In 1981, Harvard law professor Roger Fisher, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, published a thought experiment in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: what if the codes to launch nuclear war were kept inside the chest-cavity of a young volunteer, and the President would have to hack them out of this young man's chest before he could commence armageddon?

There is a young man, probably a Navy officer, who accompanies the President. This young man has a black attaché case which contains the codes that are needed to fire nuclear weapons. I could see the President at a staff meeting considering nuclear war as an abstract question. He might conclude: “On SIOP Plan One, the decision is affirmative, Communicate the Alpha line XYZ.” Such jargon holds what is involved at a distance.

My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.

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.

Been watching The Leftovers?

(08-10-2017 06:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In 1981, Harvard law professor Roger Fisher, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, published a thought experiment in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: what if the codes to launch nuclear war were kept inside the chest-cavity of a young volunteer, and the President would have to hack them out of this young man's chest before he could commence armageddon?

There is a young man, probably a Navy officer, who accompanies the President. This young man has a black attaché case which contains the codes that are needed to fire nuclear weapons. I could see the President at a staff meeting considering nuclear war as an abstract question. He might conclude: “On SIOP Plan One, the decision is affirmative, Communicate the Alpha line XYZ.” Such jargon holds what is involved at a distance.

My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.

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.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Any President making the decision to use nuclear weapons should not be as concerned about the the number of people who may die, as he is about the number of people he may save.

Was this a scenario that played out on the series? No I've never seen an episode.

that 'experiment' is about as silly as it gets....harvard??? really???

the solution would be to drug the stupid bastard that volunteered, put him under the scalpel, and then never let him wake up.....

if you hacked him with a butcher knife, you might damage the capsule.....

So lets use your number of lives saved argument. Innocents are going to die anyways.

Kind of fits with the first season of GOT's

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.

If you are as committed to sending nuclear codes to kill millions with a sentence of codes you should still be committed enough to be able to kill ONE innocent in your presence.



Less wars. We could take it a step further. Plant the codes to start a war in a loved ones chest. Before you commit to taking your troops lives you have to sacrifice a loved one. Changes the calculus a tad........ No?

(08-10-2017 07:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you are as committed to sending nuclear codes to kill millions with a sentence of codes you should still be committed enough to be able to kill ONE innocent in your presence.



Less wars. We could take it a step further. Plant the codes to start a war in a loved ones chest. Before you commit to taking your troops lives you have to sacrifice a loved one. Changes the calculus a tad........ No?

There hasn't been a nuclear weapon dropped in over 70 years, yet there have been plenty of wars fought.

You really don't think that when the serious consideration of using nuclear weapons comes up, all parties involved aren't aware of the potential loss innocent lives? The type of situation you are in favor of setting up brings emotion into what should be an emotionless decision - especially if you involve a loved one of the President.

(08-10-2017 07:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So lets use your number of lives saved argument. Innocents are going to die anyways.

Before both bombs were dropped on the Japanese, millions of leaflets warning them to get out of the cities were dropped. Innocent people die in war all the time, the only difference with regard to nuclear weapons is the number.

Studies done during WWII estimated 1.7-4 million American casualties if we invaded Japan and 5-10 million Japanese casualties (civilian and military). The use of two bombs saved 1.7-4 million Americans and anywhere from 4.75-9.75 million Japanese. - See "Operation Downfall".

Any rational leader will chose to save 6.45-13.75 million people at the cost of 250,000.

200 you seem to want to engage in an argument I am not participating in. I supplied a thought experiment. If you wish to continue to talk about said thought experiment please continue. You are conflating issues. Again, just so we are clear, you can be completely justified in your actions but you have to be absolutely convinced of the justification to kill one innocent in your presence instead of millions away from your presence. I sometimes think the same things about these drones and video games.



The war comment that I made was taking this thought experiment one step further. Before you commit other people's sons and daughters to war you must also be able to commit your son and daughter to the front lines. We would have less wars if this were the case.

Libturds and their "thought experiments". SMDH

(08-10-2017 08:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  200 you seem to want to engage in an argument I am not participating in. I supplied a thought experiment. If you wish to continue to talk about said thought experiment please continue.

