Hacker News Reader

Comment by cronix | Hacker News Reader

Quite simply, it's basic human nature. I don't think you can name a country that its citizens would remain complacent after a nuclear attack. New York, LA, DC, Chicago suddenly get wiped off the map. You don't think the population would demand retaliation? Not only the massive immediate loss of life, but it would decimate the economy. Look at the response to 9/11. That was "just" 2 buildings. Now imagine entire cities that would be impossible to rebuild or habitat.

View on HN

Just so we are accurate. It was three buildings; hit by 3 planes full of people. A fourth plane that hit the ground and several buildings in New York as secondary casualties.

> You don't think the population would demand retaliation?

No. After seeing the devastation, the population would demand not to escalate.

No. After seeing devastation, the population would demand to escalate.

See this is interesting to me. I tend to agree with you and I think I would be in the de-escalate camp.

Now even if that group is in the minority, how large of a minority would it have to be to at least question the 'guaranteed immediate strategic nuclear retaliation' assumption in our models and plans?

Unfortunately, pacifists tend to be killed or imprisoned by those who are willing to resort to violence.

The weapons also tend to be in the hands of warmongers.

Finally, and probably more importantly, if a nuclear attack was immanent, the US President has something like 5 minutes to decide on whether to launch a counterattack.

The general population won't even have time to participate in this decision. They will just be wiped out along with everyone else.

Coincidentally ACOUP has an essay on this very topic[1] just out.

TL;DR: Strategic bombing has been tried many times in the Second World War and after it. It has never caused the reaction you describe. It invariably stiffens the morale of the bombed population. It backfires very badly.

If you want to win a war, confine yourself to military targets.

1. https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...

Except for, you know, the one time nukes were used in anger (yeah I know it was complicated, but still). Strategic bombing is one thing, but it's really hard to depopulate a city that way. Whereas once nukes start flying, the majority of citizens know they stand a healthy chance of dying in the next few hours or days. I don't know if that changes the result, but the dynamics will be different enough that I wouldn't cite strategic bombing as a comparison.

Humans? They will ask for a 10x retaliation.

A wise politician will convince the people that a x1 retaliation is enough and then make a deal with the other side to stop the destruction. Bout most politician will just launch a x20 retaliation to get more support from the crowd.

9/11 had a response that was fueled by the media to get people into a frenzy to support an unjust invasion of multiple countries.

The MIC was doing its job very well back then to make a multi-trillion war happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com