
World War Three, by Mistake - betolink
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/world-war-three-by-mistake
======
ekianjo
An article very much on the same line as the author's book (and recent movie)
on "Command and Control". A very good read by the way. On a side note, the
title is poorly chosen - if a nuclear exchange occurs, it's not World War III,
it's just "game over" for everyone. Even the few survivors would have a very
harsh time just to endure the nuclear winters, lack of energy, no medical
supplies and complete destruction of infrastructure and production capacities
- even simply finding places to live without massive radiation contamination
would be a serious challenge. I fear there would be _historian_ to recount
what would happen next.

~~~
themodelplumber
I thought nuclear winters were found to be a myth? (A minor point of course)

~~~
wwweston
How can they be a myth? Harsher winters from volcanic eruptions appear to be a
historical fact. Nuclear explosions can kick up a _huge_ storm of stuff into
the atmosphere -- that's part of their point. Multiple explosions, multiple
effects, likely similar enough to volcanic winters. Or worse, depending on the
breadth of the exchange.

And, of course, there's making massive amounts of the environment radioactive.

~~~
justin66
> Nuclear explosions can kick up a huge storm of stuff into the atmosphere --
> that's part of their point.

I've never read that. It's easy enough to do, but the (planned) usage of these
weapons (outside of hitting the enemy's heavily hardened targets on the
ground) tends to rely on airbursts.

I don't remember either side relying on nuclear winter strategically. The
logic of MAD is terrible enough to serve as a deterrent even without
maximizing dust in the atmosphere. I remember the disarmament advocates
warning of nuclear winter, and the warmongery types minimizing its liklihood.

~~~
intransigent
Well, the idea of global doomsday for all, beyond mere tactical retaliation,
is probably drawn from the media, with movies like Dr. Stangelove playing the
part of the primary narrative.

As to how much any world power has actually strategized and mobilized
resources toward such an end (deliberate global suicide that destroys both
sides by design) is likely to never be fully revealed, since it's a slightly
alarming idea.

Even so, some of the plans that _have_ been revealed really are quite
terrible. Bad enough, that the difference between deliberate and accidental
nuclear winters could be considered an argument that splits hairs.

------
conistonwater
I feel like there's a general puzzle here about statistics and decision
theory: if the penalty for basing a bad decision on a false alarm is so high,
does that mean that _every_ alarm should be treated as a false alarm? And in
that case, if you are resolved not to trust your sensors, what's the point of
installing sensors in the first place?

~~~
Jabbles
It's still more likely that you need to react given that the alarm has gone
off.

P(attack | alarm) >= P(attack)

Unless the alarm is literally random, or even anti-correlated with being
attacked. The alarm is still useful.

Remember that the penalty for missing a true alarm is possibly even worse that
reacting to a false alarm.

~~~
tachyonbeam
I'm not so sure about that. It's called "mutually assured destruction" for a
reason.

If you have an alarm, there is some probability that it's a false one. If the
US were to respond to a false alarm by say, nuking Russia, they could expect a
100% chance that Russia would retaliate. The retaliation would be extremely
severe if either the US or Russia gets nuked. You have to think that in
addition to all ground-based silos (some of which would definitely survive a
nuclear strike), there are stealth subs with nuclear capabilities going
around. Even if the US or Russia "lost" a nuclear war, these subs would be
there to exercise some kind of vengeance, and make sure that the other side is
destroyed as well.

If some alarm goes off and there is some chance that nukes are going to hit
the US, the safest course of action is probably to prepare to retaliate, but
wait as long as possible to confirm that there is an incoming nuclear strike.
This might even mean waiting to confirm that some US targets have been hit
before retaliating. You also should be pretty god-damn sure you know _who_
initiated that strike before you retaliate. China, for instance, has a limited
number of ICBMs. They couldn't destroy the US even if they wanted to. Russia,
on the other hand, could nuke the entire world multiple times.

~~~
arethuza
As an aside - worth noting that one of the UK's Trident submarines is actually
called HMS Vengeance:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(S31)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_\(S31\))

------
adventured
The shift back toward nationalism guarantees substantial new military
conflicts will arise in the next few decades. The only question is how serious
they'll be, not whether they'll happen. Nationalism vs globalism will come and
go in cycles; we've been rapidly heading into an obvious nationalism cycle.
That will see the raising of barriers, both physically and communication-wise
between nations, increasing the odds of misunderstanding. The Eurozone is
almost guaranteed to dissolve and it's likely the EU will struggle to retain
its former scope. Russia and China will be more aggressive about annexing
territory as the US pulls back from its formerly over-extended global military
reach. The net result will be increased security fears and chaos for most
other nations (not to mention greater military expenditures, which will damage
most European welfare states and push Japan to the edge financially). The
increase in nationalism is also guaranteed to result in a few new nuclear
powers being born out of security fear (Brazil, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are
three candidates).

~~~
arca_vorago
I don't buy this line of reasoning or thinking whatsoever.

I personally think it is the eroding of national sovereignty via supranational
oligarchical globalism falsely touted as utopic globalism that has created
these situations in the first place via blow-back piled on blow-back over
time.

