M.A.D. and me

Or: Should I learn to stop worrying and love the bomb?



I received an intriguing careers suggestion the other day. As some of you may know, I am currently coming towards the end of my PhD in theoretical physics. Having decided for various reasons not to pursue a career in my current field, I am thus in the process of looking for ideas for what to do once I graduate. In the course of this, it was mentioned to me that one possibility might be working for the nuclear arms establishment.

Of course, I should make very clear that this is all idle speculation at this point. I have not made any concrete steps toward researching or seeking a career in nuclear weapons, nor would I be likely to start advertising it openly on the internet if I did. For all I know I may have thoroughly ruled myself out of contention simply by starting this thread. There are of course a whole slew of other more mundane considerations in pursuing such a career besides the ethics, such as whether I have the right physics background, the associated security risk to myself and my family, the pay, alternative employment prospects and so on, but I would prefer these specifics not to be the subject of discussion here. I am more interested in the more general ethical issues around nuclear arms, since I feel there is no point in even considering such a career in the first place until I have made up my mind on exactly how I feel about nuclear weapons.

So, that is the question I am asking: Are nuclear weapons a good thing? Is it desirable for the UK to maintain a nuclear deterrent, or should we be pursuing nuclear disarmament? Is the MAD doctrine ultimately sound, or is it dangerously naive about the risk of nuclear holocaust? Do nuclear weapons, in short, make the world a safer, or more dangerous, place?

My current position is, I think, to be cautiously positive about nuclear weapons. Being deeply skeptical of the idea that one can make the world a better place through aggressive warfare, I rather like the idea of a weapon that turns any war into a very obvious and inglorious lose-lose situation for all concerned. But perhaps I am overstating the role of nuclear arms in making war unpalatable for developed countries, or possibly underestimating the likelihood of a government coming to power who would be stupid enough to use them. I would very much like to hear other Orgahs' views on the matter.

There is a lot to say for having nukes, I suggest digging up some of Kenneth Waltz's theory's.

edit: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm

So, that is the question I am asking:

You are asking many questions.

Are nuclear weapons a good thing?

How so? What do you mean by good? You'll find someone who can successfully argue both sides of the coin.

Is it desirable for the UK to maintain a nuclear deterrent,

Hell yea! A nuclear deterrent increases your security. Nuclear belligerence (i.e. North Korea) is not.

or should we be pursuing nuclear disarmament?

No. It's like the firearms debate in the US. Why should the UK (one of the good guys, IMO) reduce its natural security by disarming?

Is the MAD doctrine ultimately sound, or is it dangerously naive about the risk of nuclear holocaust?

I don't believe the MAD doctrine is still in existence and was scrapped in the 1990's

Do nuclear weapons, in short, make the world a safer, or more dangerous, place?

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

Or: Should I learn to stop worrying and love the bomb?

I received an intriguing careers suggestion the other day. As some of you may know, I am currently coming towards the end of my PhD in theoretical physics. Having decided for various reasons not to pursue a career in my current field, I am thus in the process of looking for ideas for what to do once I graduate. In the course of this, it was mentioned to me that one possibility might be working for the nuclear arms establishment.

---

I heard Black Mesa is hiring.

:book:

Speaking as one who lived through my entire youth, and a good part of my adult years under the doctrine of M.A.D., I would say that the concept was a nessecary evil perpetuated by the very nature of the weapons themselves. There were times when I felt that all was hopeless because surely our leaders were hell-bent on destroying the earth. There were a few times that it almost became a reality, in which case we would not be here discussing this in all likelyhood. I had then, and still do today, believe that it is a policy of desperation that leaves no way out once the missles and bombs begin to fly. I was inwardly glad each time a new S.A.L.T. treaty was signed, threby reducing the threat.

I think that the nuclear powers should set the example and limit their stockpiles to what is only absolutely required for defense, which of course would require the ability to retaliate to an attack. I also think that continued efforts must be made to see that all countries agree to sign the nuclear proliferation treaties, and place severe sanctions on those countries which won't abide. Transparency, candidness, and diplomacy are the keys to reducing the threat of nuclear war.

Perhaps the spectre of such a disaster will one day be permanently eliminated once we can ever get over our tribalistic desire to murder each other in the name of virtue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I heard Black Mesa is hiring.

:book:

---

I believe the position has already been filled by some Eastern European emigre :book:

Weak Reference...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Do nuclear weapons, in short, make the world a safer, or more dangerous, place?

Yes.

---

No.

