9 ms·

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

netfortius 4y ago
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... ".
- d0mine 4y ago
  I've interpreted "imminent" meaning "about to occur" that is one-in-six chances of global nuclear war soon.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  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
Eavolution 4y ago
Do we not have better things to do as humans than blow ourselves up. seriously?
- mrjin 4y ago
  We do. But for those making decisions the answer is probably no. It's was never about right or wrong, better or worse, it's all about interest, but definitely not much about ours. Sadly the fact is, to some people, our lives are no more than a number on the report. When it come to politics, everything is much darker than we thought.
- pleb_nz 4y ago
  And why is this not higher... Seriously
- bmitc 4y ago
  It's scary that billions of lives are in the hands of probably just a few thousand people and hundreds of millions in even less hands. I wish people in the U.S. would realize the increasing danger we find ourselves in as power gets more and more concentrated and radical here. But alas, the three things humans are well evolved for -- power dynamics, violence, and technology -- keep rationality, emotional intelligence, and peace at arms length.
  - drukenemo 4y ago
    It has always been like that.
  - frontman1988 4y ago
    This is the reason I support Elon's idea of having a colony on mars to reduce the risk of human extinction. Any incoming missile to mars from earth would easily get noticed and deflected or blown in space itself. It's not a question of if, but when that some maniac finally presses the nuke button here on earth with no country interested in nuclear disarmament and ever increasing geopolitical tensions with mad dictators increasingly gaining power. A Mars colony will atleast increase our odds of survival, hope it happens in my lifetime.
    - bmitc 4y ago
      Elon Musk is the embodiment of human fault. And a colony on Mars, if even remotely possible any time soon, will solve nothing. His selling of it is just that, a sales pitch and a medium for his ego.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        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.
        Ekaros 4y ago
- d0mine 4y ago
  I see trillion rea$ons of military spendings to convince the general public that enemies are all around. Though actually starting a full scale war is stupid—there is a non-zero chance that the human civilization as we know it won't survive.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-edging-closer-to-nuclear-war/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-edging-closer-to-n... for other calculations back in 2017
aintmeit 4y ago
I think there's a one-in-one chance of what you say happening because it's already started.
inphovore 4y ago
beardyw 4y ago
"I view it as highly unlikely (<10%) that Putin would accept "Vietnam" without first going nuclear, because it would almost certainly result in him being overthrown and jailed or killed." Whereas the affects of nuclear on his own country will make him a hero? Sorry, it's just lose-lose.
- Seanambers 4y ago
  One of the things that is being shattered in Ukraine right now besides the Russian Army is the Russian self image. Now that's a powerful thing to lose. Russians have believed that they were a strong important country, now, the truth is here and it turns out they are weak and unimportant. Unable to project any sort of believable conventional power onto the world. The soviet union was obviously strong militarily with wast sphere of influence, but Russia has not filled its shoes at all. All the years of corruption and greed shows. In that backlight, using tactical nuclear weapons will at least let the regime assert some kind of might. One can wonder if Putin at all has or had a true image of Russian military capability.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    > One can wonder if Putin at all has or had a true image of Russian military capability. It is highly unlikely he has. But in the end, it is his own fault for creating that environment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- sgt101 4y ago
  What Putin accepts or not is irrelevant - it's what the Russian state will accept that counts. Putin is dead in 5-15 years no matter what. Russia should,could,will have 100's of years left if it starts to act 1/2 way sensibly.
  - mrjin 4y ago
    So why risk getting jailed or even killed instead of just waiting for a couple of years? And you don't have to clean up someone else's mass neither.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
There's a lot of rhetoric and bluff. I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. That would indeed be a declaration of all out war against a cornered country which only remaining strength at the moment is its nuke stockpile, I.e. it would be madness and Armageddon would indeed have been triggered by Nato, not Russia. Rather, the West should deny Russia a victory in Ukraine but without cornering them, as has been suggested by some leaders. The West has an interest in Russia not winning but they also have an interest in stability in Russia and in an end to military conflict.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  > The West The interests of the USA and Europe are not the same.
  - mrjin 4y ago
    Indeed. In this case, US would want the war to drag for decades without further escalating. Europe, however, would want the war to end as they are in deep sh*t themselves and there is no reason to continue fighting a war to benefit US.
    - ycombinete 4y ago
