4 ms·
"so far" included very many near misses - where individuals with explicit authority to launch counter attacks were in position to decide whether to launch NUCLE
by yboris 5y ago
"so far" included very many near misses - where individuals with explicit authority to launch counter attacks were in position to decide whether to launch NUCLEAR MISSILES AT A COUNTRY -- because some sensors malfunctioned.
See Stanislav Petrov - the man who prevented an apocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
- ethbr0 5y agoYes. I'll take near misses with nuclear Armageddon over total war. The anti-nuclear weapons crowd conveniently forgets that the alternative to MAD isn't reliably peace.
- yboris 5y agoWhat % chance of nuclear holocaust per year are you wiling to take over the "non reliable peace"? We're talking about potential existential risk - a wiping out of all of humanity (through severe ecological poisoning after a barrage of cross-globe nuclear strikes).
- ethbr0 5y ago0.01%? If my math works out, that's a 10% chance of an occurrence every 1,000 years.
- yboris 5y agoThank you for providing a number. I have seen estimates of what the risk was - as high as 1% per year for much of the duration of the Cold War.
- ethbr0 5y agoSo if we said '55 - '90 (35 years), that'd be a 30% chance of nukes being launched @ 1% yearly risk. That's more on the fence for me. On one hand, it's high (and the impact would have been catastrophic!). On the other hand, it prevented NATO / Warsaw Pact mechanized conflict across Europe (which also would have been catastrophic). Tough call. Especially with the uncertainty that, were you to give up your nuclear weapons, there's no guarantee your counterparties would actually do the same. In the 60s foundational position papers, there's definitely a strong thread of "We will commit to MAD not because it's the best approach, but because it's the best zero trust approach."
- yboris 5y ago> That's more on the fence for me. What? You claimed you are comfortable with 0.01% chance, but now you're "on the fence" with a 1% chance? An analogy: some chance of your child being occasionally bullied in school, or a 0% chance of bullying but a 30% chance they'll get murdered. You say "tough call" -- and I'm baffled.
- ethbr0 5y agoComfortable and on the fence are two different points, no?
- yboris 5y agoI asked "What % chance of nuclear holocaust per year are you wiling to take?" It is bizzarre to answer 0.01% only to follow up with "well, I could take 0.9% too" My question obviously implied "what's the maximum you're willing to tolerate" - else you could have just said 0% -- conveying zero information.
- eternalban 5y agoTotal war will not leave the planet radioactive and uninhabitable. Absolute worst case is something analogous to damage of WWII. (Note: we survived WWII.) Armageddon is lights out for humanity.
- ethbr0 5y agoWWII was fought with the science and economic might of the 1930/40s. We've come a bit farther since then. People seem to seriously lack imagination concerning what a scientific and economic major power might do if its existence were threatened by a hated enemy. (Gene drives, anyone?)