Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

10
  • 4
    I'm sure the logic in the first statement is a big part of the real answer, but in a purely game theory context, it makes the same mistake as Roko's basilisk. Once the other country has already launched, nothing you do will make them less likely to have made that decision in the past. Causality doesn't work in that direction.
    – Nick S
    Commented Jan 22 at 1:04
  • 16
    @NickS: MAD doesn’t deny that after an attack, the rational move might be to not retaliate. It argues that to deter an attack beforehand, you must convince other actors that attacks will receive retaliation — and exactly because the retaliation will be (at the later stage) arguably irrational, you construct a system in advance that commits you to the later retaliation (maybe electronically/mechanically, a Dr Strangelove-style doomsday machine, but at least socially/culturally, as in most real-world militaries). The rational action now is (it argues) to commit to irrational action later.
    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    Commented Jan 22 at 20:44
  • 2
    Honey Badgers approve this answer.
    – paulj
    Commented Jan 22 at 20:54
  • 2
    I'd also add that the attacker would reasonably bet that if there were a retaliation by the attacked nation, it would be an immediate response - attempting to hold a grudge over a "Previously small nuclear exchange" ignores that the nuclear attacks likely reduced the retaliatory stockpile. As a result of that, if an attacked nation is going to retaliate at all, it has to be before the first attack finishes, and with all weaponry that would be diminished otherwise towards a retaliatory nature.
    – Alexander The 1st
    Commented Jan 23 at 1:12
  • 12
    This is a very minor point, but honeybee attacks aren't suicidal per se, because most of the time stinging is fairly safe for them. Stinging mammals is fatal because our skin is thicker and the barbs get stuck, yeah. But against the far more common threats they encounter that are more on their scale, like wasps or spiders, their stingers don't get stuck. The barbs just make the stings more damaging when the bee pulls the stinger out.
    – Idran
    Commented Jan 23 at 15:05