      It’s a fine line. The USA also doesn’t want a Europe that is collectively weaker than the Middle East or Asia.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  > I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. Almost no one is saying that’s the immediate consequence. But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine. It’s anyone’s guess how Russia then responds to THAT, then how we respond, then how they respond…
DoItToMe81 4y ago
- taskforcegemini 4y ago
  let's hope you are right. the destruction of the zaporizhzhia power plant zaporizhzhia is still looming though
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > They're not going to drop a fucking nuke Putin is delusional, at that point, anything goes. Russian people didn't think he would use the draft, yet here they are. Europeans didn't think he would declare war on Ukraine, yet here we are. We are in uncharted territories. It's entirely possible he'd drop nukes on Ukraine, as a vulgar display of power.
radu_floricica 4y ago
I agree with most of the post/diagram, except the last step. There's a joke that appeared early this year: a Russian had an accident and fell into a coma before the war, and just wakes up. He's asking for news, and the nurse tells him that it's bad: they're in a war with NATO, and they already lost 60k people, 2000 tanks and 500 planes. "And NATO?", he asks. "What are their losses?". The nurse answers: "Ah, NATO hasn't showed up yet". The best chance Putin has to lose and still keep political power is for NATO to show up. I can't really imagine him successfully losing to Ukraine alone, land lease or no land lease. It's actually the only scenario where interests align even a bit in this whole mess. Putin would like to win _something_, but at this point he's probably happy to be rid of the whole mess and still be in power. NATO would love to give him a bloody nose and see him turn back. And Ukraine would definitely love to be rid of Russia and start on reconstructing and integrating into the west. Now, in a rational world they could just have a nice chat over tea and settle things like adults - and who knows, maybe they're actually talking this out in a zoom call, the kind we won't see declassified even in 50 years. But in the real world, the only one we see, they need to perform the dance. For Putin to retreat he needs NATO to bloody his nose. NATO needs a very good reason to do that, because the west is political and has a lot of pacifists. So he throws a nuke or three, NATO bombs the shit out of the Russian forces in Ukraine, and he finally has an excuse and internal political power to sue for peace on realistic terms. Who knows, he might even get to keep Crimea, de facto if not de jure.
- beachy 4y ago
  That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback from families losing their sons under such circumstances - for no military advantage - would be threatening to Putin's rule.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time. Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.
trasz 4y ago
It would be a fun way to discover that all those black programs which continued after the nuclear weapon development formally ended in the 80’s really did result in Kessler satellites, particle beams, and clean nukes.
themodelplumber 4y ago
> I'd love to hear your thoughts both on this risk modeling framework I guess I don't see the word qualitative the same way the author does. To me "qualitative" implies inputs like depth, thought, introspection, care, conscientiousness, reflection, things like that. Anyway, here are some thoughts on the topic and article, based on personality theory, one of the areas I like to think about and hack on: - Putin thinks of threats as qualitative solutions. He does not think of actions being nearly as valuable. He continually demonstrates that his threats are calculated far more deeply and conscientiously than his actions. - Putin thinks (likely subconsciously) that actually taking actions (like initiating nuclear warfare) is a quantitative solution that is shallow, irritating and effectively risky to his bluffer's poker strategy. You don't make a Russia out of the equivalent of Italy's resources by _showing_ what you can do with your stuff, after all. - Putin is in a holistic position that makes nuclear war a far more valuable threat than action. This is partially due to his internal psychology, because he prefers diplomatic and political puzzles to outright warfare. The outright warriors are more like the ones winning this conflict on the ground right now. - Putin views direct negotiation itself as weakness. Negotiation is conducted by actions that threaten further action, but the planning of negotiation in such a form is where the energy goes. - Putin would rather not work on conflict at a global scale. His best tools, perspectives, and allies are all local-scale. - Putin is directly calling many, if not most of the shots, and is effectively in control of the Russian political character on the global stage. - Putin doesn't think in terms of escalate or not. He thinks in terms of solving puzzles and offering puzzles to be solved in return. (The same is not true of Zelensky or Biden, which is very important here. You have a battle of psychological perspectives, with force good/bad in the West aligned vs politics cunning/weak in Russia. Dangerous match with no default winner [1]) IMO Putin likely believes he has 1,000 strategies that are more effective than triggering something as generic as nuclear war. However, some of them may involve "mysterious" limited nuclear war, for example. In fact I think one of his most effective strategies could be a slow escalation of radiation exposure events via various means, accompanied by denial and diplomatic go-betweens. Also, I noticed that like most of us, the author writes in such a way as to reveal their personal preferences. A common blind spot for authors with similar preferences is that they will work very hard to answer a near-random question and then spend lots of build time on internal logic. This then sets