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

Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#101

Post by helij »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #85

I am rather surprised in the confidence of Vladimir Putin‘s nuclear arsenal, and even his willingness to use it. He may say launch the missile, but I think there’s less than a 10% chance it will actually happen. Not only that, we have to consider the technological and maintenance capabilities of the systems. If Russia launches a missile, it’s a 50-50 that it won’t just turn around and come right back down on them. Th…

What's with all this underestimating.

If Russians can do something that's rockets. Their space rockets have 98% success rate. Land ones are probably at 99%.

"The Soyuz rocket was first launched in November 1963 and has since flown more than 1500 times. It is one of the most reliable launch vehicles, with a 98% success rate."[0]

[0]: https://sci.esa.int/web/mars-express/-/31036-launch-vehicle

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#102

Post by amalter »

singularity2001 wrote: post #86
jules-jules wrote: post #84

Probably worth linking to the estimate by a group of superforecasters who give a 16% chance that Russia uses any type of nuclear weapon in Ukraine. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nDTrDPZJBEerZGrk/...

That's my take as well: 16%-80% probability of Russia using a one-off scare strike, "Hiroshima" style to "stop the war". ≈ 0% that the West will retaliate.

I think we'd need to invoke article 5 to stop Poland from rolling up on Russia in that case.

With the current hard-line politics and that absolute hate between the two, there is a hair trigger on that escalation.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#103

Post by gregjor »

Reasoning that works to determine the probability of drawing a spade from a deck of cards doesn’t apply to scenarios like this. We know the exact distribution of spades in a deck of cards. No one but Putin knows what he wants, or will do, or will think important tomorrow. No one knows how complex situations involving individual personalities and contingencies and unknown unknowns will play out. To play fortune teller with a veneer of math and “logic” just seems like showing off — look at me, so rational and smart and full of deep insight.

Anyone can imagine hundreds of alternatives to the six outcomes the author lists. Putin could choke on his breakfast tomorrow, or fall down a flight of stairs. Winter will hit the region soon, the soldiers might freeze and starve. Why not attach probabilities to those possibilities?

Worrying about things you cannot influence or change strikes me as deeply irrational. “We” as in “the west” can influence the Ukraine situation, but “we” don’t make collective decisions. Extrapolating from “I belong the group of people collectively referred to as America or The West” to “my opinion makes a difference and can influence events” veers into category error. Do you suppose the politicians in D.C. and the military leaders of NATO read Less Wrong posts?

The Ukraine war has many possible outcomes, none of which anyone can predict, and none of which any one person can control. History teaches that. Cherry-picking Finland, Kosovo, Vietnam, etc. as the only possible outcomes misses the unique circumstances of those conflicts and outcomes. Why not include the last Crimean War as a possible outcome? Or the one time nuclear weapons did get used in a war?

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#104

Post by readthenotes1 »

netfortius wrote: post #66

I'm a little confused on the usage of "imminent" as a term associated with high probability of an event, to the extent of requiring immediate action, and the actual "one-in-six chance of... ".

I figured it's cloaking the general background anxiety that has afflicted many in recent years.

The author is just playing number games to try to self-soothe

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#105

Post by beachy »

jacknews wrote: post #83

I think the west needs to avoid being over-zealous in this fight, and let's face it we are heavily involved. This war seems to be quite personal for Putin, and if he is pushed back too hard, he may act irrationally, or be ousted, and then who knows what chaos may ensue. Europe should accept that cheap Russian gas is history. And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except R…

> And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except Russia and Ukraine.

Imperialist thinking. Why should Ukrainians accept having their country invaded? Why should they just put up with it because of some imaginings about how the world as a whole would be more stable if they bowed down to the dictator?

Screw that. Putin in a wild card, a megalomaniac. You can't reason with or even about such people. The only course with such bullying is to stamp it out.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#106

Post by lamontcg »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #85

I am rather surprised in the confidence of Vladimir Putin‘s nuclear arsenal, and even his willingness to use it. He may say launch the missile, but I think there’s less than a 10% chance it will actually happen. Not only that, we have to consider the technological and maintenance capabilities of the systems. If Russia launches a missile, it’s a 50-50 that it won’t just turn around and come right back down on them. Th…

> If Russia launches a missile, it’s a 50-50 that it won’t just turn around and come right back down on them.

Up until very recently the Russians were carrying American astronauts up to the ISS after the shuttle program was abandoned. Maybe not all their rockets are maintained properly, but the ones that were are highly likely to work.

Outright denial that the threat exists at all is just infantile levels of analysis that I expect from reddit.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#107

Post by kthejoker2 »

paganel wrote: post #74
EdwardDiego wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt that. Maybe an awkward conversation with the Feds would've ensued while they ascertained if you had access to plutonium, much like the awkward conversation I had with Police when my estranged step-brother was threatening to shoot politicians, and they were trying to ascertain if I'd give him access to my firearms. (Fuck no, obviously.) Given the hyperbole that US politics has descended into, if your…

At least writing down that sort of stuff (death wishes against foreign politicians) on a public forum would have been frowned upon and made part of that forum’s TOS, but, as I said, doing this to the boogie man of the day is actually seen as ok. Trump was (is, actually) also seen as a foreign-controlled boogie man, that’s why the open death threats on Twitter and the like were not reaceiving any action, including fro…

Lol plenty of "f*k Joe Biden" ("and f*k you for voting for him!") chants, flags, paraphernalia down here in Texas. Common as a church bell.

Nobody's worried about being censored as far as I can see.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#108

Post by EdwardDiego »

mrjin wrote: post #67
EdwardDiego wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US isn't the only player with nukes though.

That's exactly why US doesn't want to get involved directly.

I wonder what China would do if Russia took things nuclear. They seem happy to watch Russia and NATO weaken each other, but I'm assuming they like a reasonably stable world, given their dependence on trade earnings for internal stability.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#109

Post by EdwardDiego »

Ekaros wrote: post #89
EdwardDiego wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the billionaire conceit of buying land and (allegedly) installing bunkers in New Zealand to survive whatever they think is coming, but taken to even more deluded extremes.

The key fact is that bunker in New Zealand is likely survivable thing in long term. Not nice(having to actual work and not having modern products available), but survivable. We aren't anywhere close that with Mars. There seems to be some immense blindness just how hard and fragile living on Mars would be. For decades at the minimum but probably for centuries more likely.

Maybe there's a method to Musk's madness... ...if the world (well, tbh, it'll be mostly the Northern Hemisphere, but it's still going to screw everyone in some manner) ends in ashes, those bunkers aren't going to be as effective at sheltering from regular people as Thiel et al think.

If you're hiding out on Mars, the peons would at least have to build a rocket to get to you when they decided to eat the rich.

Re: Why I think there's a one-in-six chance of an imminent global nuclear war

#110

Post by tim333 »

Thing is using nukes in Ukraine probably wouldn't go very well for Putin.

The Ukrainian armed forces are pretty spread out so a nuke or two would only take out a very small percentage of them. It would then probably result in something like:

>Petraeus: US would destroy Russia’s troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-puti...

ie the US/NATO destroying Russia's forces in Ukraine and or the black sea fleet.

Hitting somewhere like London probably wouldn't go well either as there are like 55 countries against Russia so they hit a small fraction and bang goes Moscow + St Pete and Russia is pretty much done for.

Post reply on HN