The cold war was very bad, but in my opinion the risk is still high and growing. The Petrov incident was just one of many close calls that have been publicly disclosed during the short time nuclear weapons have existed.
- Vasily Arkhipov was a Soviet submarine flotilla commander in charge of a submersed fleet that was being bombarded by depth charges from US navel ships. A captain on one of the subs thought war had broken out and wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo. Vasily thought the bombardment was a signal for the submarines to surface. He was right, a ceasefire had been announced and the warships were dropping practice depth charges to try and signal the submarines should surface and communicate. link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov_(vice_admiral)...
- Boris Yeltsin sat in front of an activated nuclear briefcase because Soviet radar detected an inbound US nuclear missile. The launch location and trajectory matched a war game scenerio of the US detonating a nuclear missile in the atmosphere, causing an EMP to wipe out Soviet electronics. His military officers wanted him to launch a counter attack and he only had minutes to decide. Turned out to be a missile launched to study atmospheric conditions. The Soviets were notified, as were other nations, but the message didn't get to all forces due to the internal strife and collapse the USSR was undergoing. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
- A computer simulation of an incoming Soviet nuclear attack was accidentally fed into NORADs network. Everyone thought it was real. The National Security Advisor was awakened by a call and almost called the President, but was luckily able to determine it wasn't real. Link - https://gizmodo.com/the-computer-simulation-that-almost-star...
There is a whole list of other incidents. Yes, many of them occurred during the cold war. They seem to have slowed down as time goes on, maybe nations are just better at covering things up. You still have incidents like in Hawaii, where residents were notified of an incoming ballistic missile from North Korea and that it WAS NOT a drill.
Turned out to be a drill...(or was it)?
The number of nuclear weapons worldwide has decreased, but proliferation has increased. Think of each nuclear capable nation as a node in a weighted graph. Each node is connected to every other node. The weight is the probability of conflict between the two nodes. Each time a node is added, risk goes up (proliferation). You can have dramatic changes in foreign and domestic policy, risk goes up (US politics anyone?). You can have long standing animosity between countries (India/Pakistan), risk goes up. You can have new animosities (India/China), risk goes up. There can be just plain system bugs or miscommunication as illustrated in the examples listed above.
Now throw in the ramifications of climate change like political instability, infrastructure strain, resource scarcity, and refugee migrations into the mix. Or a truly mad guy with a nuke. We haven't had large scale war for a long time, but as countries deal with internal pressures and external competition for resources and global standing, the risk is never off the table.
I would says the risks are still high today and are rising.
Threads is a very good movie. Potential viewers should know that it's old and the special effects have not held up well, but it very much captures the terror of nuclear conflict quite well.
In the short period of time we have had access to nuclear weapons, we have come very close to nuclear war between superpowers:
* Cuban Missile Crisis - Vasili Arkhipov Prevents launching of nuclear torpedo while his Soviet submarine flotilla is being bombarded by depth charges (happened to be signaling depth charges). Turns out the US warships above them just wanted the submarines to surface so they could communicate the end of hostilities.
* Computer Malfunction - Stanislav Petrov Holds off alerting officials of multiple incoming nuclear ICBMs because he "suspected" they were a glitch, preventing a likely nuclear counter-attack.
* Science experiment looks like nuclear attack - Boris Yeltsin correctly decides to wait launching a counter-attack based on an incoming rocket. All the while sitting in front of an activated nuclear briefcase and being pressured by aids to launch within the 12 minute response window. The rocket was meant for atmospheric testing.
There are many, many more.
Proliferation means more and more nation states have access to nuclear weapons. Balancing peace amongst all those nations can be difficult (look at India and Pakistan). Countries with existing nuclear stockpiles can undergo dramatic shifts in leadership and policy (US politics anyone?).
We also have 7.5+ billion people on the planet, consuming more resources than ever, on a planet with a finite amount of things.
Now throw in the further ramifications of climate change like political instability, infrastructure strain, resource scarcity, and refugee migrations into the mix. Or a truly mad guy with a nuke.
There are way too many people out there that are crazy optimistic that we aren't going to have a nuclear war...ever. We have always had warfare, and when the shit hits the fan, armies have always used the biggest weapons they have had.
