
How an 89-year-old cold warrior became America’s nuclear conscience - smacktoward
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/william-perry-nuclear-weapons-proliferation-214604
======
okreallywtf
I feel it is worth point out some of the terrifying close calls [1] that we've
had in the last decades with nuclear weapons. Some people are so sure that
because personal experience indicates that it hasn't happened that that is any
indications of its likelihood of happening. By all accounts we have this man
[2] to thank for at least one of those incidents not resulting in total
nuclear apocalypse.

[1] [http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/hair-trigger-
alert/clo...](http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/hair-trigger-alert/close-
calls#.WG-0mfkrJhE)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)

~~~
antisthenes
> Some people are so sure that because personal experience indicates that it
> hasn't happened that that is any indications of its likelihood of happening.

Nope, that's not it. People aren't worrying about it because it's emotionally
costly to worry and the optimal strategy for emotional well-being is
ignorance.

While it's true that the consequences of a nuclear apocalypse are much more
dire on a global scale, the personal consequences are indistinguishable from a
car crash, plane crash or...if we wanted to include a natural disaster, death
from a dam failure or a volcanic eruption.

If a typical person worried about every possible way to die today, no matter
how minute, that would truly be a miserable experience. Besides, in the case
of nuclear apocalypse it is literally impossible to adopt a strategy that
minimizes your chances of death in the case it actually occurs, barring moving
to the middle of nowhere and digging yourself a deep personal bunker.

So the only reasonable strategy is to ignore it entirely, in which case the
likelihood of it happening is irrelevant.

~~~
okreallywtf
>Nope, that's not it.

I think you are right mostly, its probably more that than anything but I do
think people allow a very limited observational ability to give them a feeling
for how likely something is, despite the fact that they cannot really
internally measure it at all just based on the facts they observe in daily
life. I think people use a similar reasoning to assume Trump (or anyone else)
could ever be a serious threat to our democracy simply because things "never
seem to change" no matter who is in power, which I think is equally
irrational.

>So the only reasonable strategy is to ignore it entirely

I think that is pretty overkill, to me the only reasonable strategy is to take
what actions you reasonably can (be aware of what is going on in the world,
communicate your concerns to your representatives, not elect a madman who
talks about nuclear weapons as if they were a nerf gun) and then you can only
sit back and relax. Electing someone who expresses a desire to use nuclear
weapons is a pretty direct way to have control over whether they are used (and
subsequently destroy the world), so nobody can pretend that they have no
control over it.

------
tartuffe78
I'd say because of desensitization to a world (apparently) in constant crisis.

~~~
cableshaft
This. The news has tried to make us panic about literally everything for
decades now, and it's getting a little tiring to be afraid or outraged of
something 24/7\. It's the Two Minutes Hate, stretched out to all day long,
provided by the media, not the government.

------
saboot
I encourage everyone concerned about nuclear weapon safety to watch the Jan 10
premiere of the documentary version of Eric Schlosser's book "Command and
Control"

[http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/](http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/)

~~~
arethuza
Interesting coincidence that the one place it has been shown in the UK was
Sheffield:

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

------
6stringmerc
I'm not terrified because I don't think Bill Perry is really terrified either,
in his own words from the article:

> _“I do not think it is a probability this year or next year or anytime in
> the foreseeable future. But the consequence is so great, we have to take it
> seriously. And there are things to greatly lower those possibilities that
> we’re simply not doing.”_

A nuclear catastrophe, statistically, poses a much lower risk to my well being
than tornado season. Also occasional flash flooding, especially while driving.
Oh, and extremely dry summers with little rain that make for wildfire
conditions. Also, there's heat stroke if I'm being active...I guess what I
mean is I do believe, deep down, that there are people who genuinely care and
will work on such serious matters.

Serious people who take things seriously. I applaud them and hope my tax
dollars support them appropriately, public and/or private sector. Sort of like
geologists working to study the devastating potential of fault lines or
volcanic activity. After seeing what extreme weather can do, and how resilient
the US population seems to be, I'm honestly grateful to not have to have "Duck
and Cover" as part of my everyday psyche.

~~~
kevin_nisbet
I'm not sure that I entirely agree with this assessment.

One of the very interesting things I got out of reading Command And Control by
Eric Schlosser, was the number of very severe accidents that have happened in
the US in the handling of nuclear weapons. While probably somewhat overstated,
to me it basically makes a case that the US is lucky it hasn't nuked itself by
accident (and some of the stories told in that book are incredible, I enjoyed
that book).

Also, some of the stories make the case about how abysmal the care and
prudence was around handling these weapons, such as the reluctance for years
to even put codes on the weapons, or when they were forced to, setting every
code to 0000. While I do believe the attitude may have changed, I don't know
that it's prudent to put unwavering faith into the people handling these arms,
based on what's told in this book.

While I don't want to say you suffer from this, I've seen what I believe to be
a miss-allocation of risk in some of the engineering roles I've worked at.
What I mean by this, is that because an event hasn't happened, or hasn't
happened recently, that we believe the risk has changed. I've literally been
part of a discussion on why do we need backups, because we've never restored
from one.

If I understand correctly, this was the sort of philosophy that led to the
challenger explosion, we launched the rocket before and it didn't explode, so
why would it happen this time. To me, this is a fallacy of risk, previous
events or recent history don't change the risk.

So while you're right, the risk that a nuclear accident happens, compared to a
tornado or flooding happening is much different, doesn't mean that a nuclear
accident won't happen. I also highly suspect, that if a nuclear armed country
accidentally nukes itself, it would grip the world in a much different way
than any tornado or flood. And may change your well-being in very dramatic
way's, especially if one doesn't realize it was even an accident to begin
with.

edit: minor grammatical mistakes

