The doomsday machine is real, and on-line!

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all

Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine

Super fascinating read. After reading it I did a little research and found a few more scattered references to it over the years by credible people. Its legit, and still online, though admittedly, very difficult, the way its set up, to cause an accidental doomsday. Known as either "Perimeter" or "Dead Hand" if you want to read up other sources.

1993 Article: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/08/w...ay-machine-us-expert-says.html?pagewanted=all
2007 article: http://www.slate.com/id/2173108/pagenum/all/

A few other articles out there too. I think its fascinating that its not more widely known. It's only "semi-automatic" rather than completely autonomous.

 

[Rii]

A surprisingly reasonable article given the ridiculous headline. Of course it was the United States which threatened nuclear war against the Soviet Union - in actuality, most of the human race - not the other way around.

 

[JuanBolio]

I've always wondered about the basic premise of MAD. If you've already suffered a full nuclear strike, what's the point in firing back? You aren't going to win anything, you're just going to kill a shitload more people than are already dead. Is it just bloody-minded revenge on a large scale? If so, its misdirected. The people who would die from it by and large would not be the ones who pressed the button in the first place.

 

[FPAlpha]

Isn't it always like that?

Rarely do people really want to wage war against other people.. it's mostly their leadership whipping up a bloodfrenzy against the others in their own people until they are sufficiently bloodthirsty to welcome warfare.

Then you either wait for an incident (manufactured or not) as an excuse to invade or until someone loses their nerves and gives the strike command.

Such a revenge device (and it is one) isn't something i'm not totally surprised by.. in fact i would have been surprised if the Soviet Union/Russia didn't have one and the same applies to the US.

It is not logical, defies all common sense but then most wars do.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I've always wondered about the basic premise of MAD. If you've already suffered a full nuclear strike, what's the point in firing back? You aren't going to win anything, you're just going to kill a shitload more people than are already dead. Is it just bloody-minded revenge on a large scale? If so, its misdirected. The people who would die from it by and large would not be the ones who pressed the button in the first place.

Well, that's really the whole point. "If you fire on us, we will annihilate your entire country." The people in the other country know this, and will not want their leaders to engage in such a suicidal act. It is predicated on the notion that the leaders involved will act rationally. It's completely irrational to engage in an attack you know will result in the destruction of your civilization.

But, unless I am recalling incorrectly, the US has always reserved the right to a "first strike." That's a position I have never understood or agreed with.