So, that is the question I am asking: Are nuclear weapons a good thing? Is it desirable for the UK to maintain a nuclear deterrent, or should we be pursuing nuclear disarmament? Is the MAD doctrine ultimately sound, or is it dangerously naive about the risk of nuclear holocaust? Do nuclear weapons, in short, make the world a safer, or more dangerous, place?

Are nuclear weapons a good thing? No, any weapon that has the power to kill millions of innocent people in one go, should never be considered a "good" thing. However, they have been a credit to keeping some heads cool.

Is it desirable for the UK to maintain a nuclear deterrent, or should we be pursuing nuclear disarmament? As a stable, Democratic Regime that has been at the forefront of World Politics since time immemoriable, the UK should be allowed to maintain an Arsenal. Countries like Iran, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, should not.

Is the MAD doctrine ultimately sound, or is it dangerously naive about the risk of nuclear holocaust? When was the last time we had a full on nuclear war? Even when MAD was in place, few countries, including the more unstable ones (Pakistan, India, and arguably Israel at some points) have been close to unleashing their Nuclear capability, but cool headed diplomacy on both sides of the fence have deterred their use... for the time being. We won't know how much of a deterrent they really are, until either we wipe each other off the face of the planet, or the idea of War becomes outdated.

Do nuclear weapons, in short, make the world a safer, or more dangerous, place? If you're asking for moral clarity on this, it is really up to you to decide. In some ways, I suppose Nuclear Weapons have made the world a more peaceful place, and in other ways a much, much, much more dangerous place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

For all I know I may have thoroughly ruled myself out of contention simply by starting this thread. There are of course a whole slew of other more mundane considerations in pursuing such a career such as the associated security risk to myself and my family, the more general ethical issues around nuclear arms, since I feel there is no point in even considering such a career in the first place until I have made up my mind on exactly how I feel about nuclear weapons.

So, that is the question I am asking: Are nuclear weapons a good thing? Is it desirable for the UK to maintain a nuclear deterrent, or should we be pursuing nuclear disarmament? Is the MAD doctrine ultimately sound, or is it dangerously naive about the risk of nuclear holocaust? Do nuclear weapons, in short, make the world a safer, or more dangerous, place?

---

First of all; if you do pursue a career that involves nuclear weapons then the security services will read this post.
It doesn't matter if you mostly post from work, or if you mostly use a proxy to post here; if an IP address has EVER been used by you that links here then this site will be part of a background check.
And if they do that then you can guarantee a context sensitive search for words that include; nuclear, politics, weapons, violence, revolution, muslim, bomb, depression, will all be searched, and will instantly find this thread.
That is not necessarily a problem, it is not wrong to question and seek support for decisions of moral consequence, they will however make a judgment on how separate your personal life is from your virtual life, such as:
1) is the email registered at this site used for all other purposes, and does it reveal who you are.
2) are the other elements of your online existence similarly fire-walled.
3) do you have lots of questionable contacts in your IM clients or email, i.e. people who you cannot vouch for the character of via long standing relationships.
4) do you exhibit persistent moral uncertainty or personal vulnerability in ANY part of your online life.
5) do you seek out emotional attachment online that would indicate psychological problems in real life.
6) do you exhibit questionable moral character in you search patterns or download registry.
7) are there unexplained portions of your online life that would indicate a criminal evasion.
And the above completely ignores the numerous other elements of your personal life they will investigate, but provided they feel thy can answer satisfactorily the questions above then no, your question here may not be deemed a bar to this line of work.

As to my own feelings on nuclear weapons from my biased british pov:
In a world where nuclear arms exist it is a good thing for britain to maintain a nuclear deterrent, it has political value as well as the obvious military value.
It is a good thing that we ARE pursuing disarmament, a world without nukes is a better world, but that does not mean that our actions shouldn't be graduated in response to the actions of other nations.
MAD doctrine is essentially lunatic, but we hope that other nations beholden to representative government will confine their actions to the clinically sane, and we work to ensure that governments unbound by such restrictions cannot possess a viable second strike.
We don't know if nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place in reality, because we have no idea how devastating conventional warfare might have been in an alternate universe, but in the world we do exist within it is best for britain to maintain a nuclear within the framework of global disarmament.

i hope that helps.

In any case, it would be best for your job prospects in the said area not to divulge whether or not you are actually taking employment in this area.

While i wish nuclear weapons had never been invented. i say they are neutral in nature.

First, the bomb itself isnt evil or good, the person who uses it is.

As a deterrent they are the one thing that kept russia and america out of war.