up a de facto misdirection fallacy: Look into the question, but don't question the question. This is a particularly tenacious fallacy because there is no other-hand alternative being offered in any case, and humans aren't generally comfortable working with the unknown. So questions, particularly those which are interesting for some set of reasons, can cause big problems just because other questions aren't being uncovered and discussed with the same resources. Qualitatively impressive internals and a neat model are one possible result of this setup for sure, but in that way this is still a Jedi mind trick the author may not even be aware of. So, was there a question-selection framework? How do we know this question is worth spending time on? What are some other questions that are interesting, for example questions that may help tease out new models for a successful response to the threat? Or are there types of questions that model the situation better? And this doesn't get into some other issues like the internal terms used and their graphed relationship. A lot of assumptions are made, figures are pulled, and details left out. Qualitatively it's an interesting article to read for sure, and I wouldn't criticize it too harshly when it at least meets that bar and comes with a graph. But it doesn't do much for a common dichotomy here, i.e. do we continue to act in what is assumed to be an escalation, or do we deescalate and hope that the result is better than what we are supposed to think is the only alternative to deescalation? (Dichotomies like escalate and de- are pretty messed up, really.) 1. I do think that the Biden-Zelensky relational support system is extremely risky on the side of force. These are both highly emotive, force-on-force personalities. They may stumble right into Putin's blind spot and force his hand by a combination of his own personal, embarrassing weakness in the areas of lack of care and lack of suitable employed force, and their own combined, nuclear-critical capability for turning passionate moral crusade into political gaffe. God I hope I'm wrong about this.
Const-me 4y ago
Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.
- __turbobrew__ 4y ago
  Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”. How long will the rich and poor of Russia put up with the cost of this war?
  - sgt101 4y ago
    I think it's more likely that he retires to the country. Precedent matters if you may be on the other end of it in months/years. Also retirement to the country is not forever, which again is useful in political struggles to come.
    - Beltiras 4y ago
      This is exactly why dictators never retire. They would always be a thorn in the new rulers side.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        Often it's because the constitution of their country states that a sitting President can't be brought up on charges - Mugabe is a very obvious example. But don't worry, Yeltsin had Putin's back... > President of Russia, ceased to carry out its mandate, has immunity. They can not be held criminally or administratively liable for acts committed by them during the execution of the President's powers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Russia
      - ck45 4y ago
        They do retire, but in exile From https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688225 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688225 > Exile has been the second most common fate for dictators who lost office since World War II See https://www.upf.edu/documents/2873379/2873034/Dictator_JOP_OnlineAppendix.pdf/c85a98c1-df8f-4735-9695-2adf44ff596a https://www.upf.edu/documents/2873379/2873034/Dictator_JOP_O... for a list of dictators and their destinations from 1946 to 2012
okasaki 4y ago
It's interesting to think about an alternative history where Russia joined NATO. As Putin did want to: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
- ycombinete 4y ago
  > did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter > if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner Equal to who? To Putin this means equal to all others combined. Certainly not those other countries that don’t matter.
  - okasaki 4y ago
    The article certainly doesn't give that impression. But maybe you were there and so you have some special insight that the rest of us don't?
- Aeolun 4y ago
  They were in a great position to do so right before this whole mess started.
kkfx 4y ago
Mh... A site named lesswrong who can't be seen without JS...
- Raemon777 4y ago
  ...seems false? At least with noscript on I can still see the site. (disclaimer: I work on the site. There's definitely reduced functionality if you don't have JS enabled, but surprised/confused if you can't see stuff at all)
  - kkfx 4y ago
    That's what I get now https://i.ibb.co/XXch7ZL/2022-10-10-133602-1920x1080-scrot.png https://i.ibb.co/XXch7ZL/2022-10-10-133602-1920x1080-scrot.p... No Firefox reader support, nothing on the page, effectively the cause is that TPRB blocker block forum.effectivealtruism.org + NoScript blocking lesswrong.com js but anyway, without allowing the third party domain AND the main JS I can't see anything...
jacknews 4y ago
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 Russia and Ukraine. It will be a tax on the west for sure, especially Europe (America should send aid), but a crippling all-consuming drain on Russia. There are rumors Putin is seriously ill. He will not likely last long as leader in any case, if the war drags on and drags Russia to the ground. But a more orderly transition will be possible if there is a stalemate in Ukraine, rather than a humiliating defeat. As for nuclear escalation, it is now clear that the West's capabilities are so far superior to Russia that we need not respond in haste. If a dog bites you, you don't need to get on all fours and chase it to bite back; it's fate is sealed already. And honestly, will their nukes even work? I have my doubts given everything else that's been exposed by this misadventure.
