4 ms·

> Id say global nuclear war is a very real and very tangible threat My view is that a nuclear exchange is very unlikely, and the likelihood of an exchange of g

> Id say global nuclear war is a very real and very tangible threat My view is that a nuclear exchange is very unlikely, and the likelihood of an exchange of global proportions practically nil. Which two or more of the 9 known (or suspected) countries with nuclear weapons would participate in this global war?

ekianjo 10y ago
It's not about that. Even a misinterpreted signal of an upcoming attack could be enough to trigger retaliation. It has been documented several times. See "Command and Control".
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  I don't believe your comment to be a thorough counter argument to the opinion that the likelihood of an exchange of global proportions practically [is] nil. The fact remains that even a misinterpreted signal has not lead to the trigger of retaliation. I'd even go as far to say that nuclear weapons have never been used in an act of aggression in a time of war. The war was already over when the US blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what the US did was just ass-hattery. But if you find it helps your moral psychology to worry about it, by all means, go right ahead. I'm going to continue to feel more concerned about being involved in a motor vehicle accident, if you don't mind.
  - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
    The war was far from over for the US. My father was in the Second Marine division. They received orders along with wills for everyone to fill out. They were to leave it in their footlocker on top. Expected losses were as much as one million, based on taking previous islands, such as Iwo Jima. Their command told them to not expect to return from this one. After Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian. The Japanese were closer to collapse than we realized, but if the invasion had started, neither side could have prevented major losses, even if both side's leadership would have preferred to. And we were days away. The war had a momentum of its own.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Considering that a major factor behind Japan's surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, which began on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki, the idea that "the war was already over" seems a bit out of touch. It's true that a misinterpreted signal has not led to retaliation... so far. We've been quite lucky. If Vasili Arkhipov had been a little more cranky on October 27, he could easily have been convinced to agree to launching a nuclear torpedo at American forces. Similar with Stanislav Petrov in 1983, although it's an open question as to how the leadership would have reacted had he informed them of the supposed attack. In 1995, Russia came within two minutes of deciding to "retaliate" in response to a scientific rocket launched from Norway. A slightly different trajectory or radar reading could easily have made the difference there. Given the past 71 years, the risk of accidental nuclear war appears to be fairly low. However, we have no real idea if "fairly low" means the risk is 1% per year or 0.000001% per year. Both are consistent with what we've seen, but the former means that nuclear war is extremely likely in the medium term, while the latter means we can probably ignore it.
tokai 10y ago
It does not have to be global to bring the thread of extinction. A local conflict with a few tactical nuclear weapons, say between Pakistan and India, would be an existential thread to humanity.[0] [0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/local-nuclear-war/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/local-nuclear-war/
njharman 10y ago
I agree but only because we have come very, very, like finger hovering over button, close several times and it did not happen. And those are just the declassified instances we've been allowed to know about. If USA and USSR at height of paranoia and hatred can't get it together to kill us all, I doubt they ever will.

ekianjo 10y ago

It's not about that. Even a misinterpreted signal of an upcoming attack could be enough to trigger retaliation. It has been documented several times. See "Command and Control".

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
I don't believe your comment to be a thorough counter argument to the opinion that the likelihood of an exchange of global proportions practically [is] nil. The fact remains that even a misinterpreted signal has not lead to the trigger of retaliation. I'd even go as far to say that nuclear weapons have never been used in an act of aggression in a time of war. The war was already over when the US blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what the US did was just ass-hattery. But if you find it helps your moral psychology to worry about it, by all means, go right ahead. I'm going to continue to feel more concerned about being involved in a motor vehicle accident, if you don't mind.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  The war was far from over for the US. My father was in the Second Marine division. They received orders along with wills for everyone to fill out. They were to leave it in their footlocker on top. Expected losses were as much as one million, based on taking previous islands, such as Iwo Jima. Their command told them to not expect to return from this one. After Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian. The Japanese were closer to collapse than we realized, but if the invasion had started, neither side could have prevented major losses, even if both side's leadership would have preferred to. And we were days away. The war had a momentum of its own.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Considering that a major factor behind Japan's surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, which began on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki, the idea that "the war was already over" seems a bit out of touch. It's true that a misinterpreted signal has not led to retaliation... so far. We've been quite lucky. If Vasili Arkhipov had been a little more cranky on October 27, he could easily have been convinced to agree to launching a nuclear torpedo at American forces. Similar with Stanislav Petrov in 1983, although it's an open question as to how the leadership would have reacted had he informed them of the supposed attack. In 1995, Russia came within two minutes of deciding to "retaliate" in response to a scientific rocket launched from Norway. A slightly different trajectory or radar reading could easily have made the difference there. Given the past 71 years, the risk of accidental nuclear war appears to be fairly low. However, we have no real idea if "fairly low" means the risk is 1% per year or 0.000001% per year. Both are consistent with what we've seen, but the former means that nuclear war is extremely likely in the medium term, while the latter means we can probably ignore it.

tokai 10y ago

It does not have to be global to bring the thread of extinction. A local conflict with a few tactical nuclear weapons, say between Pakistan and India, would be an existential thread to humanity.[0] [0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/local-nuclear-war/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/local-nuclear-war/

njharman 10y ago

I agree but only because we have come very, very, like finger hovering over button, close several times and it did not happen. And those are just the declassified instances we've been allowed to know about. If USA and USSR at height of paranoia and hatred can't get it together to kill us all, I doubt they ever will.