4 ms·

I would be curious to hear your 2 cents on what you think the chance of a nuclear war are, for any given year. I would say perhaps 1%, which in a sense is very

I would be curious to hear your 2 cents on what you think the chance of a nuclear war are, for any given year. I would say perhaps 1%, which in a sense is very little, and really a lot. Also, if you think 1% is way too high, consider that in 1983 a nuclear war was averted by the decision of a single individual [0]. I'm pretty sure the chance that year would have been more than 20%. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

schiffern 4y ago
A similar thing thing happened in 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis.[0] The math is sobering. Even if we assume 'only' a 1% chance per year, that implies a 63% probability per century. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
- mach1ne 4y ago
  1% per year is too high though. I’d estimate it’s closer to 1% per risk-year, e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    It's not so hard to believe we're living in a 50%- probability world though (assuming roughly 99% chance of no nuclear strikes for each year since 1945). Just the missile crisis and the Petrov incident alone had a decent chance of swinging the other way. The question is if it could really be demonstrated we had barely 50% chance of making it through the next 70 odd years without some sort of self-inflicted civilization-ending event based on current human behaviour patterns, would it actually be enough to force us to change those patterns?
    - mach1ne 4y ago
      Yeah and survivorship bias extends here too. I think we could actually do the math to derive the maximum probability for a nuclear apocalypse within a given timeframe from the fact that we’re not in the middle of it.
- anhner 4y ago
  > a 1% chance per year, that implies a 63% probability per century. I'm not sure I'm following the math here?
  - Synaesthesia 4y ago
    Maybe cause nuclear weapons only existed for 70 years ...?
    - schiffern 4y ago
      Who said otherwise? Putting it in terms of "probability per century" is intended for forward-looking projection, not backwards.
  - tralarpa 4y ago
    1 - (1 - 0.01)^100
    - anhner 4y ago
      Thanks, now I understand how they reached the number but not why it's so convoluted. I only took one stats course in college. So it's P(bomb exploding in a century) = 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century) = 1 - (P(bomb not exploding in a year)) ^ 100 = 1 - (1 - P(bomb exploding in a year)) ^ 100 Why is it not something simpler, like P(bomb exploding in a year) ^ 100 ?
      - tralarpa 4y ago
        > Why is it not something simpler, like P(bomb exploding in a year) ^ 100 ? That would be "bomb exploding EVERY year (= this year AND next year AND ...)". What we actually want is "bomb exploding this year OR bomb exploding next year OR bomb exploding this year and next year OR bomb exploding in two years OR ...". But that's too complicated, so we use the trick with 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century).
        anhner 4y ago
jillesvangurp 4y ago
Full on nuclear war is pretty unlikely as it is really in no-ones interest to invite retaliation in kind. An isolated nuclear attack however is more likely than ever. This whole "will they or will they not?" business with Russia is getting pretty scary. And then there are Iran, North Korea, and a few other places where nuclear weapons are a factor and the economics are trending towards desperate. Not a good combination. I would say the chance for that might be creeping up a little bit lately. Too many nuclear armed, trigger happy, and increasingly desperate despots around right now. Hard to put a number on it. But I'd say it's high enough to start thinking about counter measures, defensive strategies, and an appropriately violent and fierce response to disincentivize any further escalation. Doesn't have to be a full on nuclear war. But it can't just be a slap on the wrist either.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  I don’t think that a religious person who accomplished so much would shy away from killing themselves and everyone else, they will even have some religious justification for it. There are also groups out there who advocate for forcing gods hand into starting the judgment day already. The religious zealots are not the only risk, there are quite many nihilists out there who don’t believe or even care about their impact on the world.
  - mach1ne 4y ago
    I wonder if Adolf would have pressed the button in his bunker? He would certainly have teased it. But would even he invite the Apocalypse if he saw his beloved Reich coming to ruin?
- sfusato 4y ago
  Perhaps this is already forgotten history, but for all the talk about desperate despots the US is still actually the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in combat, twice. On civilian cities mind you. And the circumstances were anything but desperate for them.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
nosianu 4y ago
> what you think the chance of a nuclear war are, for any given year. Statistics is only useful if you actually have sufficient numbers. Otherwise you can just make any claim you want supported by any arbitrary model you can think of to support your preconceived idea - and let's face it, nobody will blindly create a model and then believe anything it says, instead they will tweak it until the result "sounds believable", no matter where they started.
Synaesthesia 4y ago
During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy himself estimated the risk of nuclear war as 1/3 to 1/2
ridgeguy 4y ago
Probable nuclear war also averted earlier, again by a single individual, in 1962. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

