Add multiple decoys and the missile math tends to become an argument for the importance of preemption. Han shot first for a good reason.

▲ marginalia_nu 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The game theory of it is the prisoner's dilemma.

Preemtive betrayal is a terrible strategy if there are more than two parties in the game, and they are allowed to cooperate.

You have to be one heck of a smooth conversationalist to convince them to take a number and patiently wait in line to be the ones to be attacked next.

If you're the guy that the others in the room know shoots first, you're also the guy the others in the room will shoot when he's reaching for something in his jacket pocket.

	▲	delichon 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The prisoner's dilemma leads to mutual defection as the dominant equilibrium strategy in the one-shot version. Cooperation emerges as the equilibrium on repetition. The Han Solo gunfight is literally the one-shot version. When countries go to war that calculation is more complicated.

▲ jandrewrogers 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Decoys are greatly over-rated in ballistic missile systems. Sensors are so good at discriminating decoys from warheads that decoys are largely ineffective and have been for decades. This has borne out in Ukraine.

A decoy sufficiently sophisticated to look real to good sensors will have weight and characteristics that approach that of a real warhead, at which point you might as well add another warhead. Decoys only make sense if the marginal cost of adding them is low.

▲ jmyeet 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you haven't, I'm going to recommend you to listen to an episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, specifically The Destroyer of Worlds [1].

Why? Because it goes into the change in strategic thinking brought on by the atomic age (and, soon thereafter, the thermonuclear age). And there was an element of US strategic thinking that argued for a preemptive strike against the USSR.

The episode also goes into the arguments for and against the development of the hydrogen bomb, a weapon that could never really be used and arguably not even necessary when we already had the atomic bomb.

The outcome of those debates shaped American foreign policy from 1945 to the present day.

[1]:https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-...

	▲	delichon 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		`With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when. If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock? -- John von Neumann, ~1950` On the one hand he was one of the smartest people in history. On the other, his home country had recently been conquered by the Red Army so he may have been a little biased.

▲ 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ busterarm 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Careful. Preemption takes many forms, some of them many would find unpalatable.

▲

gos9 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unpalatable preemption is generally better than reentry vehicles coming down your chimney.

▲

phkahler 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem there is you can't prove anything would have come down the chimney if the preemption is successful, so people will still be unhappy.

	▲	busterarm 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, but some of them are more obvious. Like not giving 100 billion dollars to someone who actively wants to kill you.

▲

wat10000 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A thought experiment: would the world be a better place if the US had preemptively attacked the USSR in the 50s or early 60s when it was possible to do without more than “get[ting] our hair mussed” as General Turgidson put it?

▲

XorNot 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But it's also the basic l basis of deterrence and the destabilizing nature of ICBM defense: relying on interceptors presumes the war happens.

▲ heyitsmedotjayb 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Preemption is a propaganda lie.

	▲	hedora 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you haven't, watch House of Dynamite. Sadly, the Trump Administration concluded we should build exactly the defense capabilities described in the film. They even cited it by name as a good roadmap for the Golden Dome, so I know they read the title. I guess their reading comprehension levels are extremely low.