
The Heart of Deterrence (2012) - vezycash
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/19/the-heart-of-deterrence/
======
vezycash
The last sentence is the best part of the article. "When I suggested this to
friends in the Pentagon they said, 'My God, that’s terrible. Having to KILL
someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the
button.'"

From their response, killing through a button isn't killing.

~~~
kazinator
Killing via button is killing many of them "them". Hacking the innocent's
chest is killing one of "us".

Part of the dilemma in this thought experiment is basically about weighing the
worth of the lives of unknown numbers of "them", against one of "us".

The President must distinguish "them" or "us", otherwise he has no business
leading the country in a war. He must treat the killing of one of "us" with a
different judgment.

The other part of this is remote controlled killing versus visceral
engagement. Suppose that pushing the button is the right thing to do for the
country, but the President has a personal aversion against the bloody
engagement form of killing. As President, he's supposed to push, but a
personal, psychological reason is preventing him from doing it as a man.

~~~
joushou
There is no "them" or "us". "They" are just people. They are rarely even
people that we disagree with - they're innocent civilians that were unlucky
and lived in what turned into a war zone, or soldiers that are simply
following orders to protect what they consider their home. The decision is
whether or not to take hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives exactly
like the one of the navy officer with the launch code embedded in his chest.
Lives that had nothing to do with the conflict at all.

The "bad guys", the ones you might actually refer to as "them", are sitting
somewhere comfortable, far out of reach of any of this. Their only interaction
in this is that they pressed a button.

~~~
whack
It's scary that even here on HN, a comment like this would get downvoted.
Seeing the world through a lens of "us" and "them", and seeing "them" as being
less worthy of our humanity & consideration, has led to more human-atrocities
throughout history, than almost anything else.

~~~
u_me_him
It is naive to think we are all one happy human race. I wish it were so but it
isn't. The "others" will have no problem killing you and dance on your grave.
I guess that is why the saying goes "If you want peace, prepare for war"

~~~
coldtea
Usually, and judging by the numbers, it's the inverse.

It's the self justified "us" than do most damage, not some "others".

------
hardlianotion
It's all very telling, but the notion that you would sacrifice one more,
presumably innocent life for no good reason at all is itself immoral.

I assume that is part of the moral of the tale. The story only makes sense in
signalling that you think that nuclear weapons are pointless.

~~~
epistasis
> no good reason

There's a good reason: to make real the human suffering that can be caused in
a quick, momentary decision.

Previous forms of warfare took longer amounts of time to cause immense
destruction.

Read the story of Ronald Reagan's response to watching the movie The Day After
[1] and you will realize that such representations of the suffering can have a
great impact.

> The story only makes sense in signalling that you think that nuclear weapons
> are pointless.

Absolutely not. You can think that nuclear weapons are important, and still
take seriously their immense destructive capacity.

Throughout human history human leaders have caused great suffering at little
cost to themselves.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After#Effects_on_polic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After#Effects_on_policymakers)

------
kstenerud
That's a bit of a silly thought experiment.

If faced with a symmetric foe that has launched a nuclear holocaust upon my
country, it would be absolutely essential to retaliate in kind so as to ensure
that they could not mount a second assault and kill even more people. If I
were president, I would not hesitate.

~~~
dogma1138
What if the first strike wasn't a disablement strike but an exterminating one?

If your foe launches a strike that would kill 99% of the population of your
country would you retaliate to ensure same level of destruction?

~~~
fanzhang
Let's put aside the likelihood of a exterminating strike (where the enemy
achieves near-total destruction before you can even think about launching).

Now suppose you do also decide to retaliate to ensure 99% destruction to your
foe. Would your foe's knowledge of that change whether your foe even tries an
eliminating strike in the first place?

~~~
dogma1138
You have 2 first strike options. 1) that will target your opponents nuclear
capabilities (ensuring that no 2nd strike is possible) 2) that will target
everything including population centers to achieve maximum destruction.

In both of these scenarios if you are attacked first (early warning) your only
option is to attack their centers of population to either prevent an all out
invasion or to retaliate.

This is exactly why MAD sort of works, because it actually ensures mutual
destruction of not only the nuclear and military capabilities but also of all
national and human infrastructure as the only possible answer to even a
limited nuclear first strike is "fire zee missiles!". Or to put it in a more
structured manner there is virtually no room for proportionate response when
it comes to a nuclear attack. When there was it was the biggest threat to
"MAD" since it more or less would ensure that any side that gains sufficient
advantage would be prone to launching a first strike. Because of this very
fact the nuclear arms treaties between the USA and then the USSR limited fixed
launch site while promoting mobile launcher and nuclear missile subs as much
as possible as the guaranteed 2nd strike capability of both nations was what
MAD was actually built upon.

But MAD is not without it's faults, heck so far i think Norway out all
countries was the one that brought us closest to total nuclear war.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident)

