[Abadoned] Love the Bomb

[Verdant Haven]

With obvious inspiration from the movie Dr. Strangelove, and suggestions drawn from both the movie and the real world, here's a foray into the world of nuclear deterrence for our WMD-loving nations.

3rd Draft

[TITLE]
Love the Bomb

[DESCRIPTION] As the nation's generals prepared for their annual war games, scenario writers came to the conclusion that for all the checks and balances that have been considered, there remains a dangerous gap in @@NAME@@'s defensive deterrent. Ultimate authority to use the nation's WMDs still has to come from you, with no provisions made for event of your own death or incapacitation.

[VALIDITY]
Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

[CHOICE 1]
"What'd happen if those dirtbags launched a decapitation strike against you?" barks General @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Ripper, drawing a folder from @@HIS@@ briefcase. "We'd lose the ability to defend ourselves! Listen, we have a bunch of plans… Plan A, Plan G, and so on. I've drafted a plan, ready for your approval, that allows lower ranking officers to authorize the use of WMDs if you are killed. If you'll just sign off on Plan R here, we'll ensure the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ way of life is safe!"
[EFFECT 1]
@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ military officers have a developed a peculiar fascination with @@LEADER@@'s death


[CHOICE 2]
"You don't have to be alive to take charge," chuckles Assistant Secretary for the Apocalypse, @@RANDOMNAME@@, in a disturbingly nonchalant manner. "You can write sealed orders to be delivered to our nuclear commanders, for use only in the event of your death due to enemy action! These 'letters of last resort' could order us to return fire, stand down, heck, even join an allied nation! Their content will remain secret and unknown unless and until such an unfortunate incident occurs."
[EFFECT 2]
enemy nations are desperate to read @@LEADER@@'s mail


[CHOICE 3]
"This problem could easily be solved by a computer," interjects science advisor, Dr. Merkwürdigliebe, rising unexpectedly from his wheelchair to address you. "If you build my doomsday device, then any attack by enemies will be detected by a network of sensors, which will automatically trigger our response regardless of if you live… or if you die. The cloud of fallout from our bombs, coated in Cobalt-Thorium G, would surround the planet for ninety-three years! Nobody will dare attack us then, and the question of response becomes moot."
[EFFECT 3]
computer programmers treat debugging like their lives depend on it


[CHOICE 4]
"No, no, no, all of these options are too dangerous!" shouts @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Petrov, a former missile defense officer. "Machines can give false readings, and why do we need such indiscriminate weapons anyway? Surely our weapons today are so precise, we do not need WMDs in order to eliminate our targets. Decommission these dangerous relics, and focus on the development of conventional guided weapons. There is no need for the innocent to pay the price when nations go to war!"
[EFFECT 4]
@@NAME@@ has learned not to love the bomb

2nd Draft

[TITLE]
Love the Bomb

[DESCRIPTION] As the nation's generals prepared for their annual war games, scenario writers came to the conclusion that for all the checks and balances that have been considered, there remains a dangerous gap in @@NAME@@'s defensive deterrent. Ultimate authority to use the nation's WMDs still has to come from you, with no provisions made for event of your own death or incapacitation.

[VALIDITY]
Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

[CHOICE 1]
"What happens if those dirtbags launch a decapitation strike against you?" barks General @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Ripper, drawing a folder from @@HIS@@ briefcase. "We lose the ability to defend ourselves! Listen, we have a bunch of plans… Plan A, Plan G, and so on. I've drafted a plan, ready for your approval, that allows lower ranking officers to authorize the use of WMDs in that scenario. If you'll just sign off on Plan R here, we'll ensure the @@DEMONYM@@ way of life is safe!"
[EFFECT 1]
@@DEMONYM@@ military officers have a developed a peculiar fascination with @@LEADER@@'s death


