4 ms·
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 (
by ethbr0 6y 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 6y 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 6y agoComfortable and on the fence are two different points, no?
- yboris 6y 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.