~~~
hga
The biggest defect of MAD was that the Soviets correctly thought it was
_profoundly_ immoral and never accepted it, and, well, once Robert Strange
McNamara, he of the oh so wise initial prosecution of the Vietnam War, pushed
it through, the Soviet leaders didn't have much trouble painting us as immoral
because we were.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
MAD is not immoral. There's nothing immoral about preventing nuclear war. I
also find it hard to believe that the Soviets, of all people would dare claim
the moral high ground.

~~~
hga
The Soviets attack our military establishment, and our moral response is to
burn Soviet children to death in their beds?

Yeah, right. And the Soviets most certainly took advantage of this moral
error, for as you note, they're hard pressed to do so with a straight face
otherwise.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Yes. That is how you prevent nuclear war. By being prepared to do terrible
things that you hope to never do. Only by being ready to commit atrocities can
you hope to not have atrocities committed at all.

There is no moral error here, only moral reality.

Also, it's not like our military establishment is separate from our civilian
population centers. The SF bay area, New York, San Diego, among others, would
be devastated in a counter-force first strike, no matter how precise.

------
tacon
I can't remember where, but recently I read about a similar proposal that
would have required the US and Soviet power structure to designate a
relatively close family member that would take up residence in the other
capital. It wouldn't have been as dramatic as hacking a complete stranger, but
it tied into the strong genetic drives to protect one's family.

~~~
throwaway11212
Perhaps you've read this article before? It's right there.

~~~
hga
The article was recently changed, probably after tacon wrote his comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11556250](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11556250)

------
osmala
I'm from country without nuclear weapons and even I think that idea is really
bad.

Here's why, either Russia or China could launch a first strike if they
believed USA wouldn't retaliate. Or simpler they would use conventional means
more aggressively and if that escalated to conflict with USA then they would
simply make first strike. Key point is neither country should ever think USA
would definitely NOT use nuclear retaliation on nuclear first strike. In a
sense by making a major nuclear weapons power less likely to do use its own
weapons increase overall chance of nuclear war. And finally this system also
gives additional urgency for aggressive actions for opposing great powers, by
forcing them to act and finish all their aggressive plans during term of a
president they perceive in capable of ultimate action.

------
cronjobber
Observe the sneaky trick this story tries to play: The president is supposed
to kill one _of his own_ before he's allowed to retaliate against _the enemy._

As a thought experiment, let's implant the launch code into, say, a captured
enemy spy. Is it still the same story?

~~~
Mtinie
Probably not.

The piece that I found particularly interesting about the proposal is the that
the person with the implanted codes is a volunteer.

Not only would you need to have a President take hands-on ownership of taking
a life (the first of many if the launch proceeds), but you have a martyr who
is first to die for a cause that they feel most strongly for.

~~~
tlunter
So far, since the top of the comments, you're the only one that acknowledged
the volunteer has thoughts too. I think everyone is just looking at the moral
part of this and not how the interaction between the volunteer and president
would be when he's hesitant but the volunteer still believes it's the right
decision. It does call into question what kind of volunteer this is. Someone
who's ready to die for the country from the get go wouldn't work out very
well.

------
tiredwired
They should have a twin backup and test the process every month.

------
archgoon
The entire calculus of having nuclear weapons in the first place rests on the
assumption that no one will use them because to use them invites a retaliatory
strike. Reducing the likelihood of a retaliatory strike, under this model,
increases the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used.

Now of course, this model may be wrong (pre-emptive strike on non-nuclear
state with no nuclear allies); but I'm somewhat disturbed that the Pentagon
employees don't seem to understand this. Maybe they do, and the author only
gave the initial reaction rather than their full counterargument.

~~~
hga
This was all in the context of "Warmonger Reagan" becoming president. Assuming
bad will on the part of the author is perhaps not _required_ , but it was a
safe bet back then.

~~~
vidarh
And Reagan presided over two years of increase in tensions and hostility vs.
the Soviet Union worse than any others since Kennedy, to the point where
there's indications that the Soviet Union were concerned that Able Archer 83
was preparation for a real attack and considered a first strike.

It was first faced with the reality of the level of Soviet fear of an US
attack that appears to have set him on a new course.

In '81, worrying about Reagans antagonistic foreign policy was quite rational.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"And Reagan presided over two years of increase in tensions and hostility vs.
the Soviet Union"

No, the increase in tensions and hostility occurred as a result of the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, which occurred under Jimmy Carter (another Nobel
Peace Prize winner).

~~~
hga
That was the real start, for sure, but Reagan took the pressure of every type,
except silly things like the grain embargo, to 11. For instance ... actually,
I _can_ see moralist Carter saying something like this after he saw the light,
but still:

 _Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that
totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But
until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the
State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual
domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the
modern world.... So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I
urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of
blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally
at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an
evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby
remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil._

That was in 1983:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire)

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Well, why should the US sell grain to nations whose established goal is to end
our way of life? "We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell
us." So let's not sell them rope. Or grain, in this case.

~~~
hga
Because that's a weapon to only use in a hot war?

Because it's a fungible commodity in plentiful world supply, and we're better
off benefiting from that trade ourselves?

Because it most directly puts the lie to their claims their economic system is
superior? "If it's so good, why can't you grow enough food for yourselves but
have to buy it from us?"

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Why is it only a weapon to use in a hot war? We don't trade with North Korea,
sanction Russia, and sanction many other countries. Why shouldn't we have
refused to sell the Soviets grain?

That's possibly true.

That they need to by grain puts lie to it, the US selling grain to them was
merely secondary.