Just because the British empire changed it's name to the "commonwealth"
doesn't make it less of an empire. It is the meddling in the affairs of state
of national governments that has created this instability, so don't try to
sell me on globalism as a solution, because it's the problem.

Now, don't misunderstand me, we do need to encourage more internationally
geared solutions, but only sovereign nation states can come to those
agreements through diplomacy. If you erode national sovereignty like the west
has been doing, it's no wonder the world is so destabalized. Of course, I have
sneaking suspicion that destabalization is sorta the point, but I digress.

Nationalism:

Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than
collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

~~~
orf
> The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than
> collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

And how exactly does that make any sense in an international world. If every
nation acted independently on their own goals then for example combating
climate change has no hope whatsoever.

An individual nation doesn't care if some random other one might have to bear
the brunt of climate change in the future, they want to look out for their
population with cheap dirty fuels right now. However that's pretty damn short
sighted.

Using arbitrary divisions of land carved up through seeming arbitrary medieval
processes and systems that no longer exist to each come to a different
conclusion on matters that effect the whole damn world doesn't make any sense
anymore. The world needs more corporation and compromise than ever before.

~~~
arca_vorago
Has it ever crossed your mind that given the global nature of certain things
such as climate change, rational actors in the sovereign nation states would
then conclude it is indeed in their best interests to cooperate
internationally on such issues while still maintaining their sovereignty?

I see this trite argument brought up far too often, that national borders are
so medieval... and don't make sense anymore.

I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to curse here, and I say that
because I want to convey how strongly I feel this line of thinking is foolish,
naive, and a complete misunderstanding of the history of governmental
structures throughout the modern history of the world and their impact on the
progression of human rights and other advances.

The American Revolution was and is a unique revolution throughout the ages,
one which established a unique government based on natural rights. I in no way
agree that such a structure, with rule of law based on those principles, is in
any way, shape, or form, "short-sighted" or "nonsensical". As a matter of
fact, if you were an American politician, the statement you have just made
would qualify you for removal from office and imprisonment and/or a fine,
under 5 U.S. Code § 7311.

I see though, you may be from Spain. I really do get tired of being lectured
on the dangers of nationalism by members of "constitutional" _monarchies_...
really an anecdotal point but I find it's true often enough to make a point of
it. Such governments have classically been opposed to nationalism for
completely different reasons, ones I find more truthful even today than the
proclaimed "we need to solve global issues" cliches. Such reasons usually
being that if they allowed sovereignty of nation-states it undermines their
global power positions!

"The world needs more corporation"

What an appropos freudian slip, for if we were to remove the nation-state from
the world stage, more (mega-supranational-)corporation is exactly what we
would get.

Now, one point of agreement. Yes, I am not disputing that the world needs more
cooperation on international issues, but to then turn around and use those
issues to advocate overthrowing the idea of sovereignty is a logically
fallacious reasoning, is callous and naive, and I can only imagine such
touting comes from the ivory tower of intellectuals, academics and other
insulated peoples who haven't experienced the stark reality of this world when
the sovereignty of nation states is violated.

In short, those who call for an end of nationalism fail to understand the
proper and right role of sovereignty in the apllication of the rule of law,
and in the ability for the people to affect their government.

So tell me, what would you propose to replace the nation-state with once you
toppled it down?

------
saycheese
Interesting to me how people fear nuclear power, but seem indifferent to the
threat of nuclear war.

While it's hard to know, given the degree of secrecy on the topic, once ran
across a reference to how what are now Russia's nuke systems could
automatically be triggered; if this is still true, in my opinion, this is
would be the most likely source of global thermonuclear war.

"Only way to win is not to play."

~~~
ErikVandeWater
"... or be on mars." -Elon

~~~
canadian_voter
Or how about we set up a Mars colony, and do all of our wars there? Seems
somehow appropriate. We can nuke the hell out of Mars and everyone on Earth
will be fine.

And what makes people think that in the event of global thermonuclear war that
Mars will escape unscathed? Absolute ridiculous nonsense. The solution here is
not to run away, it's to confront the problem directly.

I never understood how anyone could think that "Earth is so messed up, with so
many problems, it's just easier to colonize Mars." Earth is PERFECT for human
beings to live on. Let's make it work.

~~~
saycheese
* Earth as a singular point of failure is not optimal.

------
rrggrr
Is rhetoric the real problem, or is it nuclear proliferation? Schlosser's
book, which I've read and much admire, makes the point that nuclear
stewardship is insanely difficult. If the world is less safe its because where
there were once two nuclear powers, there are now between nine and twelve
depending whom you ask. Rhetoric is the least of the world's concerns when
countries which cannot build and maintain effective basic infrastructure are
engineering and maintaining nuclear stockpiles.

~~~
devoply
The world is not safe because we have not found a good ideology that makes the
world safe and does not cause or perpetuate conflict. Guns don't kill people,
people inspired by bad ideologies do.

~~~
mtberatwork
> Guns don't kill people, people inspired by bad ideologies do.

I suppose that's down to one's own interpretation. Some food for thought: the
!Kung tribe in Botswana credit the kill of an animal, not to the hunter, but
to the arrow maker.

