Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 273 posts

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#121

Post by duvenaud »

codekilla wrote: post #74
benlivengood wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're comparing instantaneous risks, then I agree with your arguments. The most likely thing that could kill the most people today (in the next 24 hours) is a large nuclear war, followed by things like a nearby supernova, gamma ray burst, etc. An asteroid large enough to wipe out half of humanity before Saturday is really unlikely to be close enough to not have been observed already. In the first atomic bomb test…

Here's the fundamental problem as I see it: probabilities are meaningless . We can talk about conditionals...potentials...likelihoods....whatever until we are blue in the face. All they do is provide a thin veneer over what I see is the truth: we simply have no real idea regarding most existential risks. Probability is a false god that justifies our wasting resources on problems we can't hope to solve, as we don't ev…

I think everyone who uses probabilities to make decisions agrees that all our models are flawed in many ways. But how else do you propose to weigh different possibilities?

As for your proposal for how to spend money, I agree those are fruitful and promising directions. I think the fields of public choice theory and mechanism design are working on some of the problems you mention.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#122

Post by octoberfranklin »

throwhypothetic wrote: post #50
codekilla wrote: post #11

What is the point of writing a post like this? I feel like there is an impetus in the 'rational' tech press to want to downplay threats like nuclear war, and emphasize dubious threats like AGI. I really don't care if nuclear war doesn't kill every single human instantly . So what? Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse.... full stop . Should we forget about disarmament?....guess not every single p…

In the context of civilization collapse, I think the author is overestimating how likely it is that people will be able to figure out subsistence farming using only locally available materials before they starve. Does anyone on Earth still do that, i.e. with no reliance on materials shipped in from elsewhere?

The Native Americans of the Olympic Peninsula produced a complex civilization without agriculture of any kind.

That was made possible mostly by the unique weather and ecology of the area; it can't be done in most places, but it can be done in enough places to keep humanity from going extinct.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#123

Post by KineticLensman »

Iv wrote: post #102
FooHentai wrote: post #95

>multiple that by 14,000 warheads, and we get 112 million km². That's a lot! It's still less than the 510.1 million km² of earth's land mass, but it's a lot more than the ~10.2 million km² of urban space. Presumably this is enough to cover every human habitation, so in principle, it might be possible to kill everyone with radiation from existing nuclear weapons. While there is ~500m km2 of land on the planet, only ab…

If nukes are used for extermination, yes, we don't stand much of a chance. If it is used for warfare, then the story is different. Normally, one does not really care about wiping the enemy's cities but would focus on military installations, military bases, navies, harbors... A nuclear war would stop when one side can't fight anymore and surrenders. It may happen after deadly exchanges that would cost millions of live…

In the UK, installation, bases and navies are very close to or embedded in cities. PJHQ is Northwest London. The Royal Navy is based near large cities on the South Coast and Scotland. Thermonuclear attacks on these bases would affect millions of people.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#124

Post by tachyonbeam »

eloff wrote: post #120
landfish wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this post, and the point is to improve discussion of societal risks. As others have pointed out, nuclear war doesn't have to kill everyone to be extremely bad and worth avoiding. I spend a lot of my time thinking about risks from nuclear and biological weapons, and downplaying these risks is not my purpose. One problem with assuming nuclear war kills everyone is that this discourages anyone from preparing for…

Very few things could actually make humans extinct at this point. It would take an impact like the one that produced the moon to finish us off. We're so adaptable that some of us will survive and rebuild. If we can ever get back to technological civilization without easily accessible fossil fuels is debatable, but I think we'd find a way - it would just be a lot harder and take longer. What worries me is not extincti…

Realistically, if there was a full-scale nuclear war, famine and violence would kill 90-95% of people. It would also destroy a lot of our technological capabilities. There are only a handful of silicon fabs in the world, and they have complex supply chains. It could bring us back to some kind of a technological middle age, except we'd have guns, electricity and radios.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#125

Post by tachyonbeam »

throw0101a wrote: post #90
chii wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> try to mitigate the consequences in the even a war does occur! in the case where mitigation is deemed acceptable, it would paradoxically make war more likely! That's why a defensive missile shield technology is not a good investment if you want more peace. The existing MAD mantra is what stops nuclear war. It should continue until humanity unifies into a single world gov't.

> That's why a defensive missile shield technology is not a good investment if you want more peace. That depends on whether you go for a 'weak' shield or a 'strong' shield. A weak shield may defend a dozen or two warheads: something that North Korea would launch. Japan has a 'weak' shield AFAICT: * https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1374.html A strong one would protect against hundreds: another major power…

AFAIK anti-missile shields aren't a realistic option. Modern ICBM designs have multiple independently targetable warheads. There are also submarines with nuclear missiles. You can also launch decoys (eg: aluminium foil or flares).

