The Nuclear Test Wednesday, Jan 28 2009
risks 1:03 pm
The Nuclear Test is a cocktail party ploy to see if the person you are talking to actually cares about global risk or if they are too shortsighted to consider such things, and that you should consider making up an excuse to depart their presence, like getting another drink. The name of the game is to casually bring up Iran’s nuclear enrichment, or unsecured nuclear material in the former Soviet satellites, or the fact that numerous Middle East countries have asserted their desire to pursue nuclear technology, or that President Obama makes a big deal about the possibility of nuclear terrorism, and see if you get any reaction out of them. If they brush off the mention and change the subject immediately, that’s probably a pretty good sign that they’re too damn clueless to say anything intelligent on the matter.
Many of the braniacs of the modern age care about nuclear risk. Look at the emphasis that Barack Obama has placed on the dangers of nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation since day one. He constantly mentions it, including in his first Presidential Memoranda on Monday. Hopefully he will be able to reverse eight years of foot-dragging by Bush. The latter is not only my personal opinion: it’s the position of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an organization I keep an eye on.
Take a look at Global Zero and the Nuclear Security Project, the new organizations founded on a common goal: reducing the number of nuclear weapons worldwide to zero. Quote from the BBC article: “Signatories for Global Zero include former US President Jimmy Carter, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, businessman Sir Richard Branson, Ehsan Ul-Haq, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Pakistan, and Brajesh Mishra, former Indian National Security Advisor.” How did it begin? “In the US, the debate was kick-started by a joint call for “getting to zero” from a group of veterans of the Cold War, including Henry Kissinger and George Schultz.”
People who have gotten their hands dirty with the nail-biting brinksmanship of the Cold War consider nuclear war to be a risk today and are spending their time and money to lower the risk. What about closer to home? Martin Hellman, one of the co-inventors of public key cryptography (along with Whitfield Diffie and Ralph Merkle, whom some of you may know), has in recent years given a brand-new focus to the risks of nuclear war. This last summer, Tom McCabe, who blogs here at Accelerating Future, met with Hellman at Stanford and discussed the risks. Tom then made a presentation underlying the risk at the 2008 Society for Risk Analysis conference, citing Hellman’s estimate of a 1% annual risk for nuclear war. Right here, members from this very clique are giving a damn.
From me personally, as a 90% ethnic Russian (the rest German and Latvian) who has visited Russia himself, I know the psychology of many Russians, and here are the facts. Russia has an imperialist, expansionist, militaristic mentality and a point to prove. That’s why they’ve pulled stunts like cutting gas off from the Ukraine and Europe, and participating in genocide in Abkhazia, among other adventures. Like China, Russia is itching to prove to the world that it matters — but guess what — for the time being, it really doesn’t. Russia’s scientific and creative output for the last few decades has been pretty pathetic relative to its historic output, and half the economy is run by the mafia. With a dismal military built on intense abuse and regular beatings of privates by superior officers, and a leader in world sex trafficking, Russia is in the 19th century as far as human rights are concerned. And this country still has control over enough nuclear weapons to wipe out San Francisco, Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Stockholm, and Warsaw before anyone can do a damn thing.
This last year, we almost approached a thermonuclear situation when thousands of media outlets around the world were speculating whether or not George Bush would launch an attack on Iran before his term in office ended. Meanwhile, the leader of the Russian military was essentially saying, “attack Iran and you’re toast”. In recent weeks, it comes to light that the Israelis were preparing for strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and only stopped when they didn’t get the go-ahead from Uncle Sam. In another timeline, nuclear war could have easily been unleashed. NATO vs. Russia, Iran, and their allies. And in the post Cold War world, imagine that! If you assign the possibility less than a 1% probability, you’re probably in denial, and letting an isolated token belief do too much inferential heavy lifting.
People pretty much believe whatever they want to believe. Nuclear war is unpleasant, so they refuse to consider it. Thank goodness we have real intellectuals like President Obama, Sir Richard Branson, and Henry Kissinger, who actually have real influence in the world, and are doing something to lower the risk.
