From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 16 1999 - 15:59:45 MST
'What is your name?' 'hal@finney.org.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME
IS!!!':
> I thought it was generally agreed that survivability was a stabilizing
> trait, not a destabilizing one.
Survivability is different from opportunity to retaliate, which is what
you're describing.
Low survivability: When opportunity to retaliate is high, and
survivability is low, you get mutually assured destruction. When
opportunity to retaliate is low and survivability is low, first strike
becomes effective.
High survivability: However, if opportunity to retaliate is high and
survivability is high, war may erupt, rather than mutually assured
destruction. High survivability with low opportunity to retaliate doesn't
make any sense.
Thus, (surprise!) having a low survivability is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for nuclear stability in a MAD world. To get MAD
stability you need low survivability AND ample opportunity to retaliate.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:47 MST