- jules-jules 4y ago
  The issue with waiting out Putin is that it assumes any successor would be more likely to go for a peaceful/negotiated solution. I think this is shortsighted as the most credible opposition figures take a far more hawkish stance, which would increases the odds of an all-out escalation.
  - jacknews 4y ago
    But those figures will likely try to seize power in the chaos of a humiliating defeat for Putin, and possibly use the situation as an excuse to escalate, even if Putin himself does not. Far better to keep things on a slow boil, so when things eventually shift internally in Russia, there is at least some stability externally. And when they do shift, it may be in the other direction, with the hawks washed away by popular dissent, or just fatigue for the war.
- dsq 4y ago
  > will their nukes even work Even if only a third if them work it’s enough. That’s the point about nukes, they provide egregious overkill.
jules-jules 4y ago
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/samotsvety-nuclear-risk-update-october-2022 https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nDTrDPZJBEerZGrk/...
- singularity2001 4y ago
  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.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    > ≈ 0% that the West will retaliate. Putin had hoped for that after 2014,but he was in for a nasty surprise in 2022. The probability of NATO to strike back is 100%. It doesn't matter if they destroy the Black Sea fleet or naval bases or do something else, they already communicated to Putin several times that the response will not need to be nuclear but for sure will be painful.
  - polotics 4y ago
    100% that NATO invokes article 5 because of fallout landing on the first square centimetre of Polish land, or wherever. Then the big guns, big tanks, all conventional, come out, and the Russian oligarchs and Silovikis are left with two choices: MAD and lose all their accumulated wealth and comfort, or negotiated de-fanging.
  - amalter 4y ago
    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.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
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. The chances of a nuclear strike by Russia ate very, very low and most of this talk is sensationalism.
- helij 4y ago
  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 https://sci.esa.int/web/mars-express/-/31036-launch-vehicle
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > 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.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Ug, nuclear war is a civilization ending event and everyone, even Putin, knows this and does not want this. The chances are therefore 0%.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  You're assuming Putin is rational. That's not a good assumption. Putin is elderly, likely in very bad health or possibly dying of cancer, and wants to make his mark on the world. In addition, if he loses in Ukraine, he'll likely be assassinated, so he has absolutely nothing to lose here. There's not really a good reason he wouldn't launch armageddon. We can only hope that his underlings don't want to get themselves and all other Russians exterminated in nuclear fire and will refuse to carry out his orders.
polotics 4y ago
Is it just me or do you also get the impression this article has triggered all troll-farms worldwide? Trying to catch the implied ideas many of the posts are trying to implant is just a drag.
gregjor 4y ago
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?
tim333 4y ago
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-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus 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.
1letterunixname 4y ago
I don't know this author and I don't know where they pulled these numbers from. It comes across as "Strategic Nuclear War Planning for Dummies." - Ukraine isn't in NATO and won't get in before this war concludes with Putin losing. No NATO, no automatic aid, and no WW3. - The US is outspending Russia's entire defense budget by orders-of-magnitude with HIMARS for Ukraine (artillery: the god of war). It's only a matter of time before Putin's military refuses to take orders. - Putin's generals would sooner remove him that start WW3 beyond a few tac nukes. - Tac nukes aren't going to start WW3 except push Russia further beyond DPRK pariah status. Lots of fallout, lots of people will need to move out of the way in a hurry depending on the winds, but brinksmanship escalation by the West would be suicidal/omnicidal. - Putin is seeking a 1989 do-over and resentment over Afghanistan, but it's going to follow a similar result. Putin is, in recent years, doing the same thing and expecting a different result. - Putin likely has cancer since an oncologist has been following him around. - It's plain to read the nonverbal communication of Putin's inner circle whenever they appear on camera: they're wondering how they can get rid of him. Putin's altered mental state is somewhere between 'roid-rage, low T grouchy old man, and cabin fever from living in a bunker in the Urals separated from society for too long. Unstable crazy person with nukes. The likelihood Putin will be arrested or assassinated when he tries to order a nuclear strike seems the most likely conclusion. Further reading: Ellsberg's thesis in book form: "Risk, Ambiguity, and Decision".
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  > It's plain to read the nonverbal communication of Putin's inner circle whenever they appear on camera: they're wondering how they can get rid of him. As much as it would be nice if it were the case, this is extremely nebulous and more likely just projection/wishful thinking.

