3 ms·

What % 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

by yboris 5y ago

What % 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 ago
0.01%? If my math works out, that's a 10% chance of an occurrence every 1,000 years.
- yboris 5y ago
  Thank 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 ago
    So 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 ago
        Comfortable and on the fence are two different points, no?
        yboris 5y ago
        I 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.

by yboris 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

0.01%? If my math works out, that's a 10% chance of an occurrence every 1,000 years.

yboris 5y ago
Thank 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 ago
  So 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 ago
      Comfortable and on the fence are two different points, no?
      - yboris 5y ago
        I 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.