|
Harold Hering, a dude in the air force waaaay back in the ancient history of the republic asked the following questionquote:"How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?" then the airforce was like lol thats not within the scope of yo poo poo and hering replied quote:"I have to say, I feel I do have a need to know, because I am a human being. It is inherent in an officer's commission that he has to do what is right in terms of the needs of the nation despite any orders to the contrary. You really don't know at the time of key turning, whether you are complying with your oath of office." and the airfoce was like noice meltdown and fired him. so, ethics etc, is there any way for a air force ICBM officer to know that the launch order to kill millions of people came from a sane president? Should our ICBM officers question a launch order from president trump?
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
The only way to be sure is to launch the missiles BEFORE he asks, op
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
why would you question it. drown the world in fire 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
if the order arrives, the president isn't sane
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
it's pretty simple really
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
shut the gently caress up and launch those nukes at san francisco
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:so, ethics etc, is there any way for a air force ICBM officer to know that the launch order to kill millions of people came from a sane president? Should our ICBM officers question a launch order from president trump? i thought there wasn't even any way for them to know if it's a real launch or a drill, and if they don't launch, they lose their jobs. So like the electoral college, there's no reason for there to even be people there, so we could cut costs by just setting up a twitter bot that donald can tell what continents to nuke
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Duscat posted:i thought there wasn't even any way for them to know if it's a real launch or a drill, and if they don't launch, they lose their jobs. So like the electoral college, there's no reason for there to even be people there, so we could cut costs by just setting up a twitter bot that donald can tell what continents to nuke I believe the portion where they do not know if it is a real launch or a drill is restricted to the time of receiving an order and deciphering it
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
this whole scenario is absurd, we have a system that prevents insane people from becoming president and which allows for presidents to be removed from power if they go insane
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Dairy Days posted:I believe the portion where they do not know if it is a real launch or a drill is restricted to the time of receiving an order and deciphering it ^^ and if you dont think that that is the case, just for the sake of SUPER ETHICAL discussion assume they do know when its a drill vs real launch
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
you could probably deduce whether or not it's real by just being up-to-date on current events world at peace, nothing interesting happening: this order to nuke berlin is probably not legit putin just took over alaska: maybe this might be the real deal
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
deadgoon posted:this whole scenario is absurd, we have a system that prevents insane people from becoming president and which allows for presidents to be removed from power if they go insane what about drunk? people were worried that nixon would get blackout drunk and order something absurd. so there are rumors that at times nixon was cut out of the chain of command for nukes by having another guy in the loop
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
How can he know? Simple, the only sane move is to launch the missiles and face to bloodshed
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
the answer is to launch your missiles but send one towards the white house if it was real, DC was going to be nuked anyway so who cares if it was from an insane prez, congrats you saved the world
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
It's never ethical to launch nukes to kill billions of people and probably set back human civilization a hundred years or more. The threat to launch can serve as a deterrent, but it must ultimately be a bluff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:the answer is to launch your missiles but send one towards the white house No no you gotta send them towards the ocean  Duscat posted:It's never ethical to launch nukes to kill billions of people and probably set back human civilization a hundred years or more. Counterpoint: Gotta burn the forest down to make way for new growth
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:what about drunk? people were worried that nixon would get blackout drunk and order something absurd. so there are rumors that at times nixon was cut out of the chain of command for nukes by having another guy in the loop would you be able to order a nuclear launch without getting drunk first?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
I think equally frightening is the incredible technology gap between current computer systems (even govt systems) and the actual technology our nuclear missile programs utilize. there was a report that came out 2 or 3 years back that found that a significant portion of our nuclear missile programs are still being run off of hardware that was cutting edge in the early 1980's - poo poo like floppy disks and computers with less memory than is now in a kids' Speak & Spell toy. this also included woefully inadequate auxiliary systems like a perimeter defense alarm that could be set off by something as simple as tossing a snowball across the sensor line (way too easy to get a false positive), and that was assuming that the alarm even activated in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Counterpoint: Gotta burn the forest down to make way for new growth what if the fire also salts the earth
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
nuclear as the first option would answer your question
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:what if the fire also salts the earth Even better!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:I think equally frightening is the incredible technology gap between current computer systems (even govt systems) and the actual technology our nuclear missile programs utilize. there was a report that came out 2 or 3 years back that found that a significant portion of our nuclear missile programs are still being run off of hardware that was cutting edge in the early 1980's - poo poo like floppy disks and computers with less memory than is now in a kids' Speak & Spell toy. this also included woefully inadequate auxiliary systems like a perimeter defense alarm that could be set off by something as simple as tossing a snowball across the sensor line (way too easy to get a false positive), and that was assuming that the alarm even activated in the first place. i kinda want to see a situation where trump and whoever goes insane and launches all their nukes at each-other only to discover that every last one is a dud because they're all old and lovely "awkward"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
