4 ms·

The risk of a nuclear war is fairly low compared to historical flash points. From memory there were at least 2 instances where if people followed orders to the

The risk of a nuclear war is fairly low compared to historical flash points. From memory there were at least 2 instances where if people followed orders to the T we would have had a nuclear exchange. First one was cuban missile crisis that had a lot of escalation, but most poignant was probably dropping depth charges against submarines armed with nuclear torpedoes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis). On that front - thank god Khrushchev chickened out. Second one was a false detection by Soviet early warning system which should have triggered an immediate retaliation, but was stopped by one person with critical thinking skills (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...).

bryanlarsen 1y ago
And situations like that could happen again. Experts put the odds of a nuclear war at around 1-3% per annum, and that feels about right. The odds of it happening in any particular year is fairly low, but the odds of it happening during a person's lifespan becomes quite high. 70 years of those kind of odds make it more likely than not. We've landed on "not", but the kind of close calls you called out indicates that "more likely than not" feels about right, and that we landed on "not" has a huge component of luck.
OkayPhysicist 1y ago
I think the closest call we've had since the end of the Cold War was the Russian cruise missile that crashed in Poland near the beginning of the war in Ukraine. There was a world where that hit something more important (or at least the Russians thought it did), which would potentially lead to an Article 5 call, which if the Russians anticipated, the rational move could well be a preemptive strike. But as you said, that's miles from the "One act of open defiance by a subordinate from armaggedon" type scenarios.
- jopsen 1y ago
  An article 5 call wouldn't trigger an invasion of Russia. Besides the best response is to simply gift more toys to the Ukrainians.
  - fractallyte 1y ago
    Your second sentence signals a slide into a dangerous mindset pushed by the MAGA lobby. Weapons and other support are certainly not regarded as "toys" by Ukrainians who are subjected to horrific daily (and nightly) bombardments from Russia and Russian-occupied territories. This is life-or-death seriousness. Secondly, and more importantly, these are not "gifts". After coercing Ukraine to surrender its nuclear deterrent to Russia, the US took upon itself an obligation to provide for Ukraine's defense. As many will point out, it's not specified in the Budapest Memorandum. However, the 42nd President of the United States made a promise that should not be taken lightly (https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared). The spirit of the Budapest Memorandum was that each party should uphold and enforce every other party's commitment to the memorandum. A violation would cause it to collapse, which would be antithetical to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Upholding and enforcing those commitments is therefore implicit in the memorandum. Finally, as someone rightfully said: "It's our moral, if not legal, obligation." (https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529 https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529)
- vayup 1y ago
  Good time to remind everyone that Article 5 does not really commit the member states automatically into a war. It will be insane for any country to sign such a treaty. The language in Article 5 permits each NATO member to decide for themselves what action they want to take when Article 5 is invoked. This is what it says: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one .. shall be considered an attack against them all and ..that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ...will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
  - DoctorOetker 1y ago
    does "it" refer to the attacked country?
    - vayup 1y ago
      it = country that is evaluating its response to an attack on another member
- el_zilcho 1y ago
  Except it wasn’t a cruise missile nor was it Russian. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Poland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Po...

bryanlarsen 1y ago

And situations like that could happen again. Experts put the odds of a nuclear war at around 1-3% per annum, and that feels about right. The odds of it happening in any particular year is fairly low, but the odds of it happening during a person's lifespan becomes quite high. 70 years of those kind of odds make it more likely than not. We've landed on "not", but the kind of close calls you called out indicates that "more likely than not" feels about right, and that we landed on "not" has a huge component of luck.

OkayPhysicist 1y ago

I think the closest call we've had since the end of the Cold War was the Russian cruise missile that crashed in Poland near the beginning of the war in Ukraine. There was a world where that hit something more important (or at least the Russians thought it did), which would potentially lead to an Article 5 call, which if the Russians anticipated, the rational move could well be a preemptive strike. But as you said, that's miles from the "One act of open defiance by a subordinate from armaggedon" type scenarios.

jopsen 1y ago
An article 5 call wouldn't trigger an invasion of Russia. Besides the best response is to simply gift more toys to the Ukrainians.
- fractallyte 1y ago
  Your second sentence signals a slide into a dangerous mindset pushed by the MAGA lobby. Weapons and other support are certainly not regarded as "toys" by Ukrainians who are subjected to horrific daily (and nightly) bombardments from Russia and Russian-occupied territories. This is life-or-death seriousness. Secondly, and more importantly, these are not "gifts". After coercing Ukraine to surrender its nuclear deterrent to Russia, the US took upon itself an obligation to provide for Ukraine's defense. As many will point out, it's not specified in the Budapest Memorandum. However, the 42nd President of the United States made a promise that should not be taken lightly (https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared). The spirit of the Budapest Memorandum was that each party should uphold and enforce every other party's commitment to the memorandum. A violation would cause it to collapse, which would be antithetical to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Upholding and enforcing those commitments is therefore implicit in the memorandum. Finally, as someone rightfully said: "It's our moral, if not legal, obligation." (https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529 https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529)
vayup 1y ago
Good time to remind everyone that Article 5 does not really commit the member states automatically into a war. It will be insane for any country to sign such a treaty. The language in Article 5 permits each NATO member to decide for themselves what action they want to take when Article 5 is invoked. This is what it says: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one .. shall be considered an attack against them all and ..that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ...will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
- DoctorOetker 1y ago
  does "it" refer to the attacked country?
  - vayup 1y ago
    it = country that is evaluating its response to an attack on another member
el_zilcho 1y ago
Except it wasn’t a cruise missile nor was it Russian. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Poland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Po...