~~~
hga
_We don 't trade with North Korea_

We're actually still formally at war with the DPRK, something they remind us
and most especially our ROK allies of all too often.

The rest are sanctions that stop short of using food as a weapon.

------
warmblood
I am almost cynical enough to believe that a modern neoliberal president
surrounded by hawkish advisors could be convinced quite easily to personally
kill the keeper and retrieve the launch codes. I believe that the hawkish "at
any cost" mindset of modern American politics distorts human empathy so much
that it's completely within the realm of belief for me for this to occur.

More likely, I think, that those holding prestigious enough office can find
ways to get around very high procedural barriers like this one by assigning
the task to a secret service agent or other on-hand staff of a martial trade.

Personally I think we've seen plenty of evidence that those in high office
might personally carry out and enable heinous acts of individual violence if
the stakes are made to appear grave enough to them.

~~~
Avshalom
All I know is that if I did get drunk enough to volunteer I'd spend the rest
of my life running away from the president anytime there was a hint of a
foreign relations dust up.

~~~
Nutmog
You wouldn't just be running away from the president. You'd be running away
from a whole country full of hysterical people afraid of an imminent communist
invasion and blaming it on you.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Not a big deal. Air Force One actually has operating rooms on board. Just have
a cardiothoracic surgeon with the President whose job it would be to retrieve
the launch codes.

~~~
evan_
Doctors take an oath to do no harm, so that's another wrinkle...

~~~
casion
Breaking an oath isn't very problematic at all.

If you really wanted to be clever about it, have a non-medically trained
person begin the operation... and then the surgeon would have to step in to
save the patient.

------
jlg23
Interesting idea, but it fails to take user stupidity into account.
"00000000"[1] in a capsule in a volunteer's body does not really protect
anything.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-
for-u...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-
was-00000000-for-20-years/)

------
tremendo
So far no one seems to be discussing the "volunteer". S/He can fight back. Use
the butcher's knife against the president. Maybe even be in the right, or not.
The moment this person "volunteers" to carry the codes inside, it becomes
suicide, even if it never happens, they have to be ready to be hacked to
death, and not try to avoid it when the moment comes, and this I believe is
next to impossible, and effectively compromises the president's ability to
carry out whatever actions deemed necessary. It's a nice thought experiment,
but not more than that.

~~~
archgoon
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11555640](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11555640)

Alex3917:

    
    
       I like this idea in theory, but in practice if I see Dick
       Cheney coming at me with a butcher's knife I'm getting the  
       hell out of there.

------
imaginenore
1) A psychopath / sociopath willing to kill millions is not going to care
about one more.

2) Politicians / leaders are orders of magnitude more likely to be
psychopaths.

------
toomanythings2
Presuming the USA is the only country with nuclear weapons?

Does everyone promise to do this and have them nowhere else?

------
Alex3917
I like this idea in theory, but in practice if I see Dick Cheney coming at me
with a butcher's knife I'm getting the hell out of there.

~~~
malloreon
Cheney never comes at you with a butcher's knife.

He prefers to become your friend over many years, have great experiences
together, then shoot you in the face and make you apologize for your role in
the incident.

~~~
avar
Is there any actual proof that that's what happened aside from lame conspiracy
theories?

~~~
hga
Errr, that is exactly what happened, and an apology was due.

While it's primarily the responsibility of an upland bird hunter (anyone
shooting, of course, but in this sort of hunting you move around a lot and
flush out birds unexpectedly) to keep track of everyone and not shoot when any
of them are down range, everyone in the hunting party also has a
responsibility to follow previously agreed upon protocols to make this easier
and less error prone. The guy who got shot screwed that up big time.

~~~
jessaustin
Wow this sounds like a good reason to _never_ go upland bird hunting: the four
rules don't apply! No thanks; I'll hunt in safer circumstances.

~~~
hga
Eh, it's _pretty_ safe, and the Four Rules most certainly apply, it's just
that implementing Rule 4 is much more difficult.

In ~70 years of it, one of my father's favorite pastimes, he got shot exactly
once, although there was no excuse for it like there was in the Chaney
accident. Then again, he was both careful in picking his hunting partners and
only hunted with some of them once after they demonstrated they didn't have
their act together.

As long as you wear glasses and there's some distance, serious injury is
unlikely, as happened with him. A tough shirt is also recommenced, that
stopped penetration of the shot that hit his chest.

------
dang
Url changed from [http://boingboing.net/2015/12/11/proposal-keep-the-
nuclear-l...](http://boingboing.net/2015/12/11/proposal-keep-the-nuclear-
lau.html), which points to this.

------
force_reboot
What a ridiculous and insulting proposal. People in the military agree to
serve the country within certain bounds defined by tradition, they are not
simply meat that can be used for any purpose.

How about use any politician who has every voted for the use of US military
overseas. Or even better, a volunteer from their families. Or any professor
who has advocated for such, or their families. Because I think that this would
cover a lot of people who smugly accuse others of being drive by an "us vs
them" mentality.

