Abstract

AbstractNuclear war is clearly a global catastrophic risk, but it is not an existential risk as is sometimes carelessly claimed. Unfortunately, the consequence and likelihood components of the risk of nuclear war are both highly uncertain. In particular, for nuclear wars that include targeting of multiple cities, nuclear winter may result in more fatalities across the globe than the better-understood effects of blast, prompt radiation, and fallout. Electromagnetic pulse effects, which could range from minor electrical disturbances to the complete collapse of the electric grid, are similarly highly uncertain. Nuclear war likelihood assessments are largely based on intuition, and they span the spectrum from zero to certainty. Notwithstanding these profound uncertainties, we must manage the risk of nuclear war with the knowledge we have. Benefit-cost analysis and other structured analytic methods applied to evaluate risk mitigation measures must acknowledge that we often do not even know whether many proposed approaches (e.g., reducing nuclear arsenals) will have a net positive or negative effect. Multidisciplinary studies are needed to better understand the consequences and likelihood of nuclear war and the complex relationship between these two components of risk, and to predict both the direction and magnitude of risk mitigation approaches.

Highlights

  • It might be thought that we know enough about the risk of nuclear war to appropriately manage that risk

  • Does unconstrained nuclear war pose an existential risk to humanity? The consequences of existential risks are truly incalculable, including the lives of all human beings currently living and of all those yet to come; involving Homo sapiens but all species that may descend from it

  • At the opposite end of the spectrum of consequences lies the domain of “limited” nuclear wars. Are these properly considered global catastrophes? After all, while the only nuclear war that has ever occurred devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Pacific War, thereby saving lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Japan

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It might be thought that we know enough about the risk of nuclear war to appropriately manage that risk. Does unconstrained nuclear war pose an existential risk to humanity? At the opposite end of the spectrum of consequences lies the domain of “limited” nuclear wars Some scholars argue that many lives have been saved over the nearly threefourths of a century since the advent of nuclear weapons because those weapons have prevented the large conventional wars that otherwise would likely have occurred between the major powers. This is perhaps the most significant consequence of the attacks that devastated the two Japanese cities. I conclude with recommendations for national security policy and multidisciplinary research

Why is nuclear war a global catastrophic risk?
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk management
Nonproliferation
Counterterrorism
Deterrence
Nuclear parity
How much is enough?
Residual risk and risk acceptance
Findings
Final thoughts and recommendations

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.