I’m not at all well-calibrated enough to evaluate your probabilities. They feel sensible to me, but good forecasters seem to give much lower probabilities, so I think they might be right. A naive alternative would be to just evenly spread it out by the number of options, so maybe 1⁄6 for transitioning to kaboom, 1⁄5 for transitioning to expansion, and 1⁄5 for transitioning to KABOOM, leading to 0.7% probability.
On the other hand, there’s probably a ton of correlations in the probabilities for each step. If the nations involved are more inclined to escalations, then all of the steps become more likely. The sort of probabilities I gave above become terribly inaccurate in reductionistic models if the correlations are not correctly modelled. So I would wonder what effects the correlations have; presumably they would raise the probability a lot up from 0.7%.
Overall I would like to see more evaluation of the risk of imminent global nuclear war.
Two thoughts:
I’m not at all well-calibrated enough to evaluate your probabilities. They feel sensible to me, but good forecasters seem to give much lower probabilities, so I think they might be right. A naive alternative would be to just evenly spread it out by the number of options, so maybe 1⁄6 for transitioning to kaboom, 1⁄5 for transitioning to expansion, and 1⁄5 for transitioning to KABOOM, leading to 0.7% probability.
On the other hand, there’s probably a ton of correlations in the probabilities for each step. If the nations involved are more inclined to escalations, then all of the steps become more likely. The sort of probabilities I gave above become terribly inaccurate in reductionistic models if the correlations are not correctly modelled. So I would wonder what effects the correlations have; presumably they would raise the probability a lot up from 0.7%.
Overall I would like to see more evaluation of the risk of imminent global nuclear war.