Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
by vaniver on Saturday December 24, 2016 @04:17AM
(#13249159)
This is a complete misunderstanding of US nuclear policy and weapons systems. It's designed to enable the president to launch missiles at any target as rapidly as possible, not to doublecheck or safeguard against him.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-...
You might say "sure, but there are people who have to actually execute those orders." But give the Pentagon some credit--those are people who have been systematically selected because they follow orders quickly and without question. For example, consider what happened to Harold Hering when it became obvious that he was not one of those people.
Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
by fergie on Friday December 23, 2016 @06:04AM
(#13244172)
This is a really strong argument for big government. The smaller our all-powerful military command is, the easier it is for it to go rogue.
Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
by varjag on Friday December 23, 2016 @06:30AM
(#13244238)
It's rather an argument for a crafted system of checks and balances than a big government per se. The totalitarian governments, for example, are absolutely massive, and many don't even have some sort of politburo to reason in a dictator.
Re:Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People
by VexXtreme on Friday December 23, 2016 @08:43AM
(#13244645)
A counterargument would be that it's harder for a big government to change direction easily, once decided and set in motion. Wrong decisions can compound because it's easier for a large organization to stay its course, even in the face of increasing harm, as evident by the Vietnam war.
However, that depends on the people between the president and nuclear launch being decent human beings that care about law and order and proper procedure. You need to look at the system, not just individuals.
Alternatively, let's say someone came to power who genuinely believed nuking Russia was a good option. Rather than order a launch on the spot, what they'd actually do is gradually build a case, appoint pliable or similarly thinking people to key positions, get the launch protocols revised, engineer a geopolitical crisis by provoking Russia and drive events towards a situation in which a nuclear launch seems like a legitimate option.