[CHOICE 2]
"You don't have to be alive in order to give orders" chuckles Assistant Secretary of Defense for Apocalyptic Planning, @@RANDOMNAME@@, in a disturbingly nonchalant manner. "You can write a letter now with specific orders to be carried out in the event of your death due to enemy action! We could return fire, stand down, heck, even join an allied force! Your orders will remain sealed and unknown unless and until such an unfortunate incident occurs."
[EFFECT 2]
enemy nations are desperate to read @@LEADER@@'s mail


[CHOICE 3]
"This problem could easily be solved by a computer" interjects science advisor, Dr. Merkwürdigliebe, rising from his wheelchair to address you. "If you build my doomsday device, then any attack by enemies will be detected by a network of sensors, which will automatically trigger our response regardless of if you live… or if you die. The cloud of fallout from our bombs, coated in Cobalt-Thorium G, would surround the planet for ninety-three years! Nobody will dare attack us then, and the question of response becomes moot."
[EFFECT 3]
computer programmers treat debugging like their lives depend on it


[CHOICE 4]
"No, no, no, all of these options are much too dangerous!" shouts @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Petrov, a former missile defense officer. "Machines can give false readings, and why do we need such indiscriminate weapons anyway? Surely our weapons today are so precise, we do not need WMDs in order to eliminate our targets. Decommission these dangerous relics, and focus on the development of conventional guided weapons. There is no need for the innocent to pay the price when nations go to war!"
[EFFECT 4]
@@NAME@@ has learned not to love the bomb

1st Draft

[TITLE]
Love the Bomb

[DESCRIPTION] As the nation's generals prepared for their annual war games to test their defensive capabilities, scenario writers were shocked to realize that there are no provisions for use of @@NAME@@'s WMD stockpile in the event of your own death or incapacitation.

[VALIDITY]
Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

[CHOICE 1]
"What happens if those dirtbags launch a decapitation strike against you?" barks General @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Ripper, drawing a folder from @@HIS@@ briefcase. "We lose the ability to defend ourselves! Listen, we have a bunch of plans… Plan A, Plan G, and so on. I've drafted a plan, ready for your approval, that allows lower ranking officers to authorize the use of WMDs in that scenario. If you'll just sign off on Plan R here, we'll ensure the @@DEMONYM@@ way of life is safe!"
[EFFECT 1]
@@DEMONYM@@ military officers have a developed a peculiar fascination with @@LEADER@@'s death


[CHOICE 2]
"Why would we want it to be easier to push the button?" boggles researcher @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Fisher, mouth agape. "Not only must the decision come from you, @@LEADER@@, but it must be hard decision to make. Implant the launch codes in the body of a person who never leaves your side. If you want to launch WMDs, you'll have to kill the volunteer to retrieve them! Then you will really understand the kind of life and death decision WMDs represent."
[EFFECT 2]
there is an inexplicable shortage of people volunteering to intern for @@LEADER@@


[CHOICE 3]
"This problem could easily be solved by a computer" interjects science advisor, Dr. Merkwürdigliebe, rising from his wheelchair to address you. "If you build my doomsday device, then any attack by enemies will be detected by a network of sensors, which will automatically trigger our response regardless of if you live… or if you die. The cloud of fallout from our bombs, coated in Cobalt-Thorium G, would surround the planet for ninety-three years! Nobody will dare attack us then, and the question of response becomes moot."
[EFFECT 3]
computer programmers treat debugging like their lives depend on it


[CHOICE 4]
"No, no, no, all of these options are much too dangerous!" shouts @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Petrov, a former missile defense officer. "Machines can give false readings, and why do we need such indiscriminate weapons anyway? Surely our weapons today are so precise, we do not need WMDs in order to eliminate our targets. Decommission these dangerous relics, and focus on the development of conventional guided weapons. There is no need for the innocent to pay the price when nations go to war!"
[EFFECT 4]
@@NAME@@ has learned not to love the bomb

[Empirical Switzerland]

I like this, good job!