And uh. Recently, I was reading a book called Skunk Works. The author explains that, basically, the US was able to keep the existence of stealth fighters a secret from the public (and Russia) for years and years. He also mentions the idea of a stealth ICBM multiple times in the book (which was published in 1995). That's when it hit me. That technology already exists. Russia and the US probably have an arsenal of stealth ICBMs. They're just not publicly boasting about it, but if you think about it, there's no reason that technology wouldn't exist, particularly since military contractors were already thinking about it over 25 years ago.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#127

Post by onecommentman »

landfish wrote: post #28
codekilla wrote: post #11

What is the point of writing a post like this? I feel like there is an impetus in the 'rational' tech press to want to downplay threats like nuclear war, and emphasize dubious threats like AGI. I really don't care if nuclear war doesn't kill every single human instantly . So what? Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse.... full stop . Should we forget about disarmament?....guess not every single p…

I wrote this post, and the point is to improve discussion of societal risks. As others have pointed out, nuclear war doesn't have to kill everyone to be extremely bad and worth avoiding. I spend a lot of my time thinking about risks from nuclear and biological weapons, and downplaying these risks is not my purpose. One problem with assuming nuclear war kills everyone is that this discourages anyone from preparing for…

This is mostly Herman Kahn redux.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

When there were 3 TV channels in the 1960s, in prime time programming you would often hear discussions just like this, from Kahn himself at times. Topic and people inspired the movie Dr. Strangelove and was at the forefront of the national consciousness in the late 1950s and early to mid 1960s.

As a set of ideas and concerns, it was beaten to death at the time, revived a bit during the “nuclear winter” thesis of the 1980s, and always was and continues to be an active issue at the Federal level. Mismanage nukes and you can be booted out even if you are the Secretary of the Air Force.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airforce-idUSWAT00960...

It is a very, very deep rabbit hole. Could be fun to see how far you can get with unclassified sources, for various peculiar values of “fun” until you turn into a character from Strangelove yourself.

The classic starting point is On Thermonuclear War, 1960, Kahn.

Now that I think of it, Kahn died in the early 1980s. If he reincarnated immediately, he’d be in his mid 30s.

How old are you, landfish? Is that you, Kahn?

For everyone else, repeat after me, nuclear weapons are weapons of policy, not weapons of war. Nuclear weapons are weapons of policy, not weapons of war...

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#128

Post by numpad0 »

landfish wrote: post #28
codekilla wrote: post #11

What is the point of writing a post like this? I feel like there is an impetus in the 'rational' tech press to want to downplay threats like nuclear war, and emphasize dubious threats like AGI. I really don't care if nuclear war doesn't kill every single human instantly . So what? Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse.... full stop . Should we forget about disarmament?....guess not every single p…

I wrote this post, and the point is to improve discussion of societal risks. As others have pointed out, nuclear war doesn't have to kill everyone to be extremely bad and worth avoiding. I spend a lot of my time thinking about risks from nuclear and biological weapons, and downplaying these risks is not my purpose. One problem with assuming nuclear war kills everyone is that this discourages anyone from preparing for…

ok so no one has yet to comment this: another problem with assuming nuclear war kills everyone is that a nuclear warhead becomes a permanent get out of jail free card.

Everyone knows about few Russian invasions, Chinese Uighur genocide or Nagorno-Karabakh war and total inaction against these observed in various international communities, especially between nuclear capable nations. Incidents of this scale were enough in the past to start a World War or at least years long regional conflicts.

While a global (thermonuclear) war not occurring is good, genocides and invasions are generally not; I fear the fear of former is causing latter never to be held accountable.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#129

Post by Balgair »

FooHentai wrote: post #95

>multiple that by 14,000 warheads, and we get 112 million km². That's a lot! It's still less than the 510.1 million km² of earth's land mass, but it's a lot more than the ~10.2 million km² of urban space. Presumably this is enough to cover every human habitation, so in principle, it might be possible to kill everyone with radiation from existing nuclear weapons. While there is ~500m km2 of land on the planet, only ab…

James Burke went into this in The Trigger Effect[0] back in the late 1970s. It's an incredible film, if only for the timing on the last in-person voice shot [1].

The amount of lucky breaks you must have to survive even a non-nuclear civilizational collapse event are astounding. Even if you make it out to a remote corner of the world, you'll need a farm with some supplies and no one still sulking about.

The really hard part is starkly obvious though: You need an ox and you need to know how to plow. Without those two things, you're basically kaput, again.

I, for one, have no idea how to plow.

Oh, and the ox eats too.

[0] https://archive.org/details/james-burke-connections_s01e01 (the whole series is here, and it's all fantastic)

[1] He times his narration to end with a rocket launch, down to the beat! The practice on it must have been incredible, and the luck was out of this world, literally.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#130

Post by grawprog »

PeterisP wrote: post #110
grawprog wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One problem with assuming nuclear war kills everyone is that this discourages anyone from preparing for potential nuclear wars. This is what the thinking was during the early part of the cold war, the whole duck and cover era. The decades after that and the knowledge gained during the cold war is what lead to our current fears and justification for focusing on disarmament rather than nuclear war prep. Whether or not…

Whether or not humans end up totally extinct is irrelevant to the questions like whether nuclear war is bad and whether we should work to prevent it. However, the question whether or not humans end up totally extinct is relevant when comparing nuclear war with other very horrible risks, some of which do threaten total extinction. To discuss, prioritize and act on very serious (though, hopefully, unlikely to materiali…

What other risks are there that are directly intentionally human driven that could cause such an extreme amount of destruction, death and societal collapse over the span of a few hours?
Post reply on HN