I was expecting the apocalypse and all I got was this really embarrassed silence
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
there's no way to know, megadeath is certain OPquote:Right now thousands of missiles are hidden away, literally out of sight, topped with warheads and ready to go, awaiting the right electrical signal. They are a collective death wish, barely suppressed. Every one of them is an accident waiting to happen, a potential act of mass murder. They are out there, waiting, soulless and mechanical, sustained by our denial— and they work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPEBROvR9w&t=474s
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
OP that's why it only takes like 1/3rd of the silo crew to actually launch the thing.Freaking Crumbum posted:I think equally frightening is the incredible technology gap between current computer systems (even govt systems) and the actual technology our nuclear missile programs utilize. there was a report that came out 2 or 3 years back that found that a significant portion of our nuclear missile programs are still being run off of hardware that was cutting edge in the early 1980's - poo poo like floppy disks and computers with less memory than is now in a kids' Speak & Spell toy. What's frightening about that? They can't be wirelessly hacked into if that's what you're insinuating and their simplicity ensures they are less susceptible to interference whether electrical or kinetic. I think running important military hardware off tech a few generations old is standard procedure actually iirc because it is way easier to harden and more reliable. The things gotta get up into space so they've gotta be really radiation resistant otherwise the electronics would all just get fried. e: It's like you know the xbox was all fancy relative to a N64 but I went through 4 of those suckers while my N64 still works just fine. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 23:10 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Duscat posted:It's never ethical to launch nukes to kill billions of people and probably set back human civilization a hundred years or more. what if those billions of people are infected by the rage virus? what then smart guy, huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:what if the fire also salts the earth if poo poo is growing in chernobyl, i dont think nukes would salt the earth for that long
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
its the massive amount of dust thats kicked up by the cities and forests that are engulfed by firestorm that clouds the world
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
even then, life will still return no way humans are more destructive than that giant meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
meh we could runway greenhouse, evaporate all the oceans and also inject enough sulfur dioxide into atmosphere to make us a moist venus. sure bacteria will live for a bit, but we could venusize the planet with a concentrated international effort and a thousand years or so
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:meh we could runway greenhouse, evaporate all the oceans and also inject enough sulfur dioxide into atmosphere to make us a moist venus. sure bacteria will live for a bit, but we could venusize the planet with a concentrated international effort and a thousand years or so evaporate all the oceans? thats the craziest idea in the world. the amount of energy that would take is maaaaaaassssssiiiiiiivvve
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:evaporate all the oceans? thats the craziest idea in the world. the amount of energy that would take is maaaaaaassssssiiiiiiivvve thats not even the craziest idea ive had this HOUR
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:meh we could runway greenhouse, evaporate all the oceans and also inject enough sulfur dioxide into atmosphere to make us a moist venus. sure bacteria will live for a bit, but we could venusize the planet with a concentrated international effort and a thousand years or so this is probably not possible, there's not enough carbon in all the fossil fuels that exist to do it by CO2 alone, and the more potent greenhouse gases will be harder to manufacture once the biosphere can no longer support humans i mean, i guess if we automated that job... yeah, in a deliberate plan to literally sterilize the world, heating up the planet would be the way to go
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Duscat posted:this is probably not possible, there's not enough carbon in all the fossil fuels that exist to do it by CO2 alone, and the more potent greenhouse gases will be harder to manufacture once the biosphere can no longer support humans thats the runaway part, we just need to get it to the point where the seas are evaporating at a rate above replacement, H2O, a powerful greenhouse gas, will get us there! we can help things along by doing things like intentionally evaporating the meditteranian, refilling it, doing that over and over. covering the sea in a substance that increases evaporation this prob would flood the low lying parts of the world, plus constant hurricains everywhere etc we also could intentionally set fire to all the coal fields, gas fields etc and use nuclear weapons to trigger seismic and volcanic events too!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
I'm going to say its unethical to do so tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
the answer is clearly to hook up the silos to a sophisticated AI that can make these decisions for us, and also play chess with us
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
watch the hunt for red october baloogan it will answer all of your questions
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:thats the runaway part, we just need to get it to the point where the seas are evaporating at a rate above replacement, H2O, a powerful greenhouse gas, will get us there! we can help things along by doing things like intentionally evaporating the meditteranian, refilling it, doing that over and over. covering the sea in a substance that increases evaporation the seas aren't going to keep evaporating though, because there's going to be an equilibrium point, i mean, what's the pressure under a kilometer of water, because that's gonna be the pressure at sea level once it's all in the atmosphere, and the boiling point will be that much higher also i don't think nuke volcanoes are going to do much globablly unless you can somehow trigger the yellowstone supervolcano (which is still more likely to cool things down than heat them up) Baloogan posted:I'm going to say its unethical to do so tho negative utilitarians might disagree, but 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Just don't ever give the order to fire em ever under any circumstances but keep that hush hush because being a humanitarian is gay
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Mnoba posted:watch the hunt for red october baloogan it will answer all of your questions you say this like he doesn't have every line memorized
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:10
|
|