[Trotterdam]

[CHOICE 2]
"Why would we want it to be easier to push the button?" boggles researcher @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Fisher, mouth agape. "Not only must the decision come from you, @@LEADER@@, but it must be hard decision to make. Implant the launch codes in the body of a person who never leaves your side. If you want to launch WMDs, you'll have to kill the volunteer to retrieve them! Then you will really understand the kind of life and death decision WMDs represent."
[EFFECT 2]
there is an inexplicable shortage of people volunteering to intern for @@LEADER@@

This is a ridiculously unreasonable option for something that's we've actually done before.

(Aside from the other problems with these options, I figure that if you can non-lethally implant information in somebody's body, you can non-lethally extract it, too. It might be slower, but all that means is hurting the nation's ability to defend itself in a genuine emergency without deterring bloodthirsty leaders who want to unleash nukes outside of an emergency.)

Also you have two options that are both anti-nuke, while only two options actually try to address the initial problem.

I find the way the real-life United Kingdom handles this interesting. The Prime Minister issues contingency orders in advance, in sealed envelopes to be opened only in case of actual collapse of the British government. Nobody knows what's actually in these (they're destroyed unopened when the Prime Minister leaves office without a nuclear war having occurred), but the most likely possibilities are considered to be "do nothing, deterrence has failed", "launch a retaliatory strike", "put yourselves under command of an allied nation", or "use your own best judgement". Of course, these orders being secret doesn't mesh well with effect lines being visible to everyone.

[Verdant Haven]

[CHOICE 2]
"Why would we want it to be easier to push the button?" boggles researcher @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Fisher, mouth agape. "Not only must the decision come from you, @@LEADER@@, but it must be hard decision to make. Implant the launch codes in the body of a person who never leaves your side. If you want to launch WMDs, you'll have to kill the volunteer to retrieve them! Then you will really understand the kind of life and death decision WMDs represent."
[EFFECT 2]
there is an inexplicable shortage of people volunteering to intern for @@LEADER@@

This is a ridiculously unreasonable option for something that's we've actually done before.

(Aside from the other problems with these options, I figure that if you can non-lethally implant information in somebody's body, you can non-lethally extract it, too. It might be slower, but all that means is hurting the nation's ability to defend itself in a genuine emergency without deterring bloodthirsty leaders who want to unleash nukes outside of an emergency.)

Also you have two options that are both anti-nuke, while only two options actually try to address the initial problem.

I find the way the real-life United Kingdom handles this interesting. The Prime Minister issues contingency orders in advance, in sealed envelopes to be opened only in case of actual collapse of the British government. Nobody knows what's actually in these (they're destroyed unopened when the Prime Minister leaves office without a nuclear war having occurred), but the most likely possibilities are considered to be "do nothing, deterrence has failed", "launch a retaliatory strike", "put yourselves under command of an allied nation", or "use your own best judgement". Of course, these orders being secret doesn't mesh well with effect lines being visible to everyone.

Damnit - I was having trouble believing it hadn't been done before, but I couldn't find it.

As for the "ridiculously unreasonable" option, the reason both I and that other person have it is because it is an entirely accurate depiction of a real-world proposal.

Options 1 through 3 are all pro-nuke, but that's immaterial. In light of issue 1085, sadly, I will pitch this one in the dumpster.

[Trotterdam]

As for the "ridiculously unreasonable" option, the reason both I and that other person have it is because it is an entirely accurate depiction of a real-world proposal.

"Some random crazy loon in the real world proposed this" does not mean that it is actually a reasonable option, nor one that gets treated seriously by the people who are really in charge of making these decisions.

Options 1 through 3 are all pro-nuke, but that's immaterial.

Making the use of nukes more difficult/costly is anti-nuke. Something isn't pro-nuke just because it doesn't ban the use of nukes entirely.

In light of issue 1085, sadly, I will pitch this one in the dumpster.

Other than that option, #1085 is actually taking the opposite approach. It's assuming that @@LEADER@@ will be available to authorize the use of nukes, but argues that it's too reckless to allow nukes to be launched on just one person's command, and so suggests making their use require the independent authorization by other people in addition to @@LEADER@@.

That's quite different from implementing a way that the use of nukes can be authorized by someone else instead of @@LEADER@@.