Two points. One, if someone won’t recognize nuclear risk, then they probably won’t recognize AI/nano risk either, so convincing them of such is hopeless. Two, the lives of the wealthy and powerful people of the world (a few of which I know read this blog) are put at direct risk by these possibilities, and most of them are smart enough to recognize it, but they still don’t do a thing. This bodes ill for the plausibility of gaining support for global risk mitigation in general.
That’s my thoughts for now… any trite political comments will be summarily deleted. This isn’t about Left and Right, this is about being incinerated by nuclear war and not being incinerated by nuclear war.
I basically agree, though I think that there’s room for a second test with asteroids where odds can be precisely calculated if people simply assert that nuclear risk probabilities are very low.
I will once again point out that this concern is perhaps thirty years out of date.
There is also the possibility that they, like me, feel that the chances they are both in possession of all the useful facts and in a position to effect change in the relevant variables is too remote to allow much productive focus to be put upon it.
Perhaps I’m going to the wrong parties, but if someone brought this up I’d run away from them. It’s a case of avoiding the lecture before it happens. It’s dull – the other person doesn’t want to talk, they want to preach.
Whilst I don’t discount nuclear risk, I think it is more likely that I would die in a conventional war than any apocalypse. It’s even more likely that I would be hit by a bus or die from a heart attack. The earth could be struck by an asteroid. There could be a worldwide pandemic. Literally millions of things could kill me, and everyone else. So what?
There are risks that I can mitigate in my life, the threat from nuclear weapons isn’t one of them. So like all the other things that I can do nothing about I just ignore it. Worrying about it won’t help. Holding a placard certainly won’t.
Nukes are pretty much useless as weapons – they are just too big and dirty. A single modern nuke would make Chernobyl look like an afternoon luncheon. When you are talking about fallout poisoning entire continents you aren’t talking about a weapon with any degree of accuracy. A bomb is useless if it kills you too.
As a matter of realism, nuclear weapons aren’t ever going to go away. A treaty won’t help, throwing all the nukes away won’t help, because there will always be somebody somewhere who has one. Stopping all nuclear weapon manufacture does nothing to address the existing stockpiles – how difficult would it be to steal a nuke? How difficult to buy one? How difficult to get a sympathetic government to give you one? – it wouldn’t be the first time a country has waged war by proxy.
Excellent post! I’ve been in contact with Martin Hellman too and did my best to suggest ways to get his message out.
I recommend that the readers of this blog sign up for the newsletter at:
http://nuclearrisk.org/
You’ll get less than one email per month, but when you do, it’ll be important.
Also, another source that deals with nuclear weapons is the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Worth bookmarking:
http://www.thebulletin.org/
Stuart, of course the risk can probably never be completely eliminated, just like nearly every other risk in life. That doesn’t mean that we can’t reduce the risk.
Will it always be possible to acquire a nuke from an unused stock pile? Probably. Can we make it damn harder by reducing the stock piles of the major world players? Probably.
“And this country still has control over enough nuclear weapons to wipe out San Francisco, Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Stockholm, and Warsaw before anyone can do a damn thing.”
As does America. Why do you think anyone of the two is interested in a nuclear world war? And do you really think the nuclear threat during the cold war was real? Cui bono? This is the question again.
“and half the economy is run by the mafia”
Where’s the difference to any other country? ;-)
Ignoring the threat of (nuclear) weapons would be stupid, but your post isn’t a great help in my opinion. The risk exists, but it’s not about big politics, but about accidents and terrorism (and even this is unlikely, or do you also buy the global terrorism threat?). But no one, including Iran, Russia, North Corea, India, Pakistan, USA whoever can be interested in wiping out cities using nuclear bombs. As you said yourself: Imagine the consequences. And they do. But it provides good political rethorics. That’s not the same. We will all be killed by an AGI before a nuclear world war is initiated by a nation. This is more likely, among other things (biological weapons ie.)
And how do you want to make sure that there is nobody building a bomb after every country in the world got rid of it’s weapons? It takes just one and we’ll have our doomsday. Global surveillance? Nice world.