schiffern 4y ago

A similar thing thing happened in 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis.[0] The math is sobering. Even if we assume 'only' a 1% chance per year, that implies a 63% probability per century. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

mach1ne 4y ago
1% per year is too high though. I’d estimate it’s closer to 1% per risk-year, e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  It's not so hard to believe we're living in a 50%- probability world though (assuming roughly 99% chance of no nuclear strikes for each year since 1945). Just the missile crisis and the Petrov incident alone had a decent chance of swinging the other way. The question is if it could really be demonstrated we had barely 50% chance of making it through the next 70 odd years without some sort of self-inflicted civilization-ending event based on current human behaviour patterns, would it actually be enough to force us to change those patterns?
  - mach1ne 4y ago
    Yeah and survivorship bias extends here too. I think we could actually do the math to derive the maximum probability for a nuclear apocalypse within a given timeframe from the fact that we’re not in the middle of it.
anhner 4y ago
> a 1% chance per year, that implies a 63% probability per century. I'm not sure I'm following the math here?
- Synaesthesia 4y ago
  Maybe cause nuclear weapons only existed for 70 years ...?
  - schiffern 4y ago
    Who said otherwise? Putting it in terms of "probability per century" is intended for forward-looking projection, not backwards.
- tralarpa 4y ago
  1 - (1 - 0.01)^100
  - anhner 4y ago
    Thanks, now I understand how they reached the number but not why it's so convoluted. I only took one stats course in college. So it's P(bomb exploding in a century) = 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century) = 1 - (P(bomb not exploding in a year)) ^ 100 = 1 - (1 - P(bomb exploding in a year)) ^ 100 Why is it not something simpler, like P(bomb exploding in a year) ^ 100 ?
    - tralarpa 4y ago
      > Why is it not something simpler, like P(bomb exploding in a year) ^ 100 ? That would be "bomb exploding EVERY year (= this year AND next year AND ...)". What we actually want is "bomb exploding this year OR bomb exploding next year OR bomb exploding this year and next year OR bomb exploding in two years OR ...". But that's too complicated, so we use the trick with 1 - P(bomb not exploding in a century).
      - anhner 4y ago

jillesvangurp 4y ago

Full on nuclear war is pretty unlikely as it is really in no-ones interest to invite retaliation in kind. An isolated nuclear attack however is more likely than ever. This whole "will they or will they not?" business with Russia is getting pretty scary. And then there are Iran, North Korea, and a few other places where nuclear weapons are a factor and the economics are trending towards desperate. Not a good combination. I would say the chance for that might be creeping up a little bit lately. Too many nuclear armed, trigger happy, and increasingly desperate despots around right now. Hard to put a number on it. But I'd say it's high enough to start thinking about counter measures, defensive strategies, and an appropriately violent and fierce response to disincentivize any further escalation. Doesn't have to be a full on nuclear war. But it can't just be a slap on the wrist either.

mrtksn 4y ago
I don’t think that a religious person who accomplished so much would shy away from killing themselves and everyone else, they will even have some religious justification for it. There are also groups out there who advocate for forcing gods hand into starting the judgment day already. The religious zealots are not the only risk, there are quite many nihilists out there who don’t believe or even care about their impact on the world.
- mach1ne 4y ago
  I wonder if Adolf would have pressed the button in his bunker? He would certainly have teased it. But would even he invite the Apocalypse if he saw his beloved Reich coming to ruin?
sfusato 4y ago
Perhaps this is already forgotten history, but for all the talk about desperate despots the US is still actually the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in combat, twice. On civilian cities mind you. And the circumstances were anything but desperate for them.
- mrtksn 4y ago

nosianu 4y ago

> what you think the chance of a nuclear war are, for any given year. Statistics is only useful if you actually have sufficient numbers. Otherwise you can just make any claim you want supported by any arbitrary model you can think of to support your preconceived idea - and let's face it, nobody will blindly create a model and then believe anything it says, instead they will tweak it until the result "sounds believable", no matter where they started.

Synaesthesia 4y ago

During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy himself estimated the risk of nuclear war as 1/3 to 1/2

ridgeguy 4y ago

Probable nuclear war also averted earlier, again by a single individual, in 1962. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov