear armed, the higher the chances one of them will actually use them.

Supposedly the Cuban Crisis was averted by the leadership deviating from the (supposedly rational) RAND script.
Post reply on HN