I for one will left the earth as soon as possible. And nearly undestroyable shields would be nice. Chances are higher for such technologies to be developed than they are for a world becoming free of nuclear weapons (and stupid/dangerous human beings).
One more thing: you really should be careful with “facts”, in general, but especcially when it comes to foreign countries. Even its citizens often have no idea what is truth and what not. Basing global political decisions on incomplete (and it is always incomplete, unless you are an AGI-like being ;-) knowledge/impression can be dangerous, too. And visiting a country just doesn’t make it better. I know it’s a big problem since one has to deceide anyway. Well, the bush administration lied…i mean, thought there were nuclear weapons in Iraq and consequently invaded the country based on these “facts”. Just a prominent example.
Kissinger supported arming Iran with Nuclear technology, but that was only when Shah was in power. Henry Kissinger should be doing nothing more than spending the rest of his miserable days in a prison sell. The SOB will go down in history as one of the top mass murderers of the 20th century.
The Trials of Henry Kissinger http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815881561030958784&ei=Hw6DSfuqMqe6qAOpoOyPDg&q=Henry+Kissinger+&hl=en
Ian, fortunately, many of the people in Washington, Moscow, and other leading intellectuals disagree with you.
Stuart, nukes aren’t useless as weapons, and yes they could be eliminated, just as these new star-studded organizations are saying. If you take such a detached view towards mitigating global risk, why are you even reading/commenting on this blog? That’s 90% of what I talk about. Perhaps try reading WIRED instead?
JM, same as to Ian, good thing that most world leaders and policy analysts disagree with you that big politics isn’t a risk for nuclear war. Global transparency is coming whether we like it or not, it seems. Bush never thought there were nuclear weapons in Iraq, he thought there were biological weapons. Details matter. (Though that’s a pretty universally-known detail, not very obscure at all, really.)
Mike, I thought someone might post that.
Elimination of the threat from nuclear weapons, used deliberately or accidentally, should remain a priority as one of the biggest overall threats to civilization. However, America as the most dominant nuclear power needs to take the lead on this and be prepared to reduce its own arsenal, which far exceeds that of any other nation. Criticizing other countries who aspire to possessing one or two nukes whilst simultaneously having thousands yourself just looks hypocritical.
I think progress can only be made on this through diplomacy and international treaties, as happened during the cold war years. The divisiveness and threats of the Bush era are unlikely to work in my opinion. Countries usually want to acquire nukes because they believe themselves to be threatened in some way, and a successful policy would seek to understand the nature of this insecurity and then seek solutions and compromises.
“Fortunately” eh? Fortunately for whom? By my stating that I was ‘once again’ pointing this out, given my comment history on this thread — I would have thought you would be aware of the fact that I meant that the cat’s out of the bag; that the nuclear threat is already widely disseminated. Your fears of nuclear assault by terrorists are, frankly, falsified by the thirty or forty years of availability for such weapons during which nothing has happened. No actor with the will to utilize such weapons has attempted to do so despite their availability.
This speaks volumes.
Government leaders are worried about this the same way that Iraq actually had something to do with the September 11th 2001 attacks on the WTC.
Bob, I agree, America needs to take the lead. I’m seriously slightly subconsciously brainwashed to blame other countries because the media here doesn’t question the US nuclear arsenal. I’m totally in favor of the US entering into agreements that offer big concessions. So will Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I hope.
Yes, the Bush policy of worldwide intimidation, unilateral invasions, “bring it on”, secret CIA prisons, Guantanamo, torture, etc., was a total disaster. Too bad that America is such a huge frontier country that has so many provincials. If we were more urban, we’d be more educated and less likely to vote in isolationist militaristic morons. At least Obama won the election and Bush left office with a dismal approval rating.
Ian, you have no evidence that actual nukes have been available, you’re just guessing. Fortunately for us, as the cat is not entirely out of the bag, nuclear security has been extremely high the last 50 years, though it is less now, since the breakup of the Soviet Union, where we have former satellite states that guard nuclear material using only a couple poorly paid guards in their early 20s.