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... ".

d0mine 4y ago
I've interpreted "imminent" meaning "about to occur" that is one-in-six chances of global nuclear war soon.
readthenotes1 4y ago
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

Eavolution 4y ago

Do we not have better things to do as humans than blow ourselves up. seriously?

mrjin 4y ago
We do. But for those making decisions the answer is probably no. It's was never about right or wrong, better or worse, it's all about interest, but definitely not much about ours. Sadly the fact is, to some people, our lives are no more than a number on the report. When it come to politics, everything is much darker than we thought.
pleb_nz 4y ago
And why is this not higher... Seriously
bmitc 4y ago
It's scary that billions of lives are in the hands of probably just a few thousand people and hundreds of millions in even less hands. I wish people in the U.S. would realize the increasing danger we find ourselves in as power gets more and more concentrated and radical here. But alas, the three things humans are well evolved for -- power dynamics, violence, and technology -- keep rationality, emotional intelligence, and peace at arms length.
- drukenemo 4y ago
  It has always been like that.
- frontman1988 4y ago
  This is the reason I support Elon's idea of having a colony on mars to reduce the risk of human extinction. Any incoming missile to mars from earth would easily get noticed and deflected or blown in space itself. It's not a question of if, but when that some maniac finally presses the nuke button here on earth with no country interested in nuclear disarmament and ever increasing geopolitical tensions with mad dictators increasingly gaining power. A Mars colony will atleast increase our odds of survival, hope it happens in my lifetime.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Elon Musk is the embodiment of human fault. And a colony on Mars, if even remotely possible any time soon, will solve nothing. His selling of it is just that, a sales pitch and a medium for his ego.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      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.
      - Ekaros 4y ago
d0mine 4y ago
I see trillion rea$ons of military spendings to convince the general public that enemies are all around. Though actually starting a full scale war is stupid—there is a non-zero chance that the human civilization as we know it won't survive.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-edging-closer-to-nuclear-war/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-edging-closer-to-n... for other calculations back in 2017

aintmeit 4y ago

I think there's a one-in-one chance of what you say happening because it's already started.

inphovore 4y ago

beardyw 4y ago

"I view it as highly unlikely (<10%) that Putin would accept "Vietnam" without first going nuclear, because it would almost certainly result in him being overthrown and jailed or killed." Whereas the affects of nuclear on his own country will make him a hero? Sorry, it's just lose-lose.

Seanambers 4y ago
One of the things that is being shattered in Ukraine right now besides the Russian Army is the Russian self image. Now that's a powerful thing to lose. Russians have believed that they were a strong important country, now, the truth is here and it turns out they are weak and unimportant. Unable to project any sort of believable conventional power onto the world. The soviet union was obviously strong militarily with wast sphere of influence, but Russia has not filled its shoes at all. All the years of corruption and greed shows. In that backlight, using tactical nuclear weapons will at least let the regime assert some kind of might. One can wonder if Putin at all has or had a true image of Russian military capability.
- bmitc 4y ago
  > One can wonder if Putin at all has or had a true image of Russian military capability. It is highly unlikely he has. But in the end, it is his own fault for creating that environment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
sgt101 4y ago
What Putin accepts or not is irrelevant - it's what the Russian state will accept that counts. Putin is dead in 5-15 years no matter what. Russia should,could,will have 100's of years left if it starts to act 1/2 way sensibly.
- mrjin 4y ago
  So why risk getting jailed or even killed instead of just waiting for a couple of years? And you don't have to clean up someone else's mass neither.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

There's a lot of rhetoric and bluff. I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. That would indeed be a declaration of all out war against a cornered country which only remaining strength at the moment is its nuke stockpile, I.e. it would be madness and Armageddon would indeed have been triggered by Nato, not Russia. Rather, the West should deny Russia a victory in Ukraine but without cornering them, as has been suggested by some leaders. The West has an interest in Russia not winning but they also have an interest in stability in Russia and in an end to military conflict.

the_gipsy 4y ago
> The West The interests of the USA and Europe are not the same.
- mrjin 4y ago
  Indeed. In this case, US would want the war to drag for decades without further escalating. Europe, however, would want the war to end as they are in deep sh*t themselves and there is no reason to continue fighting a war to benefit US.
  - ycombinete 4y ago
    It’s a fine line. The USA also doesn’t want a Europe that is collectively weaker than the Middle East or Asia.
reducesuffering 4y ago
> I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. Almost no one is saying that’s the immediate consequence. But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine. It’s anyone’s guess how Russia then responds to THAT, then how we respond, then how they respond…