[Verdant Haven]

Roger Fisher is far from "some random crazy loon" who didn't get treated seriously. He was a highly-successful international diplomat, who literally wrote the books on international diplomatic conflict resolution and business negotiation techniques that are still in use today. He worked directly for numerous world leaders and played integral roles in the success of the Camp David summit, resolution of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the peaceful end to Apartheid. He was in direct personal contact with numerous major government figures, including those in the military, and while his suggestion in this particular case was obviously not taken up, it is a famous proposal that is widely taught in relevant classes and used as a thought experiment for instructional purposes. All of that is irrelevant, however, since it has already been used once, so shouldn't be here.

In terms of overlap, I feel like the description itself is part of the problem, in addition to two of the options matching. While approaching the issue differently, both issue fundamentally come down to "only you can launch nukes." I fear having an "only you can launch nukes, make it harder!" issue basically contradicts having an "only you can launch nukes, make it easier!" issue, because two thirds of the choices from 1085 (the ones that wouldn't result in getting rid of nukes completely) would make it nonsensical to receive my proposed issue thereafter. Basically, those responses "solve the problem" that both of us are presenting, so a player would be stuck saying "hey wait, the issue description is wrong."

I'll see if I can edit the description on this one to try and make it not so much of a contradictory situation. I'm familiar with the Letters of Last Resort used by the UK submarine fleet, and suppose I will substitute that in for the killing of the volunteer. Annoying, but real world enough.

-edit-

Redrafted it a bit. Changed the issue description to try and acknowledge the possible existence of previous decisions in this general sphere, and completely replaced Choice 2 to eliminate the overlap with 1085:4

[Australian rePublic]

Common sensewould dictate that in the event of something happening to leader, whoever takes over leader's position would take over the nuclear football. Isn't that why we have deputies? Why wouldn't that apply to nukes?

[Verdant Haven]

Common sensewould dictate that in the event of something happening to leader, whoever takes over leader's position would take over the nuclear football. Isn't that why we have deputies? Why wouldn't that apply to nukes?

This is a very real concern unfortunately. The problem of a successful decapitation strike is that it disrupts that chain of command in a manner that instantaneous succession isn't possible. Done properly, it either kills or incapacitates every person in the approved command structure, or it eliminates the top and damages the communication system in such a way that it makes it difficult to immediately identify or reach the surviving next in line. In a nuclear strike, if there is even a five minute delay in giving approval for a counter-strike, it is too late and your country will be annihilated without retaliating. If an enemy knows they can do this, then your deterrent has failed, and your enemy has a huge motivation to launch to preemptive strike to wipe you out. Maintaining the ability to instantly retaliate is a key component of the MAD principle.

In a "normal" emergency succession, such as an assassination or accident that is not associated with an incoming attack, the five minutes, or twenty minutes, or hour it takes to locate the legal next in line might be chaotic or worrisome, but it doesn't end in millions of dead. The idea behind these kinds of back-up plans are what you do in those moments after an enemy decapitation strike, when nobody can reach whomever legally is left in charge (or nobody on the list is alive), but you have only moments to shoot back before you yourself die. It remains to this day an active part of almost every nuclear power's war planning.

[Australian rePublic]

Common sensewould dictate that in the event of something happening to leader, whoever takes over leader's position would take over the nuclear football. Isn't that why we have deputies? Why wouldn't that apply to nukes?

This is a very real concern unfortunately. The problem of a successful decapitation strike is that it disrupts that chain of command in a manner that instantaneous succession isn't possible. Done properly, it either kills or incapacitates every person in the approved command structure, or it eliminates the top and damages the communication system in such a way that it makes it difficult to immediately identify or reach the surviving next in line. In a nuclear strike, if there is even a five minute delay in giving approval for a counter-strike, it is too late and your country will be annihilated without retaliating. If an enemy knows they can do this, then your deterrent has failed, and your enemy has a huge motivation to launch to preemptive strike to wipe you out. Maintaining the ability to instantly retaliate is a key component of the MAD principle.

