Suppose there is a 1% risk of nuclear war this century killing a billion people. That is in some sense equivalent to a 100% chance of a nuclear war killing 10

Suppose there is a 1% risk of nuclear war this century killing a billion people. That is in some sense equivalent to a 100% chance of a nuclear war killing 10 million people. To put that in perspective, "Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress."[0] which is 5 million in 20 years, or 10 million by 2070. So it's possible to ask the question: Does building new civilian nuclear reactors increase the risk of nuclear war more than it decreases the damage of climate change? It might seem that the answer has to be "No", but we have to consider the possibility that preventing nuclear proliferation and geopolitical instability would be much easier if all non-rogue nations agreed to not build any more nuclear power stations. Even if the risk of nuclear war could only be decreased by 1%, that's still 100,000 expected lives saved, and eventually the contribution of nuclear energy to solving climate change might drop below that threshold[1], if renewables and energy storage systems prove to be sufficient replacements. [0] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha... [1] https://futurism.com/use-nuclear-power-decline-why https://futurism.com/use-nuclear-power-decline-why