DoItToMe81 4y ago

taskforcegemini 4y ago
let's hope you are right. the destruction of the zaporizhzhia power plant zaporizhzhia is still looming though
throw_m239339 4y ago
> They're not going to drop a fucking nuke Putin is delusional, at that point, anything goes. Russian people didn't think he would use the draft, yet here they are. Europeans didn't think he would declare war on Ukraine, yet here we are. We are in uncharted territories. It's entirely possible he'd drop nukes on Ukraine, as a vulgar display of power.

radu_floricica 4y ago

I agree with most of the post/diagram, except the last step. There's a joke that appeared early this year: a Russian had an accident and fell into a coma before the war, and just wakes up. He's asking for news, and the nurse tells him that it's bad: they're in a war with NATO, and they already lost 60k people, 2000 tanks and 500 planes. "And NATO?", he asks. "What are their losses?". The nurse answers: "Ah, NATO hasn't showed up yet". The best chance Putin has to lose and still keep political power is for NATO to show up. I can't really imagine him successfully losing to Ukraine alone, land lease or no land lease. It's actually the only scenario where interests align even a bit in this whole mess. Putin would like to win _something_, but at this point he's probably happy to be rid of the whole mess and still be in power. NATO would love to give him a bloody nose and see him turn back. And Ukraine would definitely love to be rid of Russia and start on reconstructing and integrating into the west. Now, in a rational world they could just have a nice chat over tea and settle things like adults - and who knows, maybe they're actually talking this out in a zoom call, the kind we won't see declassified even in 50 years. But in the real world, the only one we see, they need to perform the dance. For Putin to retreat he needs NATO to bloody his nose. NATO needs a very good reason to do that, because the west is political and has a lot of pacifists. So he throws a nuke or three, NATO bombs the shit out of the Russian forces in Ukraine, and he finally has an excuse and internal political power to sue for peace on realistic terms. Who knows, he might even get to keep Crimea, de facto if not de jure.

beachy 4y ago
That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback from families losing their sons under such circumstances - for no military advantage - would be threatening to Putin's rule.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time. Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.

trasz 4y ago

It would be a fun way to discover that all those black programs which continued after the nuclear weapon development formally ended in the 80’s really did result in Kessler satellites, particle beams, and clean nukes.

themodelplumber 4y ago

> I'd love to hear your thoughts both on this risk modeling framework I guess I don't see the word qualitative the same way the author does. To me "qualitative" implies inputs like depth, thought, introspection, care, conscientiousness, reflection, things like that. Anyway, here are some thoughts on the topic and article, based on personality theory, one of the areas I like to think about and hack on: - Putin thinks of threats as qualitative solutions. He does not think of actions being nearly as valuable. He continually demonstrates that his threats are calculated far more deeply and conscientiously than his actions. - Putin thinks (likely subconsciously) that actually taking actions (like initiating nuclear warfare) is a quantitative solution that is shallow, irritating and effectively risky to his bluffer's poker strategy. You don't make a Russia out of the equivalent of Italy's resources by _showing_ what you can do with your stuff, after all. - Putin is in a holistic position that makes nuclear war a far more valuable threat than action. This is partially due to his internal psychology, because he prefers diplomatic and political puzzles to outright warfare. The outright warriors are more like the ones winning this conflict on the ground right now. - Putin views direct negotiation itself as weakness. Negotiation is conducted by actions that threaten further action, but the planning of negotiation in such a form is where the energy goes. - Putin would rather not work on conflict at a global scale. His best tools, perspectives, and allies are all local-scale. - Putin is directly calling many, if not most of the shots, and is effectively in control of the Russian political character on the global stage. - Putin doesn't think in terms of escalate or not. He thinks in terms of solving puzzles and offering puzzles to be solved in return. (The same is not true of Zelensky or Biden, which is very important here. You have a battle of psychological perspectives, with force good/bad in the West aligned vs politics cunning/weak in Russia. Dangerous match with no default winner [1]) IMO Putin likely believes he has 1,000 strategies that are more effective than triggering something as generic as nuclear war. However, some of them may involve "mysterious" limited nuclear war, for example. In fact I think one of his most effective strategies could be a slow escalation of radiation exposure events via various means, accompanied by denial and diplomatic go-betweens. Also, I noticed that like most of us, the author writes in such a way as to reveal their personal preferences. A common blind spot for authors with similar preferences is that they will work very hard to answer a near-random question and then spend lots of build time on internal logic. This then sets up a de facto misdirection fallacy: Look into the question, but don't question the question. This is a particularly tenacious fallacy because there is no other-hand alternative being offered in any case, and humans aren't generally comfortable working with the unknown. So questions, particularly those which are interesting for some set of reasons, can cause big problems just because other questions aren't being uncovered and discussed with the same resources. Qualitatively impressive internals and a neat model are one possible result of this setup for sure, but in that way this is still a Jedi mind trick the author may not even be aware of. So, was there a question-selection framework? How do we know this question is worth spending time on? What are some other questions that are interesting, for example questions that may help tease out new models for a successful response to the threat? Or are there types of questions that model the situation better? And this doesn't get into some other issues like the internal terms used and their graphed relationship. A lot of assumptions are made, figures are pulled, and details left out. Qualitatively it's an interesting article to read for sure, and I wouldn't criticize it too harshly when it at least meets that bar and comes with a graph. But it doesn't do much for a common dichotomy here, i.e. do we continue to act in what is assumed to be an escalation, or do we deescalate and hope that the result is better than what we are supposed to think is the only alternative to deescalation? (Dichotomies like escalate and de- are pretty messed up, really.) 1. I do think that the Biden-Zelensky relational support system is extremely risky on the side of force. These are both highly emotive, force-on-force personalities. They may stumble right into Putin's blind spot and force his hand by a combination of his own personal, embarrassing weakness in the areas of lack of care and lack of suitable employed force, and their own combined, nuclear-critical capability for turning passionate moral crusade into political gaffe. God I hope I'm wrong about this.