Your thought experiment is flawed and I have clearly demonstrated that.

(08-10-2017 08:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You are conflating issues. Again, just so we are clear, you can be completely justified in your actions but you have to be absolutely convinced of the justification to kill one innocent in your presence instead of millions away from your presence. I sometimes think the same things about these drones and video games.

You are the one conflating issues. The loss of innocent individuals through the act of war is nothing like the senseless death of an ally, be it a friend, family member, or subordinate, in order to defend millions and save innocent lives from both sides of a conflict. One is senseless killing, one is not.

(08-10-2017 08:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The war comment that I made was taking this thought experiment one step further. Before you commit other people's sons and daughters to war you must also be able to commit your son and daughter to the front lines. We would have less wars if this were the case.

If you don't want the responsibility of young men and women to war, don't run for President. Each and every soldier that may be sent to the front lines has made a willful choice to go if ordered. A hypothetical President's child did not make the willful choice to have nuclear codes implanted in their chest so that the only way the President could respond to a threat to millions would be to be murdered by their own father. Your 'thought experiment' fails on multiple levels.

Another thought experiment. Every time someone in Congress decides to initiate a new program using tax dollars....they have to go into a random home with a gun and take the first dollar themselves from someone to fund it.

Where can I get some of that acid you're trippin on?

(08-10-2017 06:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In 1981, Harvard law professor Roger Fisher, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, published a thought experiment in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: what if the codes to launch nuclear war were kept inside the chest-cavity of a young volunteer, and the President would have to hack them out of this young man's chest before he could commence armageddon?
There is a young man, probably a Navy officer, who accompanies the President. This young man has a black attaché case which contains the codes that are needed to fire nuclear weapons. I could see the President at a staff meeting considering nuclear war as an abstract question. He might conclude: “On SIOP Plan One, the decision is affirmative, Communicate the Alpha line XYZ.” Such jargon holds what is involved at a distance.
My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.
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."

You have friends at the Pentagon? Or did you steal this without attribution? And who is George?

Seriously, for this to be reasonable and/or viable, either of two conditions must exist. Either we are the only country with such weapons, or every other country with such weapons agrees to the same arrangement. Neither of those exists, or is likely to exist any time soon.

Lots of people on the left like to assume that nuclear disarmament is a one-way street. If we just dismantle our nuclear arsenal, everyone else will do the same. That's great. Unless they don't. Then what?

(08-10-2017 08:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another thought experiment. Every time someone in Congress decides to initiate a new program using tax dollars....they have to go into a random home with a gun and take the first dollar themselves from someone to fund it.

I'd settle for ensuring all Congress has to be on the Obamacare / Trumpcare / Deathcare plan they pass for the rest of us.

You need to have balances. We have an unbalanced and unhinged President. The fire and fury comment needs to be balanced with commentary such as this. The man is the Captain of the ship of fools and unfortunately I have been marooned.

(08-10-2017 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You need to have balances. We have an unbalanced and unhinged President. The fire and fury comment needs to be balanced with commentary such as this. The man is the Captain of the ship of fools and unfortunately I have been marooned.

Then you have nothing to fear for you are no longer on the ship.

(08-10-2017 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You need to have balances. We have an unbalanced and unhinged President. The fire and fury comment needs to be balanced with commentary such as this. The man is the Captain of the ship of fools and unfortunately I have been marooned.

Took one for the team did ya?

(08-10-2017 09:16 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 08:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another thought experiment. Every time someone in Congress decides to initiate a new program using tax dollars....they have to go into a random home with a gun and take the first dollar themselves from someone to fund it.

I'd settle for ensuring all Congress has to be on the Obamacare / Trumpcare / Deathcare plan they pass for the rest of us.

They technically are. But their "exchanges" have some options that ours don't.

I'd just make it so that congress, and indeed all of the federal bureaucracy, cannot exempt themselves from any requirements of any law generally regarding the rest of us, or take advantage of any benefits not generally available to the rest of us. Make them live real lives, and they would be more in touch with real people leading real lives.