Nuclear Weapon UAVs
It isn't mentioned often, but there is another dimension to the nuclear threat that could become real within 10-20 years -- miniaturization of nuclear weapons continuing to the point where a nuclear weapon consists of several UAVs that converge on a location, assemble into a complete bomb, and detonate. You could use redundancy to ameliorate the risk of one of the UAVs getting shot down.
There are numerous strategic/military advantages which give this weapon a high probability of eventual development. Obviously, you would avoid using a missile, which shows up pretty definitively on a radar screen. For a first strike, this is tremendously important. Another advantage could be self-detonation in the event of discovery, something difficult to implement with conventional missiles.
Update: this technology would have a significant advantage over using UAVs alone because the warhead that could fit on a single UAV would have to be very small, and would have frustratingly low yield. A warhead built from converging components could have arbitrary yield, while retaining the stealth benefits of UAVs.
Obama: Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
In fantastic news, President Obama has given a major speech in Prague where he called on all nations to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, saying the US would lead but only continue its reduction if other nations followed. To me, who deeply fears nuclear weapons and has spent years arguing for their reduction, this is like a dream come true.
The number one risk to humanity right now is nuclear weapons. In my opinion, the four primary foreseeable catastrophic risks threatening civilization over the next 50 years are general nuclear war, out-of-control replicators, MNT arms races, and unfriendly AI. Moving into the 21st century, we are now seeing top-level efforts to deal responsibly with one out of four. If we deal with them all, we could get our civilization to the point where the risk of doom is negligible and we can survive for millions or billions of years in happiness.
80 Missing Computers at Nuke Lab: Watchdog
From Physorg:
Eighty computers have been lost, stolen or gone "missing" at a major US nuclear weapons lab, the nonprofit watchdog group Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has said.
The group posted online a copy of what they say is an internal letter outlining what appear to be worrisome losses at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the state of New Mexico.
The letter says that 13 lab computers were lost or stolen during the past year, three of the machines taken from an employee's home in January. Another 67 computers are deemed "missing."
"The magnitude of exposure and risk to the laboratory is at best unclear as little data on these losses has been collected or pursued," the letter dated February 3 maintains.
The letter, addressed to Department of Energy security officials, contends that "cyber security issues were not engaged in a timely manner" because the computer losses were treated as a "property management issue."
What became of the missing computers and the "security ramifications of each of the 80 systems" was to be detailed in a written report to lab officials by February 6, according to the letter.
AFP telephone calls to the lab on Friday in search of comment were not returned.
Los Alamos was created as a secret facility during World War II and was the site for the Manhattan Project that gave birth to the first nuclear bombs.
It is a major center for research related to national security, outer space, renewable energy, medicine, nanotechnology, and supercomputing.
World leaders have started to get serious about nuclear risk in recent years, but current risks from synthetic biology and all-but-certain near-future (2015+) risks from nanotechnology and AI are pretty much ignored. When the new bio or nuclear 9/11 happens, I'll be able to look back and say that I was constantly sounding the alarm and proposing countermeasures. Will you?
Recently, in The Global Spiral, an online magazine that barely anyone reads (according to Alexa.org), transhumanists responded to recent criticism of our philosophy. This was a good issue and I liked a lot of the articles. Immediately relevant, however, is Mark Walker's article, "Ship of Fools: Why Transhumanism is the Best Bet to Prevent the Extinction of Civilization". Walker is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Lifeboat Foundation, the only organization on the planet devoted to advancing a comprehensive set of safeguards to extinction risks. I am Fundraising Director, United States for the Lifeboat Foundation.
Professor Drell: Eliminating the Threat of Nuclear Arms
Just in the news on Eurekalert today, more people agreeing that nuclear arms control is a big deal and needs to be addressed immediately:
President Barack Obama has made his intention of eliminating all nuclear weapons a tenet of his administration's foreign policy. Professor Sidney Drell, a US theoretical physicist and arms-control expert, explains in February's Physics World what Obama needs to do to make that honourable intention a reality.
Professor Drell, a professor emeritus at the SLAC National Accelerator Center, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and an adviser on technical national security and arms-control for the US Government, has recently co-authored a report called Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century US National Security, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In his article for Physics World, he explains how and why there is need now, more than ever, to introduce globally ratified systems to control the spread of nuclear arms.
Professor Drell explains: "The world is teetering on the edge of a new and more perilous nuclear era, facing a growing danger that nuclear weapons – the most devastating instrument of annihilation ever invented – may fall into the hands of 'rogue states' or terrorist organizations that do not shrink from mass murder on an unprecedented scale.
His article makes two recommendations to Obama and his team. The first is to 'revisit Reykjavik' – Reykjavik hosted a summit in 1986 where former US President Ronald Reagan and then Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reducing the size of their respected countries' nuclear arsenals. As the US and Russia still possess more than 90 per cent of the world's nuclear warheads, it is imperative that they take the lead, Drell says.
Drell's second recommendation is that the new Obama administration should adopt a process for bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into effect. "The new administration should initiate a timely bipartisan, congressional review of the value of the CTBT for US security," he says.
Drell concludes: "With these two steps outlined above, President Obama has a historic opportunity to start down a practical path towards achieving his stated goal of 'eliminating all nuclear weapons.'"
Will the doves beat the hawks on this one? We can only hope.
Hellman’s Nuclear Weapons Paper
Most people are afraid to discuss major risks like nuclear war because they are not intellectually sophisticated enough to contemplate such a disturbing possibility in an objective manner. They may not even be consciously afraid, but still immediately twitch away from contemplating the subject due to a mostly subconscious emotional reaction. They may also place excessive faith in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, even though the myriad ways in which this scenario could break down are thoroughly familiar to defense analysts.
