I work as an actuary and are somewhat used to seeing calculations like these. They often point to very large tail risks, for example in catastrophe modelling li

I work as an actuary and are somewhat used to seeing calculations like these. They often point to very large tail risks, for example in catastrophe modelling like windstorm, or in this case violent conflict. What makes me somewhat doubt the applicability of these models is that they often statistically encapsulate what you already know: Life is fragile (to borrow Talebs word). Weather, environment (think supervulcanoes) and man itself (violent conflict, nuclear events) all have the capacity to do enormous damage and are a threat to society. I know it's a variation on the age old question "What's the use of #$this_science?", but even Talebs own narrative goes into making systems 'antifragile'. You can only make systems antifragile for so far as the causes of the fragility are understood and manageable. So for an insurer we can do something with a 1-in-200 chance of total ruin: don't insure. A society can take measures to build earthquake-resistant buildings. Perhaps even move away cities from supervolcanoes. But in case of violent conflict: What can we do to prevent the US - China war? (To name another now trending topic [1]) Or the next black swan conflict? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309448 (edit, thanks!: changed link to The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. And China Headed for War?)