In a "normal" emergency succession, such as an assassination or accident that is not associated with an incoming attack, the five minutes, or twenty minutes, or hour it takes to locate the legal next in line might be chaotic or worrisome, but it doesn't end in millions of dead. The idea behind these kinds of back-up plans are what you do in those moments after an enemy decapitation strike, when nobody can reach whomever legally is left in charge (or nobody on the list is alive), but you have only moments to shoot back before you yourself die. It remains to this day an active part of almost every nuclear power's war planning.

Make this clearer

[Baggieland]

You can write a letter

From option 2.

I feel 'write a letter' doesn't quite convey what happens, as in the UK's contingency orders. I'd change that bit to sealed orders delivered to the officer in command of the nuclear weapons, or something like that.

[Minskiev]

Not sure why, but the formatting looks...off. It looks good, but I’m not sure why...anyways.

Option 1, it needs to be @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ way of life. If the demonym was Englishman, but the adjective demonym was English, it wouldn’t make much sense to say the Englishman way of life, huh? However, minor and very common mistake.

I’d also change ‘What happens’ to ‘What would happen’ or ‘What’d happen’ since it flows better, and makes more sense, at least to me. Same for next sentence, change ‘We lose’ to ‘We would lose’ or ‘We’d lose’.

Finally for option 1, as said before, change the macro in the effect line to @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@.

Option 2, first sentence is lacking a comma before the closing quotation mark. Also, ‘allied force’ doesn’t read well. Perhaps ‘our allies’?

Same problem in the opening sentence in Option 2 as Option 3. Also, why do they need to rise from their wheelchair? Maybe change that to ‘as he rolls into your office.’

No real criticism for Option 4. ‘Much too’ kind of reads weird, however.

Overall, solid issue!

[Verdant Haven]

From option 2.

I feel 'write a letter' doesn't quite convey what happens, as in the UK's contingency orders. I'd change that bit to sealed orders delivered to the officer in command of the nuclear weapons, or something like that.

Fair! Thanks, I'll work to revise this with greater clarity.

Option 1, it needs to be @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ way of life. If the demonym was Englishman, but the adjective demonym was English, it wouldn’t make much sense to say the Englishman way of life, huh? However, minor and very common mistake.

Finally for option 1, as said before, change the macro in the effect line to @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@.

Oops, yeah, I often forget the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ tag because for my nation it is the same as just the @@DEMONYM@@. When I run the macros in my head with self-inserts, I don't register that difference. I'll update these!

I’d also change ‘What happens’ to ‘What would happen’ or ‘What’d happen’ since it flows better, and makes more sense, at least to me. Same for next sentence, change ‘We lose’ to ‘We would lose’ or ‘We’d lose’.

Option 2, first sentence is lacking a comma before the closing quotation mark. Also, ‘allied force’ doesn’t read well. Perhaps ‘our allies’?

No real criticism for Option 4. ‘Much too’ kind of reads weird, however.

Much obliged! Will look into these.

Also, why do they need to rise from their wheelchair? Maybe change that to ‘as he rolls into your office.’

This (along with the entirety of both Choice 1 and Choice 3) is a specific reference to the movie Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. In what is probably the most defining moment of the film, the titular character, who is the wheelchair-bound science advisor to the president, rises from his wheelchair during discussion of the consequences of a Doomsday device being activated (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww7WlSPi9gc)

Overall, solid issue!

Thank you!

[Verdant Haven]

3rd draft is up.

- Significant adjustments to the language of Choice 2, to flesh it out properly
- Minor grammatical changes per suggestions
- A couple words altered in Choice 1 to clarify meaning
- Added the word "unexpectedly" to Choice 3 to try and hint at the surprise nature of the advisor not needing the wheelchair (for those unfamiliar with the film)


Feedback always welcome!

[Verdant Haven]

Though I'm definitely a bit bummed that a big WMD/MAD issue chain was announced just a few days after I drafted this here, I'm still interested in completing and submitting it.

Does anybody have further thoughts and feedback for this issue?