I have realized that the best way for people around the world to take catastrophic global risk seriously would be to stage a localized demonstration of a very powerful post-nuclear weapon. Other methods are of course worth pursuing (and far less expensive), but too abstract. The weapon would be tested in an entirely unpopulated area, of course. The Sahara and areas of northeast Siberia would be two good targets.

In this context, “post-nuclear” means a weapon with more destructive power than a nuclear weapon, in terms of destruction of ground targets. Matching the energy output of a nuclear weapon might be difficult without using nuclear energy as the source, however. (Yet, a large orbital mirror could exceed the power output of nuclear weapons.)

In Missouri, they have a saying: “show me”. Unless leaders and citizens alike are shown the power of the next generation of destructive technology, it will continue to be “science fiction” to the vast majority of people. After a test, it becomes real overnight, even if thousands of scientists already knew it was possible decades in advance and were constantly trying to warn everyone about it, but were ignored.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is making some serious progress against the risk of nuclear terorrism, by inviting high-profile arms control wonks with influence in the US government, for instance, Dr. Jefferey Lewis, to international conferences on non-proliferation. Arguing against the risk of nuclear bombs is more plausible because we’ve seen them in action. Arguing against the risk of militarized synthetic life is not, even though the destructive potential of synthetic life is many times greater than any nuke.

Speaking of nukes, the threat of nuclear winter is still real. The science is solid. A 2007 study found that a war involving the entire nuclear arsenal would result in:

A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land … Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.

A cooling of –7 °C to -8 °C means a cooling of about 12 °F to 14 °F globally. The continental interiors, lacking the thermal moderating effects of the oceans, would experience a –20 °C to –30 °C (36 °F to 54 °F) temperature drop. Basically, the United States and most of Europe get covered in permafrost for a few years. For more on a mini-version of this, see Year Without a Summer.

Meanwhile, Putin is saying there is a new arms race triggered by US imperialism, China is building up their military at a mind-boggling rate, and presidential candidate John McCain has said about Putin, “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters K-G-B.” This simplistic, dismissive rhetoric won’t help instill democracy in Russia, or anywhere else. It will do little beyond ignite a Third World War. Words matter.

Iran’s leader wants to exterminate Israel. Israel is strong allies with NATO. Iran is allies with much of the Muslim world, China, and Russia. Russian generals have harshly warned the US not to attack Iran. But Iran may be building nuclear bombs to use against Israel. What do we do?

Israel + USA + UK vs. Iran + Russia + Syria. Could it happen? Yes, today or tomorrow. One Israeli airstrike on Iran nuclear facilities is all it would take. Occasionally I look at CNN and half-expect to see it beginning.

Should we be happy that there’s a potential of war today, when our greatest weapon is the nuclear bomb, instead of tomorrow, when we have weapons that self-replicate and consume nations? You tell me.