Nuclear weapons may very well be our great filter.
> In the short period of time we have had access to nuclear weapons, we have come very close to nuclear war between superpowers:
And yet virtually every scenario is resolved in the same way: there's no reason that the other side would declare a surprise nuclear war, so the evidence I have of this fact is probably misinterpreted. That's not exactly luck, but people interpreting (and making) policy rationally. Which is why irrational political leaders are so god-damn terrifying.
We haven't had a global pandemic in over 100 years and yet here we are.
Countries have nuclear weapons and the global community has to get it right every single day to avoid nuclear war.
I'm hoping it doesn't happen, but the lack of precedent doesn't mean nuclear war cannot happen. If we needed precedent for something to occur, we never would have a "first" of anything, and history is littered with firsts.
But here's hoping. Did I mention I'm great at parties?
This reminds me of a very fun and interesting read called "A Short Stay in Hell" by Steven Peck, which provides an entertaining perspective on infinity and very, very large finite time periods. It's about a Mormon who goes to hell (because Zoroastrianism happens to be the One True Religion). Hell does not last forever though. For the main character, it's a library that contains every possible communication that could exist. Once he finds the book that contains the story of his life, he gets out. Very fun read that addresses large but finite values, although it focuses more on time rather than space.
I'm not surprised. 7+ billion people on the planet and growing, some of whom enjoy the highest standard of living ever which requires more and more resources. Those not enjoying the high life want it. Climate change is and will continue to place ever increasing stresses on modern societies. From damage to coastal cities (where most humans live), problems growing crops due to weather changes, and water scarcity - the things we need to live in the manner we are accustomed to are becoming rarer as there are more and more of us living on the planet.
And then there are nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is introducing new actors that must be accounted for when trying to prevent nuclear war. Existing actors can experience a significant change in leadership, policy, and direction - take a look at recent US politics as an example of this. You can imagine maintaining nuclear peace as a weighted graph, with every nuclear state as a node, with vertices to every other node. The graph will only continue to grow over time and the weights can change, sometimes drastically. It just becomes more unstable over time due to the strain of nationalism, climate change, and nuclear proliferation. Then throw in miscommunication and computer glitches into the nuclear mix - events like the Cuban Missile crisis and Vasili Arkhipov, Stanislav Petrov in the 1980s, Boris Yeltsin and the Norwegian Rocket Incident, and unfortunately many others. The risk of large scale nuclear conflict is only growing. Yes, I'm aware of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and how as a policy it has helped us so far. But MAD is less effective for smaller nation states and rogue groups (who will more easily obtain materials and know-how over time), it works until it doesn't. And MAD does nothing for the miscommunication and computer glitch scenarios I have provided. It's not a magical blanket that will protect us from the consequences of having nuclear weapons.
Sorry for the rant. I think this will be our Great Filter. I hope I'm wrong.
Don't be sorry for the rant: the current state of things seems dire, and your opinion is shared by some.
I have a friend that hopes there will be war, since we cannot sustain so many humans on the planet.. While I don't want this outcome for moral and idealist reasons, it does seem like a it will be a viable solution in the long run for the species.
I keep thinking about the paper on deep adaptation agenda from a researcher in sustainable development [1], saying climate change is already haywire, and that we will see a societal collapse. As a citizen, I don't even know where to begin with this information. I bet I'm not alone. Based on the premises the author makes, on the current situation on climate change and the lack of action to assess them, it seems the stress will be immense on our society, hence the collapse. I just hope we make it.
Who knows what the actual number is. Now throw in the ramifications of climate change like political instability, infrastructure strain, resource scarcity, and refugee migrations into the mix. Not blowing ourselves up will really be a challenge, something we as a species have to get right every single day...forever. Let's hope it's not our Great Filter.
I completely agree that it is amazing we have not blown ourselves up yet. Unfortunately, the risk of a nuclear exchange is only rising...
stress of climate change + 7 billion people + human nature == war (very possibly nuclear)
Nuclear weapons have proliferated from just the US having access, then to only a few super powers, to now 8 or 9 countries. That list will only go up over time, not down. The weaponization of nuclear technology is the first time our species created something that is outright able to kill us all (or most of us).
