With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nuclear war is still very unlikely
I’m not sure that that is true. This superforecaster estimates a “4% chance Russia kills at least one person using a nuclear weapon before July 1”. And before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the best estimates I was able to find (EA community; mix of historical evidence, expert surveys and superforecasters) were in the ballpark of 1⁄100 to 1/1000.
I am particularly concerned about Putin’s (old and well-known) phrase ”… we as martyrs will go to heaven, and they will just die”, given that he goes to church, and will most likely consider himself a rightist/martyr in any case.
Good point. I find it somewhat concerning. Although my read is that, to a large extent, it is some sort of fake belief. If eternal bliss was his true anticipated experience, I’d expect him to act differently in a lot of cases.
It seems like you’re comparing one person’s estimate, which is selected for being high, with historical consensus estimates?
I also probably didn’t phrase this very well: while I said “nuclear war”, the post is really about what sort of preparation is it makes sense for individuals well away from Ukraine to make, and what I’m trying to get at is that I think it is still very unlikely that people like that (ex: me) will be impacted by nuclear weapons.
The way I’m thinking about it, it is true that the 4% estimate is just one person and is selected for being high. But then the historical consensus estimates are in a similar ballpark, and are not taking into account current events, and the 4% estimate was made by a reliable person (superforecaster), so given current events, the 4% estimate seems reasonable to me. Still, we can be conservative and assume it is a bit lower, say 1%.
From there you can figure that the chances of eg. the US being affected are less than this 1% number, but how much less? You can ask the question of how likely any nuclear attack by Russia will mean/escalate into the US being attacked. I haven’t researched this specifically, but just guessing, it seems unlikely that it’d be less than 10%. So maybe something like a 0.1% chance of the US being attacked?
I think you’re mixing up “very unlikely” and “very impactful”. I think you can still make the point that a small probability of a huge negative impact is enough to make different decisions than you normally would’ve.
I actually disagree. Thinking about a raw number like 0.1%, what determines whether it is considered big or small? I think the answer is the context. 0.1% is small if we’re talking about the chances that a restaurant gets your order wrong, but big if we’re talking about the chances that you win the lottery, I think.
You’re right. Some people use it to mean “larger than base rates”, and this case, you’re arguing that the chance of nuclear war affecting the US is much larger than it was.
I’m not sure that that is true. This superforecaster estimates a “4% chance Russia kills at least one person using a nuclear weapon before July 1”. And before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the best estimates I was able to find (EA community; mix of historical evidence, expert surveys and superforecasters) were in the ballpark of 1⁄100 to 1/1000.
I am particularly concerned about Putin’s (old and well-known) phrase ”… we as martyrs will go to heaven, and they will just die”, given that he goes to church, and will most likely consider himself a rightist/martyr in any case.
Good point. I find it somewhat concerning. Although my read is that, to a large extent, it is some sort of fake belief. If eternal bliss was his true anticipated experience, I’d expect him to act differently in a lot of cases.
It seems like you’re comparing one person’s estimate, which is selected for being high, with historical consensus estimates?
I also probably didn’t phrase this very well: while I said “nuclear war”, the post is really about what sort of preparation is it makes sense for individuals well away from Ukraine to make, and what I’m trying to get at is that I think it is still very unlikely that people like that (ex: me) will be impacted by nuclear weapons.
The way I’m thinking about it, it is true that the 4% estimate is just one person and is selected for being high. But then the historical consensus estimates are in a similar ballpark, and are not taking into account current events, and the 4% estimate was made by a reliable person (superforecaster), so given current events, the 4% estimate seems reasonable to me. Still, we can be conservative and assume it is a bit lower, say 1%.
From there you can figure that the chances of eg. the US being affected are less than this 1% number, but how much less? You can ask the question of how likely any nuclear attack by Russia will mean/escalate into the US being attacked. I haven’t researched this specifically, but just guessing, it seems unlikely that it’d be less than 10%. So maybe something like a 0.1% chance of the US being attacked?
Isn’t that “very unlikely”?
Given that we’re talking a substantial nuclear attack, I wouldn’t say so.
I would call that something like “very unlikely but still worth thinking about due to the severity”, hence this post
I think you’re mixing up “very unlikely” and “very impactful”. I think you can still make the point that a small probability of a huge negative impact is enough to make different decisions than you normally would’ve.
I actually disagree. Thinking about a raw number like 0.1%, what determines whether it is considered big or small? I think the answer is the context. 0.1% is small if we’re talking about the chances that a restaurant gets your order wrong, but big if we’re talking about the chances that you win the lottery, I think.
You’re right. Some people use it to mean “larger than base rates”, and this case, you’re arguing that the chance of nuclear war affecting the US is much larger than it was.