Const-me 4y ago

Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.

__turbobrew__ 4y ago
Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”. How long will the rich and poor of Russia put up with the cost of this war?
- sgt101 4y ago
  I think it's more likely that he retires to the country. Precedent matters if you may be on the other end of it in months/years. Also retirement to the country is not forever, which again is useful in political struggles to come.
  - Beltiras 4y ago
    This is exactly why dictators never retire. They would always be a thorn in the new rulers side.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      Often it's because the constitution of their country states that a sitting President can't be brought up on charges - Mugabe is a very obvious example. But don't worry, Yeltsin had Putin's back... > President of Russia, ceased to carry out its mandate, has immunity. They can not be held criminally or administratively liable for acts committed by them during the execution of the President's powers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Russia
    - ck45 4y ago
      They do retire, but in exile From https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688225 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688225 > Exile has been the second most common fate for dictators who lost office since World War II See https://www.upf.edu/documents/2873379/2873034/Dictator_JOP_OnlineAppendix.pdf/c85a98c1-df8f-4735-9695-2adf44ff596a https://www.upf.edu/documents/2873379/2873034/Dictator_JOP_O... for a list of dictators and their destinations from 1946 to 2012

okasaki 4y ago

It's interesting to think about an alternative history where Russia joined NATO. As Putin did want to: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...

ycombinete 4y ago
> did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter > if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner Equal to who? To Putin this means equal to all others combined. Certainly not those other countries that don’t matter.
- okasaki 4y ago
  The article certainly doesn't give that impression. But maybe you were there and so you have some special insight that the rest of us don't?
Aeolun 4y ago
They were in a great position to do so right before this whole mess started.

kkfx 4y ago

Mh... A site named lesswrong who can't be seen without JS...

Raemon777 4y ago
...seems false? At least with noscript on I can still see the site. (disclaimer: I work on the site. There's definitely reduced functionality if you don't have JS enabled, but surprised/confused if you can't see stuff at all)
- kkfx 4y ago
  That's what I get now https://i.ibb.co/XXch7ZL/2022-10-10-133602-1920x1080-scrot.png https://i.ibb.co/XXch7ZL/2022-10-10-133602-1920x1080-scrot.p... No Firefox reader support, nothing on the page, effectively the cause is that TPRB blocker block forum.effectivealtruism.org + NoScript blocking lesswrong.com js but anyway, without allowing the third party domain AND the main JS I can't see anything...

jacknews 4y ago

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 Russia and Ukraine. It will be a tax on the west for sure, especially Europe (America should send aid), but a crippling all-consuming drain on Russia. There are rumors Putin is seriously ill. He will not likely last long as leader in any case, if the war drags on and drags Russia to the ground. But a more orderly transition will be possible if there is a stalemate in Ukraine, rather than a humiliating defeat. As for nuclear escalation, it is now clear that the West's capabilities are so far superior to Russia that we need not respond in haste. If a dog bites you, you don't need to get on all fours and chase it to bite back; it's fate is sealed already. And honestly, will their nukes even work? I have my doubts given everything else that's been exposed by this misadventure.