~~~
devoply
If that was your understanding of the world you might spend all of your time
crafting your arrow to be just right. Rather than practicing to make sure that
as a hunter you can make the arrow hit the proper target. And then blame your
inability on your lack of finding the right sort of stone to make the arrow or
something as such. Your definition and understanding of the problem determines
the potential for solutions in finding solutions to the problem.

Similarly there are places in the United States where everyone is armed, and
yet very little violence happens. Maybe if everyone had all the nuclear
weapons they could want, no wars could ever happen again which would be a good
thing.

~~~
AbrahamParangi
What places were you thinking of? I was trying to find out what the actual
statistics were and my cursory search led me to this paper
[http://crimeresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-...](http://crimeresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf)

Highlight: _These analyses do not support the hypothesis that firearm
ownership deters violent firearm crime. Instead, this study shows that higher
levels of firearm ownership are associated with higher rates of firearm-
related violent crime._

I looked up the journal and it seems to be reputable
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Preventive...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Preventive_Medicine)),
but I don't read medical studies often so I can't _really_ tell.

~~~
devoply
I was thinking of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia)
where you are required to own and carry a gun, i.e. mandatory gun-possession
ordinance

In 2001, violent crime rates were about 60% below national and state rates.
Property crime rates were from 46-56% below national and state rates. From
1999 to 2011, Kennesaw crime statistics reported that both property and
violent crimes had decreased, though from 2003 to 2008 the trend in both
violent and property crime rates slightly increased.[21] The increase in crime
rate overall is attributed to the population growth rate of 37.41%. The
population growth rate is much higher than the state average rate of 18.34%
and is much higher than the national average rate of 9.71%.[22]

~~~
justin66
That ordnance is purely right-wing propaganda, it's not some kind of real
requirement (which would obviously be unconstitutional). "Further exempt from
the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or
who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or
religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony." In other words, do it
unless you don't want to.

------
helloworld
This part gave me a chill:

 _The Royal Navy’s decision to save money by using Windows for Submarines, a
version of Windows XP, as the operating system for its ballistic-missile subs
seems especially shortsighted._

Indeed!

~~~
tlb
Though the article seemed to suggest that using the latest-greatest fully-
patched auto-updating version would be better. I'm sure that would be far
worse. Especially against state actors who can corrupt the update channel.

An air-gapped hardened Windows XP with all the optional services turned off is
pretty robust.

~~~
rhizome
Any systems person worth their salary would turn off auto-update and
distribute fixes via e.g. GPO or other in-house system update process.

------
Animats
In some ways, the Soviet-era Perimetr system is a better solution. This is the
infamous "Dead Hand" launch system. It's intended to allow a second strike if
Moscow and the Russian general staff are both destroyed. It's normally on
standby. When activated in a crisis, which the USSR did at least once, it
provides a backup system to give launch authority to regional commanders if
sensors indicate a nuclear detonation at Moscow, loss of communication with
the usual launch authorities, and some amount of time has elapsed.

This removes the temptation to launch on warning in a crisis. The US lacks
that.

~~~
nickff
The USA had an equivalent system, but used a different approach; "Operation
Looking Glass" sent (hardened) command aircraft airborne 24/7 to provide
continual command and control capabilities to silos and submarines, even in
the event of a successful decapitation first strike.[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Looking_Glass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Looking_Glass)

------
coldcode
The only people who win in a worldwide nuclear exchange are the immediate
dead; everyone else loses. Why anyone in their right mind would even risk such
a thing is beyond crazy. I also wonder what the benefit of doubling your
nuclear capacity is if you already have enough to ensure worldwide destruction
several times over?

~~~
tlb
Having more weapons is a more effective deterrent against an enemy who thinks
he can destroy most of your weapons before launch.

Suppose country A estimates it can destroy 90% of country B's weapons before
launch in a first strike, and can spend $100B to get to 99%. It'd be highly
motivated to do so. But if country B doubles its number of weapons, it would
be beyond country A's resources to get to an acceptable level of destruction.

That's one of many dynamics that causes arms races to go far beyond one weapon
per target.

------
Pica_soO
Deep, deep down everyone, who is not in it for the power alone, knows that
there is a family he wants to go home too, and that the same goes for those on
the other side. And even if the other side would take that from you- to take
that, for forever- that is beyond insanity.

Humans will not use this weapons.

~~~
helloworld
I hope you're right, but I fear that nuclear weapons might someday be
available to fanatics who make very different moral calculations.

~~~
arethuza
Based on historical records of the Cold War I think I could argue that nuclear
weapons _were_ available to fanatics - fortunately they were kept at bay by
sensible political leadership!

 _" Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole
idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans
and one Russian left alive, we win!"_

That isn't from Dr Strangelove but an actual quote from General Power - head
of SAC at the time of the Cuban crisis.

------
laretluval
The lesson I take away from these incidents is that MAD is highly robust to
false positives.

------
paulpauper
_Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin confront a stark choice: begin another
nuclear-arms race or reduce the threat of nuclear war._

it would seem like the latter considering how close the two seem to be

