We Will Not All Die in a Nuclear War

With a flash of light that blinded every animal within miles, the earth liquified and the sea rose to more than a mile high. The molten earth rose higher than the ocean waves, reaching into the stratosphere before crashing back down and scattering thousands of screaming meteors from what is now New York to Beijing. The Chicxulub impactor, which struck the earth 66 million years ago off the coast of what is now the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, spread a thick layer of dust through the atmosphere, blocking out the sun everywhere and killing virtually all vegetation on the planet. Those creatures that were unlucky enough to survive the earthquakes, tsunamis, and rock showers of the soon starved to death.

?For over 75 years, humans have held the technology to cause destruction on the scale of the Cretaceous–Paleogene Extinction.

In the legendary 1946 New Yorker article entitled simply, “Hiroshima,” John Hersey describes a local account of what a small nuclear explosion looks like. This account was from possibly the only doctor in the entire city who was left uninjured by the bomb.

?Many were naked or in shreds of clothing. On some … bodies, the burns had made patterns—of undershirt straps and suspenders and, on the skin of some women (since white repelled the heat from the bomb and dark clothes absorbed it and conducted it to the skin), the shapes of Flowers they had had on their kimonos… Almost all had their heads bowed, looked straight ahead, were silent, and showed no expression whatever.[1]

?Those in suburbs far from the center of the blast saw a flash of light and looked curiously into the site of the explosion as one does on a distant lightening strike. The thunder of the blast reached the suburbs a minute later, carrying the bodies of onlookers far off into the fields surrounding the city.

“Little Boy,” the name of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was a fledgling technology that would seem laughably weak to the nuclear scientists of the 1950s. Bombs that were subsequently developed have up to 80 times the strength of Little Boy. Just a few hundred of these new bombs would leave few survivors. ?

?Our world leaders understand this. While nuclear power is dangerously held by less predictable leaders, such as Kim Jung Un, foreign policy experts believe that the greatest threat to humanity lies in superpower conflicts between relatively emotionally stable leaders. North Korea doesn't have the capacity to end life on earth. But the belief that there will be a larger nuclear conflict, a belief which is somewhat prevalent among foreign policy experts, has led some reasonable and brilliant people to say that the End of Days is near.

?The linguist turned political philosopher, Noam Chomsky, summarizes the views of many foreign policy experts well in stating that a war between the US and China would end all possibility of organized life on earth.[2] He also points out that Putin would resort to the use of a nuclear bomb before losing the war with Ukraine. By this, he means that Putin must win at least some territory other than Crimea.

?The scary logic of inevitable nuclear conflict is simple. Perverse, lose-lose, incentives mean both that nations race to obtain nuclear weapons. Although virtually none of the 8 billion people on earth one wants nuclear weapons to exist, every leader understands that they are the only reliable way to maintain their sovereignty in the face of a foreign threat that possesses them. It is an unintended consequence of perverse incentives, a lose-lose scenario, what Allen Ginsberg and some contemporary philosophers refer to as "Moloch."

?The United States has historically been aggressive in foreign affairs, entering hundreds of foreign conflicts since the founding of the nation. Few of these could reasonably justified when weighting the massive suffering and loss of life caused by entering a conflict against economic or political objectives, like ensuring the stability of petroleum markets or halting the spread of (in the cases of Chile and Guatemala, fully democratic) communism.?

Many foreign policy observers feel that it is unlikely that the US would walk away from a catastrophic loss in a conflict with China without resorting to the use of atomic weapons. While China has historically been less aggressive and more risk averse, it is equally unlikely, they argue, that China would accept a catastrophic loss that required concessions. Moreover, according to a report released this week from the Center for a New American Security, China has a lot more to gain from strategic nuclear strikes at sea than the US. They argue that the threshold for nuclear action even by a more cautious actor could end in tragedy.

But it would take an all out nuclear war to end humanity, and game theorists don't believe that this will happen. Here are some observations. You decide how much credence they have.

First, we have seen conflicts between nuclear armed powers before. One may view Nixon as one of the most power-hungry monsters to ever enter the Oval Office or as a noble leader who chose to lose a conventional war rather than initiate a nuclear one. Whatever his motives, he did receive significant pressure to use nuclear weapons from right-wing members of his cabinet.

Second, it if comes to it, a limited nuclear strike would be devastating, but it would be unlikely to be escalated. In the film Dr. Strangelove, Stanly Kubrick, Thomas Schelling, and Peter George imagine power hungry men dealing with an accidental bombing of the Soviet Union. They imagine men willing to destroy humanity so long as they will be locked in a shelter with young women and endless food. In their dark comedy, repopulating the earth with their genes was reason enough to love the bomb. But outside of this fictional scenario, Schelling, a renown game theorist, finds that brinkmanship, rather than full war, is a much more likely outcome between superpowers than full out conflict.

What their collaboration on Dr Strangelove does show, though, is how little mistakes can lead to nuclear accidents.

An accident can happen the old fashioned way. In 1961, a B-52 Stratofortress broke apart over North Carolina, dropping two 3.8 megaton bombs on the state (that didn’t explode). With many nations holding nuclear weapons, including less resourced North Korea, India, and Pakistan, the risk of an accidental detonation is real.

An accident can also happen with brinkmanship gone wrong. With two nations on alert, it is difficult to tell whether a missile is conventional or nuclear. Smaller ("tactical") weapons this size of Little Boy can also be used to destroy war theater assets, and these could trigger a larger response.

As the number of nuclear armed nations grow the threat of a nuclear detonation, whether accidental or in the context of a conventional conflict, grows. Chomsky and others feel that deliberate detonations, to deter concessions during a loss in a conventional war, are inevitable.

But that scenario portends a public health disaster rather than a mass extinction event. Limited nuclear warfare will mostly have horrific but local impacts. When that accident or explosion happens, as it likely eventually will, it will produce so much unimaginable horror that nuclear weapons might not again pose a threat for another 75 years.

Such a disaster would be tragic, and could happen anywhere in the world. It would be on the scale of the Iraq-US wars in the 1990s and 2000s. The Watson Institute estimates a half million people died and many more were maimed widowed and orphaned, as a result of the 2003 invasion alone.[3] Possibly millions died when one accounts for the first war, the sanctions that followed, and the rippling conflicts. For whatever reason, we tend to discount the horrors of conventional war. (The firebombing of Tokyo left roughly as many people dead as Hiroshima, but it is an event of which most people have forgotten to history.)

In 1985, the Nobel Prize went to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War for reminding us of the consequences of nuclear war. Since then, we have become complacent even as risks of nuclear detonations have increased.

Nuclear war is terrifying and history altering, but conventional war is equally destructive. When a bomb goes off, and one likely will, we probably won't all die. Here is to hoping that you are not there when it does.

References

1.???? Available online at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima. Accessed August 29, 2024.

2.???? Online interview with Lex Fridman. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uHGlfeCBbE Accessed August 29, 2024

3. Available online at: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi Accessed August 29, 2024.

Scary footnote: In my personal view, the most dangerous of pathways to annihilation is through the use of tactical weapons in a theater of war. In that context, the destruction happens to military personnel and hardware, and no one films it, so no one sees it on YouTube or TikTok. This scenario could reduce outrage and normalize nuclear weapons, leading to escalation.

One other possibility is that one nation without a nuclear triad attempts to completely neutralize another with a surprise strike. This scenario will become increasingly plausible as nations like North Korea grow their arsenals.