My point wasn't that the probabilities were correct, my point is that the author pretends like this "marginal utility" based argument has no merit. In a world w

My point wasn't that the probabilities were correct, my point is that the author pretends like this "marginal utility" based argument has no merit. In a world with nuclear weapons, there is some non-zero chance of a nuclear war that results in massive casualties (if not complete eradication of the human race.) Counterbalancing this scenario with the one whereby there is more likelihood of a large-scale war but less likelihood of global extinction simply shows that the point the author is making is not as clear cut as he/she makes it out to be.