In the short period of time we have had access to nuclear weapons, we have come very close to nuclear war between superpowers:
* Cuban Missile Crisis - Vasili Arkhipov prevents launching of nuclear torpedo while his Soviet submarine flotilla is being bombarded by depth charges (happened to be signaling depth charges). Turns out the US warships above them just wanted the submarines to surface so they could communicate the end of hostilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
* Computer Malfunction - Stanislav Petrov holds off alerting officials of multiple incoming nuclear ICBMs because he "suspected" they were a glitch, preventing a likely nuclear counter-attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
* Science experiment looks like nuclear attack - Boris Yeltsin correctly decides to wait launching a counter-attack based on an incoming rocket. All the while sitting in front of an activated nuclear briefcase and being pressured by aids to launch within the 12 minute response window. The rocket was meant for atmospheric testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
* Many, many more... (your example just being one)
Now throw in the ramifications of climate change like political instability, infrastructure strain, resource scarcity, and refugee migrations into the mix.
You have to take a look at percentage market moves. The markets have been moving up for a long time. A 1000 point drop when the market is at 26,000 is not the same as a 1000 point drop when the market is at 16,000.
The Dow 10K (let alone 20K) still takes getting used to for me -- I remember figures around 4000 in my childhood. ... at which point a 1000-point drop would have been seen as much more significant.
Edit: although apparently I'm remembering a slightly later era than I thought.
This is a very interesting topic to me, so much so I wrote a small sci-fi novella called Assiyah Rising that addresses this very topic. It's set in the modern day, but it contains historical flashbacks to Vasili Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov, two men who prevented large scale nuclear wars. Disturbingly, those were just two instances in a long list of near nuclear disasters that happened during the short period of time we have had nuclear weapons.
If anyone is interested, you can get the book on Amazon for a buck or you can download for free on Smashwords. It should be a quick and easy read.
- Vasily Arkhipov was a Soviet submarine flotilla commander in charge of a submersed fleet that was being bombarded by depth charges from US navel ships. A captain on one of the subs thought war had broken out and wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo. Vasily thought the bombardment was a signal for the submarines to surface. He was right, a ceasefire had been announced and the warships were dropping practice depth charges to try and signal the submarines should surface and communicate. link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov_(vice_admiral)...
- Boris Yeltsin sat in front of an activated nuclear briefcase because Soviet radar detected an inbound US nuclear missile. The launch location and trajectory matched a war game scenerio of the US detonating a nuclear missile in the atmosphere, causing an EMP to wipe out Soviet electronics. His military officers wanted him to launch a counter attack and he only had minutes to decide. Turned out to be a missile launched to study atmospheric conditions. The Soviets were notified, as were other nations, but the message didn't get to all forces due to the internal strife and collapse the USSR was undergoing. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
- A computer simulation of an incoming Soviet nuclear attack was accidentally fed into NORADs network. Everyone thought it was real. The National Security Advisor was awakened by a call and almost called the President, but was luckily able to determine it wasn't real. Link - https://gizmodo.com/the-computer-simulation-that-almost-star...
There is a whole list of other incidents. Yes, many of them occurred during the cold war. They seem to have slowed down as time goes on, maybe nations are just better at covering things up. You still have incidents like in Hawaii, where residents were notified of an incoming ballistic missile from North Korea and that it WAS NOT a drill.
Turned out to be a drill...(or was it)?
The number of nuclear weapons worldwide has decreased, but proliferation has increased. Think of each nuclear capable nation as a node in a weighted graph. Each node is connected to every other node. The weight is the probability of conflict between the two nodes. Each time a node is added, risk goes up (proliferation). You can have dramatic changes in foreign and domestic policy, risk goes up (US politics anyone?). You can have long standing animosity between countries (India/Pakistan), risk goes up. You can have new animosities (India/China), risk goes up. There can be just plain system bugs or miscommunication as illustrated in the examples listed above.
Now throw in the ramifications of climate change like political instability, infrastructure strain, resource scarcity, and refugee migrations into the mix. Or a truly mad guy with a nuke. We haven't had large scale war for a long time, but as countries deal with internal pressures and external competition for resources and global standing, the risk is never off the table.
I would says the risks are still high today and are rising.