Also, to Justin and others who don’t think they can have any impact — note that there are other people who read this blog that might be able to have one. Sometimes people can only pick one thing at a time — Justin, I know you’ve picked AI — and for me, encouraging someone to get involved in nuclear policy is better than them not getting involved in any global risks.
My beef with this article:
I agree there is a systemic risk of nuclear holocaust. I do. But thousands of people actually are dying every year due to easily preventable conditions.
If, as in your example, I were to meet someone at a cocktail party who felt we were at risk from nuclear holocaust and that Something Should Be Done I would agree with them.
But I would change the subject by pointing out that death and misery elsewhere, actual death and misery not the promise of such, are taking place.
Existential risk is existential risk. It’ll always be there, and we should do all we can to minimise it. But death and misery that is actually taking place as a matter of course can be prevented and should be our first port of call.
Good article.
Tom:
If, today, you can either go to the dentist about your bad toothache, or leave town to escape the gangsters who (you estimate) have a 50% chance of killing you if you’re still around tomorrow – but not both – I bet you’d leave town. Sure, the analogy between self-centered and altruistic decisions is imperfect; but you shouldn’t give existing problems absolute priority over future risks just because the latter are uncertain.
For more of an idea of where I’m coming from, see Nick Bostrom’s Astronomical Waste.
Is mutually assured destruction really such an outmoded concept in the modern world as some would like to believe? Is this not a macro example of the ineffectiveness of arms reduction at the micro or individual level? What is the old saying? “When [weapons] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [weapons].” Take a look at violent crime rates in places like London to get an idea of how that is working out for them. It is a dangerous world. The day we can not respond in-kind to a an agitator with a nuclear weapon is the day we are ended, ideologically and perhaps existentially.
I’m not sure you intended to set up an either or in the hypothetical party situation. I think it could be possible and even appropriate to both get an intelligent reply and still get another drink.
But your point is right.
I have been discussing this subject of nuclear threat with people for many years, in many different circumstances; mitigating existential risk seems more and more important with each passing day
I have been troubled about the lack of willingness to discuss the subject of nuclear risk, as well as other risks; people actually refuse to discuss it, stating that can’t think about or do anything about it; I had one person tell me that she could not discuss any of these issues regarding existential risk, because they make her stomach churn; sometimes I just can’t believe what I hear
there certainly is a big wall of sleep wrapped around some things
michael, your efforts here are greatly appreciated
hey guys and girls i can’t wait for the expendables to come out! It’s gonna be awsum!
Last time I was in Berlin I visited Haus am Checkpoint Charlie and it was interesting to read everything and see everything at The escape museum. Next time Im also going to visit Sachenhausen, which is outside Berlin and is an old concentration camp aswell as the russians used it after WW2 for their prisoners.
I stopped reading when confronted with the imbecilic notion that Obama is a “brainiac”. How comical. How pathetic. How completely Democrat useful idiot of you. Obama is a hapless front man for some very dark and retrograde forces, none of which have any care at all for a positive and prosperous future for Western Civilization. Obama is incapable of meaningful thought.
And another thing, what is it with you lefties and “appeals to authority” fallacies?
Can’t you think for yourselves? Why do have have to consider something worthwhile only if your “celebrities” are beating the bushes with it? How is this sort of sheepish behavior before charlatans, crooks and thugs connected to “being concerned with long term risk”?
Beyond that, what is it with you people nad “groupthink”? Why do you think it wise to shun people who do not agree with your “opinions” (really, obssesions, neuroses and delusions of grandeur)? Talk about being oblivious to long term risk. Too funny. Is that how you go through life? No wonder you cannot think for yourself. Do you think the rest of us are out here just to pass your little PC ideology tests at dinner parties?
You are not really concerned with “the future” at all– this is all just vanity and play acting. You are only concerned with you posturing and self-delusions. In any event, I can assure that you have absolutely no power over what the future may bring and can have precious little knowledge of it. You are a cipher merely along for the ride.
MADD is outmoded so long as you have a Democrat traitor in the WH (pardon me being redundant here).
Otherwise, it is the only real strategy we have in the real world, the fantasyland of leftists notwithstanding.
[...] The Nuclear Test [...]