Putting a percentage on the possibility of a nuclear disaster can be daunting – like you’re jotting down massive amounts of human suffering on a spreadsheet. “I think what people don’t like about this is that people are thinking about the impossible,” Spieghalter said. But confronting the unthinkable is inevitable if we are to reduce the risk of nuclear war now and in the future. Anders Sandberg, who studies risk at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, said: “The risk of nuclear war is probably much higher than we would like to assume. If we know how different factors contribute to the probability of a nuclear explosion, we can begin to think of ways that can reduce some of those risks.
Take accidents as an example. In 1981, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a 32 . count report known accident related to nuclear weapons. In March 1958, an unarmed nuclear-armed B-47 bomber accidentally dropped its bombs over South Carolina. The bomb exploded in someone’s garden, destroying their home and blowing up a crater 50 feet in diameter. In that case, the bomb contained no nuclear material, but four years later, two nuclear bombs many times more powerful than the one detonated in Hiroshima were accidentally dropped from a flying B-52 bomber. via Goldsboro, North Carolina. One of the weapons was shattered, and a portion containing uranium sank into flooded farmland and was never recovered. The other bomb went through all but one of its weapon mechanics — an accidental explosion was Just one more step. After the accident, the US added new safety devices to its weapons and encouraged the Soviet Union to do the same.
The history of nuclear accidents tells us that one way we can reduce the risk of disaster occurring is to build weapons that are much less likely to accidentally explode. We can apply a bit of the same thinking to future situations to figure out where risk could escalate. Samotsvety forecasters estimate that if tactical weapons were released in Ukraine, that would increase the risk of someone in London dying from a nuclear attack by about 10 times – at that point, Leaving the city can be a very sensible decision. Swift Center forecasters have broken down their predictions into a series of steps, looking at how the risk of nuclear conflict could change depending on the cities the Ukrainian military manages to regain. Most of their forecasters think that if Russia intends to use nuclear weapons it will do so before Ukraine recaptures Mariupol, but if Russia does not use nuclear weapons before that time, the possibility capacity will not do so then. Examining these ramifications can help us know where to focus our risk reduction efforts.
Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, some of Sandberg’s friends began asking him if they should move out of London. He gave a quick model of how he thinks war might break out. At the time, he was very worried about Ukraine’s chances of holding out against Russia, and therefore concluded that the risk to London was extremely low. Among the possible outcomes in front of him, what he feared was the escalating war. “If you end up in that branch, then the risk goes up a bit.” That is the path we are on, Anders said, but there are still plenty of options for future analysis, including a negotiated deal, a change of Russian leadership or pressure on Russia from its allies. Key. Currently the probability of a nuclear war is very low, but the possibility of such destruction even being very low is very, very high.
Even if we face a small risk of a giant tragedy, Sandberg says, we can still do it. “Many people are feeling extremely depressed right now. I think that’s the wrong response. You want to be proactive if there is a crisis. You really want to take helpful and maybe even small steps, like getting to know your neighbors.” If the worst happens, then you should ask the people close to you to lean on. And if that doesn’t happen – which is the more likely case – it’s a good idea to get to know your neighbors anyway. You may need them for the next crisis.