jules-jules 4y ago
The issue with waiting out Putin is that it assumes any successor would be more likely to go for a peaceful/negotiated solution. I think this is shortsighted as the most credible opposition figures take a far more hawkish stance, which would increases the odds of an all-out escalation.
- jacknews 4y ago
  But those figures will likely try to seize power in the chaos of a humiliating defeat for Putin, and possibly use the situation as an excuse to escalate, even if Putin himself does not. Far better to keep things on a slow boil, so when things eventually shift internally in Russia, there is at least some stability externally. And when they do shift, it may be in the other direction, with the hawks washed away by popular dissent, or just fatigue for the war.
dsq 4y ago
> will their nukes even work Even if only a third if them work it’s enough. That’s the point about nukes, they provide egregious overkill.

jules-jules 4y ago

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/samotsvety-nuclear-risk-update-october-2022 https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nDTrDPZJBEerZGrk/...

singularity2001 4y ago
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.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  > ≈ 0% that the West will retaliate. Putin had hoped for that after 2014,but he was in for a nasty surprise in 2022. The probability of NATO to strike back is 100%. It doesn't matter if they destroy the Black Sea fleet or naval bases or do something else, they already communicated to Putin several times that the response will not need to be nuclear but for sure will be painful.
- polotics 4y ago
  100% that NATO invokes article 5 because of fallout landing on the first square centimetre of Polish land, or wherever. Then the big guns, big tanks, all conventional, come out, and the Russian oligarchs and Silovikis are left with two choices: MAD and lose all their accumulated wealth and comfort, or negotiated de-fanging.
- amalter 4y ago
  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.

Overtonwindow 4y ago

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. The chances of a nuclear strike by Russia ate very, very low and most of this talk is sensationalism.

helij 4y ago
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 https://sci.esa.int/web/mars-express/-/31036-launch-vehicle
lamontcg 4y ago
> 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.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

Ug, nuclear war is a civilization ending event and everyone, even Putin, knows this and does not want this. The chances are therefore 0%.

midoridensha 4y ago
You're assuming Putin is rational. That's not a good assumption. Putin is elderly, likely in very bad health or possibly dying of cancer, and wants to make his mark on the world. In addition, if he loses in Ukraine, he'll likely be assassinated, so he has absolutely nothing to lose here. There's not really a good reason he wouldn't launch armageddon. We can only hope that his underlings don't want to get themselves and all other Russians exterminated in nuclear fire and will refuse to carry out his orders.

polotics 4y ago

Is it just me or do you also get the impression this article has triggered all troll-farms worldwide? Trying to catch the implied ideas many of the posts are trying to implant is just a drag.

gregjor 4y ago

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?

tim333 4y ago

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-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus 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.

1letterunixname 4y ago

I don't know this author and I don't know where they pulled these numbers from. It comes across as "Strategic Nuclear War Planning for Dummies." - Ukraine isn't in NATO and won't get in before this war concludes with Putin losing. No NATO, no automatic aid, and no WW3. - The US is outspending Russia's entire defense budget by orders-of-magnitude with HIMARS for Ukraine (artillery: the god of war). It's only a matter of time before Putin's military refuses to take orders. - Putin's generals would sooner remove him that start WW3 beyond a few tac nukes. - Tac nukes aren't going to start WW3 except push Russia further beyond DPRK pariah status. Lots of fallout, lots of people will need to move out of the way in a hurry depending on the winds, but brinksmanship escalation by the West would be suicidal/omnicidal. - Putin is seeking a 1989 do-over and resentment over Afghanistan, but it's going to follow a similar result. Putin is, in recent years, doing the same thing and expecting a different result. - Putin likely has cancer since an oncologist has been following him around. - It's plain to read the nonverbal communication of Putin's inner circle whenever they appear on camera: they're wondering how they can get rid of him. Putin's altered mental state is somewhere between 'roid-rage, low T grouchy old man, and cabin fever from living in a bunker in the Urals separated from society for too long. Unstable crazy person with nukes. The likelihood Putin will be arrested or assassinated when he tries to order a nuclear strike seems the most likely conclusion. Further reading: Ellsberg's thesis in book form: "Risk, Ambiguity, and Decision".

mysecretaccount 4y ago
> It's plain to read the nonverbal communication of Putin's inner circle whenever they appear on camera: they're wondering how they can get rid of him. As much as it would be nice if it were the case, this is extremely nebulous and more likely just projection/wishful thinking.