To come to terms with this reality, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford and one of the inventors of public key cryptography, Martin Hellman, wrote a piece last July titled "Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear Weapons". This paper approaches the issue of nuclear war risk from the perspective of something less threatening: gliding. I suggest you check it out.
For a concurrent view, see former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's "Apocalypse Soon" from Foreign Policy magazine. Here's a couple quotes:
"On any given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons in the world. To declare war requires an act of congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes’ deliberation by the president and his advisors. But that is what we have lived with for 40 years."
"There is no guarantee against unlimited escalation once the first nuclear strike occurs."
Response to American Digest on Nuclear Terrorism
American Digest, a conservative blog, re-posted the nuclear attack image I posted yesterday, with the title "2008 Election Stakes", and the subtext "Just in case you thought your taxes were the most important issue", and the additional comment "HT Accelerating Future, where they seem to believe that donating to the Lifeboat Foundation and the Nuclear Threat Initiative is going to make it all go away." Here is my response:
Hi,
The Nuclear Threat Initiative is co-chaired by Sam Nunn, an ex-senator who is also on McCain's shortlist for VP. NTI's fundraising requests are signed by Nunn.
If Nunn is the choice for VP, you can bet that stopping nuclear terrorism (by securing nuclear materials, not necessarily waging constant wars in the Middle East) will be on the top of the agenda.
In your post here, you dismissingly insinuate that donating to NTI won't make nuclear terrorism go away. But NTI is the cause championed by Nunn, and the goals (with respect to nuclear terorrism) of NTI and a McCain-Nunn Administration would be quite similar. So you are pooh-poohing a cause that you would enthusiastically support if the very same suggestions were a public part of the McCain campaign.
Maybe you are slightly clouded by overfocusing on Republican-Democrat binary politics? Non-partisan non-profits get things done, too, you know. And the causes of non-profits can become the causes of Presidents, if the non-profits have enough influence. Donating to the NTI could help influence the President -- yes, even a Democrat President -- to take nuclear risks more seriously.
If you think withdrawing from Iraq automatically means we're going to get nuked, you're full of it. Being in Iraq is only boosting terrorist recruitment and shoving a stick into the hornet's nest.
I am a supporter of fighting against terrorism, but I advocate a more targeted, considerate, and less expensive approach.
I suppose you think Democrats would be soft on terror. Why, then, does Hillary have a hawkish record on foreign policy as a senator, and why did Obama say he'd be willing to order a unilateral strike on terrorists in Pakistan?
I could be wrong in any of my assertions. My point is that you shouldn't blindly assume, in a political/partisan fashion, that picking the conservative is the safest choice for America. Or that staying in Iraq is essential to stopping nuclear terrorism. All these things have to be continuously debated with an open mind. And it never hurts to donate to an organization with a history of major accomplishments in non-proliferation.
Using an image of a nuclear attack on Manhattan merely to scare up votes is making a complex issue one-dimensional.
Is it Possible to Get Non-Immortalists to Care about Existential Risks?
I'm just curious. Here I'm specifically talking about existential risks generally considered to be more than 15 or so years in the future (even though they may in fact be nearer), like self-replicating microbots, recursively self-improving AI, and the like. Do non-immortalists just not look very far ahead, or are they just skeptical that the risks are technologically feasible?
There is somewhat of an overlap between the technologies predicted to lead to radical life extension (nanotech mainly) and the risks themselves, so it would make sense that immortalists are more informed on these technologies, including their risks. But this overlap only goes so far - websites on radical life extension generally address the benefits of medical nanotechnology while largely ignoring the risks. There are also many risks unrelated to life extension: AI, synthetic biology, nanoweapons, etc. So maybe immortalists just care about these risks because they have a much longer expected lifespan and accordingly look further into the future?
The ironic thing is that risks 15+ years away still threaten most of the population today, including all baby boomers. Why is it, on average, that I see more serious attention given to existential risks from the younger (than 40) set than the boomers? (Update: this may be incorrect on my part, based on the bias that my friends tend to be younger, and past involvement with SIAI where many supporters are young. Look at the Lifeboat Foundation donor list and you see many people over 40, plus Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking, Ray Kurzweil, etc.)
Of particular concern are the older Republicans in the United States, pre-boomers, who advocate the development and potential deployment (against Iran) of nuclear weapons. These people have lived the longest with the threat of nuclear war - why is it that they seem the most hawkish about the deployment of nukes? Don't they understand that a single use of a nuke would set a precedent for further usage by other countries, and that the expected cost of using conventional firepower is much less, even if thousands of soldiers have to die, because it avoids setting a nuclear precedent?
I wish the US would have a policy where it went into future wars with a declaration not to use nuclear weapons, as long as certain conditions are kept (like no one else jumping in). Maybe the world would feel less like it's being threatened by the US that way, and we could reduce the justifications used by rogue states to acquire the weapons.
Nifty Nuclear Blast Maps
That's what the radius of destruction would look like if a 10 kT nuke were detonated on top of my house! Put in your own zip code, and see how bad it would be for you.
I found this page by following a link from NTI, the global security organization founded by Ted Turner. Warren Buffet is another billionaire who supports NTI and encourages his shareholders to read books and watch films about the threat of nuclear terrorism.
You can order a free DVD of Last Best Chance, a film warning against nuclear terrorism, by visiting here.
Another blast calculator can be found at this URL.