[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
--- Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> *As a matter of mathematical principle, I suppose
> that having as few nuclear weapons as possible in
the
> world would make the world safer.
What else is MAD than a "mathematical principle", or
game-theoretical concept to be exact?
Forget about the number of warheads, think number of
buttons. There are the five permanent security council
states, but we'll treat NATO as one bloc and say there
are three big buttons. Fifty years of work has gone
into making it almost certain that these buttons will
not be pushed. Three small buttons have been added,
India, Israel and Pakistan. These small buttons are
the biggest risks now, which needs to be mitigated
somehow. There may be a fourth small button, North
Korea, but we don't really know that for sure.
That gives us six buttons, and 3*5=15 potential
conflicts. Let's say the chance of a conflict
actualizing is on average one in five hundred, meaning
3:100 (3%) chance of nuclear weapons being used.
Double the amount of buttons (Iran, North Korea,
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Kuwait, Egypt... take your pick.) We've got 6*11=66,
or 33:250 (13.2%) probability of nuclear war at some
scale. Take the proliferation to its logical
conclusion, about 50 nuclear states, and the numbers
are 25*49=1225, 49:20 (245%).
And I've completely ignored the chance that nuclear
weapons could be used against non-nuclear states,
which makes the above calculation much worse.
> But it doesn't follow that
> having huge arsenals of nuclear weapons concentrated
> in the hands of several states makes it safer.
Yes it does. See above.
> I don't
> believe that denying some states the means of
> deterrence and self-defense while allowing others
> means of coercion and threat is in the global
> interest.
>
So we can have more states that can coerce other
states?
Deterrence I can understand, self-defense not. If the
deterrence doesn't work, nukes are useless for
self-preservation.
There is a school of thought that nuclear weapons make
war so destructive that wars will not be fought at
all. This reminds me of the argument popular in early
20th century Europe that wars have become so expensive
no one can afford them. But the problem with the
argument is that it ignores that while there will be
fewer wars, the ones that do happen will be
apolitically destructive.
The come-back that "we'll just have to ease tensions
so wars won't happen" is a worthy goal, beside the
point and a rotten guarantee. There will always be
wars, fewer the better, and it needs to be considered
that once the technology is acquired it will remain
usable for foreseeable future as working
counter-measures are pure science fiction at the
moment.
> Also, why are the concerns of those who worry about
> nuclear proliferation usually so selective ? Where
> are the protests, for example, about the US-India
> nuclear deal ?
Well, in my opinion, India-Pakistan nukes are probably
the biggest single global security risk now. Low
probability, but absolutely devastating if it happens.
Of particular concern is a scenario where tensions
escalate, and Indians decide to pre-empt a possible
Pakistani attack with a surprise attack. Casualties
measured in tens of millions.
And quite a few did protest, French for example
weren't exactly cheering. I do think however that the
Bush admin excuse that it is making the best out of a
bad situation isn't entirely without merit.
Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