Disarmament is a stupid idealistic crusade that can never happen. Because evil dictators will either lie or pursue programs in secrecy. just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Disarmament is a stupid idealistic crusade that can never happen. Because evil dictators will either lie or pursue programs in secrecy. just my two cents.

---

Disarmament can happen in a context where a nuclear country doesn't have more than, say 3 nukes. While 3 nukes could theorically kill millions, imagining both sides had three nukes and both of them used against each other, we would have "limited" casualties, and largely restricted effects to both sides of the war. Now comparing this 6 nukes scenario with UK, USA, Russia, etc. Engaged in a World War where each country has dozens/hundreds of nukes, one could notice the difference of nuclear disarmament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

First of all; if you do pursue a career that involves nuclear weapons then the security services will read this post.
It doesn't matter if you mostly post from work, or if you mostly use a proxy to post here; if an IP address has EVER been used by you that links here then this site will be part of a background check.
And if they do that then you can guarantee a context sensitive search for words that include; nuclear, politics, weapons, violence, revolution, muslim, bomb, depression, will allbe searched, and will instantly find this thread.

---

The Backroom is inaccessible for anyone but Org members who have been granted access. Hence it should be considered pretty unlikely that they would ever be able read this post?

This is where the whole MAD theory comes into play. If a country is restricted to 3 weapons, what's to say they won't squirrel away 5 more in secret, making an exchange theoretically "winnable". With 1K+ on both sides, there is really no fooling anyone about "winning", so the temptation is removed. It's an all or nothing affair, without the ability to annihilate your opponent, you remove the whole point of the deterrent. This is also why ABM/SDI programs were frowned upon.

With great power comes great responsibility however. A nuclear power needs to act like a grown up, maintain secure and frank communication with it's adversaries, maintain access and control security within the command structure, and maintain security of the weapons from external threats. This is way more important than the size of the arsenal, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

The Backroom is inaccessible for anyone but Org members who have been granted access. Hence it should be considered pretty unlikely that they would ever be able read this post?

---

lol.

Honestly, if the British state bother more about knowing its citizens ideas through what they wrote on some obscure internet forum rather than offering them a decent education and healthcare system, it's about time to start a revolution and behead all the current leaders.

For some reason, though I understand the whole 'terrorist threat' western governements have been advocating to further reduce our freedom, I just can't find a reason why the secret service should bother about this topic, or any other one for that matter (in any country other than China and North Korea). People are entitled to have their own opinion, whether they're handworkers or working at the top levels in the military.

well the wouldn't, except if the OP decides to work for Aldermaston on nuclear weapons physics, in which case they will be very interested in all aspects of his life, especially the personal opinions he espouses on public forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

well the wouldn't, except if the OP decides to work for Aldermaston on nuclear weapons physics, in which case they will be very interested in all aspects of his life, especially the personal opinions he espouses on public forums.

---

The backroom is not fully public; I don't think its existence is easily discernable upon entering this site for the fist time, nor the second or third. The more other forums PBI is be a member of, the lower should the possibilty become that they'll be aware of the Backroom's existence. It isn't searchable either; otherwise they use hax. Not saying it is safe; but there are certainly places that are alot less so when posting this topic.

EDIT: But of course, if they use hax; then the 'security' is to no avail I s'pose.

www.itshidden.com

Some Physics Jobs in the US, just for reference.

Mutually-Assured Destruction hasn't been tossed around over here since just before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Some crazies began discussing how to emerge the "winner" in a nuke-exchange. 'Win' was defined as the preservation of a national command structure and at least 30% (!) survival of population. All theoretical, of course; just professional wargamers daring to think the unthinkable.

Is working on a nuclear bomb program immoral? I don't think so; not since the Manhatten Project. That cat was let out of that particular bag 60+ years ago. Is the katana-maker responsible for any murderous uses his product is put to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

www.itshidden.com

---

http://www.danasoft.com/citysign.jpg

Not truly relevant to what I posted nor MAD, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

No.

---

:laugh4: So they don't make the world a more dangerous place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

First of all; if you do pursue a career that involves nuclear weapons then the security services will read this post.
It doesn't matter if you mostly post from work, or if you mostly use a proxy to post here; if an IP address has EVER been used by you that links here then this site will be part of a background check.
And if they do that then you can guarantee a context sensitive search for words that include; nuclear, politics, weapons, violence, revolution, muslim, bomb, depression, will all be searched, and will instantly find this thread.

---

You forgot the part about black helicopters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lol.

