Quick fact check: atomic scientists cites this paper which claims 360 million deaths between Russia and the USA. That’s 75% of the current population. This pattern of unacceptable losses goes back, this source says 274 million dead in 1964, the USSR + USA population at that time was 417 million. So 65% in 1964.
You are correct that technically 25% of the population survive, and the prewar leadership could try to have their friends and family hide and they might survive.
Keep in mind that the distribution of losses won’t be even. A powerful nation requires a huge pool of specialists with unique skills that not everyone is trained in. Disproportionately more specialists will be killed, especially engineers and technicians and soldiers and so on. The survivors will likely miss skillsets and obviously all the distribution system to even allow prewar populations to exist is gone, so the survivors will likely be forced to flee to subsist as refugees in neighboring countries.
This outcome is the complete destruction of the military and economic power of the nation—even if everyone isn’t dead, there is going to be essentially no GDP and no means to resist outsiders doing whatever they want. That sounds like national suicide to me, what do you think?
Note also in a scenario of increasing tensions over AI, all the parties would be scaling their nuclear arsenals and preparing measures to continue to fight until the other party is annihilated. This would mean more deployed warheads probably on more forms of delivery vehicle that arms limitation treaties currently restrict. (like stealth cruise missiles)
Again, that some estimates are given in papers doesn’t mean they are even roughly correct. But if they are—then no, that scenario is not suicide. There are some nations now which have lower GDP per capita than USA had two centuries ago.
As for defense—well, that definitely wouldn’t be a problem. Who and why will be willing to invade a big and very poor country, leaders of which claim they still have some nukes in reserve?
Quick fact check: atomic scientists cites this paper which claims 360 million deaths between Russia and the USA. That’s 75% of the current population. This pattern of unacceptable losses goes back, this source says 274 million dead in 1964, the USSR + USA population at that time was 417 million. So 65% in 1964.
You are correct that technically 25% of the population survive, and the prewar leadership could try to have their friends and family hide and they might survive.
Keep in mind that the distribution of losses won’t be even. A powerful nation requires a huge pool of specialists with unique skills that not everyone is trained in. Disproportionately more specialists will be killed, especially engineers and technicians and soldiers and so on. The survivors will likely miss skillsets and obviously all the distribution system to even allow prewar populations to exist is gone, so the survivors will likely be forced to flee to subsist as refugees in neighboring countries.
This outcome is the complete destruction of the military and economic power of the nation—even if everyone isn’t dead, there is going to be essentially no GDP and no means to resist outsiders doing whatever they want. That sounds like national suicide to me, what do you think?
Note also in a scenario of increasing tensions over AI, all the parties would be scaling their nuclear arsenals and preparing measures to continue to fight until the other party is annihilated. This would mean more deployed warheads probably on more forms of delivery vehicle that arms limitation treaties currently restrict. (like stealth cruise missiles)
Again, that some estimates are given in papers doesn’t mean they are even roughly correct. But if they are—then no, that scenario is not suicide. There are some nations now which have lower GDP per capita than USA had two centuries ago.
As for defense—well, that definitely wouldn’t be a problem. Who and why will be willing to invade a big and very poor country, leaders of which claim they still have some nukes in reserve?