3 ms·
1% per year is too high though. I’d estimate it’s closer to 1% per risk-year, e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis.
by 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 agoIt'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 agoYeah 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.