---

Agreed. I think Viking is one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

http://www.danasoft.com/citysign.jpg

Not truly relevant to what I posted nor MAD, though.

---

I guess you don't, must be dutch only service. But for the discussion I posted a most excellent article, conclusion by Kenneth Waltz here;

The Nuclear Future

What will a world populated by a larger number of nuclear states look like? I have drawn a picture of such a world that accords with experience throughout the nuclear age. Those who dread a world with more nuclear states do little more than assert that more is worse and claim without substantiation that new nuclear states will be less responsible and less capable of self-control than the old ones have been. They express fears that many felt when they imagined how a nuclear China would behave. Such fears have proved un-rounded as nuclear weapons have slowly spread. I have found many reasons for believ ing that with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future. I have reached this unusual conclusion for six main reasons.

First, international politics is a self-help system, and in such systems the principal par ties do most to determine their own fate, the fate of other parties, and the fate of the system. This will continue to be so, with the United States and the Soviet Union filling their customary roles. For the United States and the Soviet Union to achieve nuclear maturity and to show this by behaving sensibly is more important than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Second, given the massive numbers of American and Russian warheads, and given the impossibility of one side destroying enough of the other side’s missiles to make a retaliatory strike bearable, the balance of terror is indes tructible. What can lesser states do to disrupt the nuclear equilibrium if even the mighty efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union cannot shake it? The international equilibrium will endure.

Third, at the strategic level each of the great powers has to gauge the strength only of itself in relation to the other. They do not have to make guesses about the strengths of opposing coalitions, guesses that involve such impon derables as the coherence of diverse parties and their ability to concert their efforts. Estimating effective forces is thus made easier. Wars come most often by miscalculation. Miscalculation will not come from carelessness and inatten tion in a bipolar world as it may in a multipolar one.

Fourth, nuclear weaponry makes miscalcu lation difficult because it is hard not to be aware of how much damage a small number of warheads can do. Early in this century Norman Angell argued that wars could not occur because they would not pay. But conven tional wars have brought political gains to
some countries at the expense of others. Germans founded a state by fighting three short wars, in the last of which France lost Alsace. Lorraine. Among nuclear countries, possible losses in war overwhelm possible gains. In the nuclear age Angell’s dictum, broadly inter preted, becomes persuasive. When the active use of force threatens to bring great losses, war become less likely. This proposition is widely accepted but insufficiently emphasized. Nuclear weapons have reduced the chances of war between the United States and the Soviet Union and between the Soviet Union and China. One may expect them to have similar effects elsewhere. Where nuclear weapons threaten to make the cost of wars immense, who will dare to start them? Nuclear weapons make it possible to approach the deterrent ideal.

Filth, nuclear weapons can be used for defence as well as for deterrence. Some have argued that an apparently impregnable nuclear defence can be mounted. The Maginot Line has given defence a bad name. It nevertheless remains true that the incidence of wars decreases as the perceived difficulty of winning them increases. No one attacks a defence believed to be impregnable. Nuclear weapons may make it possible to approach the defensive ideal. If so, the spread of nuclear weapons will further help to maintain peace.

Sixth, new nuclear states will confront the possibilities and feel the constraints that present nuclear states have experienced. New nuclear states will be more concerned for their safety and more mindful of dangers than some of the old ones have been. Until recently, only the great and some of the major powers have had nuclear weapons. While nuclear weapons have spread, conventional weapons have pro liferated. Under these circumstances, wars have been fought not at the centre but at the periphery of international politics. The like lihood of war decreases as deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Nuclear weapons, responsibly used, make wars hard to start. Nations that have nuclear weapons have strong incentives to use them responsibly. These statements hold for small as for big nuclear powers. Because they do, the measured spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

:laugh4: So they don't make the world a more dangerous place?

---

I can obviously only answer that once you explained what you meant with 'yes' since given the way the question was formulated that was completely unclear, thus my response.
This might have been your intention of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I can obviously only answer that once you explained what you meant with 'yes' since given the way the question was formulated that was completely unclear, thus my response.
This might have been your intention of course.

---

It was a compound question and I couldn't resist. The question also assumes that the two are mutually exclusive, which they aren't. Yes a nuclear deterrent works; Yes, weapons that can irradiate the planet for thousands of years and possibly destroy civilization are more dangerous than conventional arms.

I'm less worried about nuclear weapons, which have such clear long-term consequences, than whatever replaces them. Something like an anti-matter bomb that can rip off the atmosphere but leave no harmful radiation.

So, you answered the question just to be contrarian? :inquisitive:

The major problem with the deterrence issue is really in accepting that the other country will not attack. But what if its bold enough to do so? Than the entire system by which millions were protected falls apart and the other country is forced to respond in a nuclear ping-pong which ultimatly succeeds in bringing in the next dark ages.

Besides that, nuclear proliferation brings the problem of the increase chance that it will fall into the hands of transnational groups which would have little hesitation in using the weapons. What then? Who would be responsible for the killing of millions? Would the attacked country retaliate on another country? Which? Would it attack against the country which unfortunatly let the nukes slip through their fingers? (Innocents would be massacred because of an issue they couldn't do the slightest bit about?) What if the attack was done by separatists (Imagining ETA or IRA dropped a nuke which was conviniently stolen from the USA for instance, in Madrid or London, respectively?), what was to be done then? Nuke the USA? Nuke their own citizens in their own Basque Autonomous Region just to show who's boss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I guess you don't, must be dutch only service.

---

Well, it is supposed to show YOUR location, not mine. ~;)

Interesting article Fragony, I think it seems quite close to my own initial opinions. I guess I just tend to wonder what situation could arise where a government would willing order a first strike against another nuclear power when the consequences for their own authority seem so automatically and universally negative. Maybe the US could scrape through a nuclear exchange with 30% of the population and the authority of the government barely intact, but what situation could arise that this would seem preferable to the status quo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I'm less worried about nuclear weapons, which have such clear long-term consequences, than whatever replaces them. Something like an anti-matter bomb that can rip off the atmosphere but leave no harmful radiation.

---

I find this a bit odd. Firstly, why would anyone feel the power of "traditional" nuclear weapons an insufficient deterrent as to need to develop such a massively expensive and inherently risky weapon? Secondly, why would a state be any more likely to use such a weapon against another nuclear power than ordinary nuclear weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

In any case, it would be best for your job prospects in the said area not to divulge whether or not you are actually taking employment in this area.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

The Backroom is inaccessible for anyone but Org members who have been granted access. Hence it should be considered pretty unlikely that they would ever be able read this post?

---

I cannot stress strongly enough that this is all purely hypothetical at the moment. I am working under the assumption that if I do decide to pursue such a career the security services will read both this thread and everything else I say or do on the Internet. I suspect if they were unable to access my backroom posts on their own they would either outright demand my password as a precondition for employment or else simply discard my application. I reasoned however that before even considering such a career I ought to seek as much advice as possible from people whose opinions I respect on whether it would be an irresponsible or unethical use of my physics training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I heard Black Mesa is hiring.

---

Unfortunately my research interests are not sufficiently closely related to the exciting cutting-edge fields of cart pushing and switch flipping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

http://www.danasoft.com/citysign.jpg

Not truly relevant to what I posted nor MAD, though.

---

http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Sign42273.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

I cannot stress strongly enough that this is all purely hypothetical at the moment. I am working under the assumption that if I do decide to pursue such a career the security services will read both this thread and everything else I say or do on the Internet. I suspect if they were unable to access my backroom posts on their own they would either outright demand my password as a precondition for employment or else simply discard my application. I reasoned however that before even considering such a career I ought to seek as much advice as possible from people whose opinions I respect on whether it would be an irresponsible or unethical use of my physics training.

---

Well, no doubt if the push comes to shove and the UK actually participates in a retaliatory nuclear war, you would feel some guilt about the deaths that happened. It would however differentiate from person to person, some scientists would surely be tremendously affected by such events, while others would digest the happenings far better (Provided you all are still alive)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

Unfortunately my research interests are not sufficiently closely related to the exciting cutting-edge fields of cart pushing and switch flipping.

---

NOOOOooo! Still, that post has already been filled up by this guy:

https://i642.photobucket.com/albums/...ttedAtCERN.jpg

As you can see, he has alreadu began his training in Crowbar manuevering as well.

https://i642.photobucket.com/albums/...donfreeman.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Well, it is supposed to show YOUR location, not mine. ~;)

---

Well I don't live in Ridderkerk, and I am not using itshidden, they are most welcome to check out my quite extensive porn-collection, hack me all you want just leave things as they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

I find this a bit odd. Firstly, why would anyone feel the power of "traditional" nuclear weapons an insufficient deterrent as to need to develop such a massively expensive and inherently risky weapon? Secondly, why would a state be any more likely to use such a weapon against another nuclear power than ordinary nuclear weapons?

---

Remember that you, and I, are not relevant to that decision making process. Humans will always think of new and exciting ways to destroy each other.