~~~
acqq
The details about the zeroes:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-
for-u...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-
was-00000000-for-20-years/)

"Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years"

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-
nuk...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuke-launch-
code-was-never-00000000/)

So it was not actually eight zeros (or four) but apparently 6 zeroes (000000)
and effectively the "key under the doormat" (in the safe with the key in the
same base as the rocket, the opposite of what was claimed then). The procedure
was more complex than just keying in zeroes, but everything was surely trained
on the rehearsals.

Now, imagine somebody just and only once forgets to apply the "it's just a
rehearsal" command.

What's the "acceptable" probability some city being successfully targeted,
even only and just once, especially knowing that it can trigger the
retaliation?

The logic of the nuclear war is: "if the rockets come to you, you have to send
yours to them, because otherwise they won!" \-- they think it's better that
the civilization gets wiped out than to appear to be a "chicken." Even a kind
of semi-automated response surely exists.

~~~
Jarwain
>The logic of the nuclear war is: "if the rockets come to you, you have to
send yours to them, because otherwise they won!" \-- they think it's better
that the civilization gets wiped out than to appear to be a "chicken." Even a
kind of semi-automated response surely exists.

Isn't the idea behind Mutually Assured Destruction not some ego battle, but a
deterrent? If nuking another country definitely results in one's own country
being nuked, that provides a clear incentive towards self-preservation and not
nuking that country in the first place.

------
EdSharkey
We (the US and allies) have been smacking the middle East hornet's nest for 25
years through invasions, occupations, dictator toppling, drone striking,
antagonizing allies (Israel), antagonizing adversaries (Russia vis a vis
Ukraine and now a half-assed proxy war efforts in Syria following the
laughable "Russian reset"). Foreign policy hubris and fecklessness combined.

And NOW suddenly we're supposed to be afraid of a total nuclear war? Don't
insult my intelligence.

~~~
specialist
Agree about the hubris, fecklessness.

I've been terrified of nuclear war, terrorism, accidents, pollution since I
can remember.

Don't pretend this is a new concern.

~~~
EdSharkey
Exactly my point, excuse me if I wasn't clear: these things you list are not
new concerns.

I simply bristle at the notion that I should suddenly live in fear because a
carnival barker I don't like just won an election. The US federal government
has been a hot mess since the early 1900's. NOW I'm suddenly supposed to be
alarmed?

I consider anyone who suggests we should grow the federal government in its
current configuration to be a busybody or a fool, sorry to be blunt. In my
opinion, return power to the states or GTFO.

For me to live in fear of things I can't control is not living. I refuse to
snivel. When I can make a positive impact in my sphere, I try to do that;
sorry I can't do any better.

------
pidloopy
The article I think specifies an important aspect to the world security
situation that we must keep in mind constantly.

It's worth adding context to the article, which breezes past some
controversial bits maybe a bit too easily: for instance it writes "how to
maximize the fearsome deterrent power of the U.S. arsenal, how to minimize the
possibility that the old Soviet arsenal would obliterate the United States and
much of the planet along the way". This places the blame of mutually assured
destruction and global thermonuclear war, almost entirely on the Soviet Union.

The US's nuclear deterrent is "fearsome". The Soviet Union has an "arsenal"
(not a deterrent?), which would obliterate the whole planet.

I'm sure the author didn't intend to do this, but he's contributing to the
problem. The United States and Russia - as well as other nuclear powers - are
partners in a dialogue. They share responsibility for the outcomes of the
security situation, and for avoiding falling into security dilemmas. One can
deeply criticize America for the nuclear security situation we are today, as
it has done by far the most to weaken the now-stalled nuclear arms agreements
(START, etc) that had once been in place. (This of course doesn't meet the bar
for the article).

When both sides start by accusing one another, they have to work back to a
position where they can find common ground.

When both sides are realistic, and accept their own blame there's a place to
work from.

For instance - it should not be controversial for an American to accept that
the Soviet Union had a nuclear deterrent during the Cold War and to call it by
such. Similarly we should accept that the US has a nuclear arsenal today (the
US is a nuclear first-strike nation by policy) that, if used, would destroy
most of the world.

Much of the rest of the piece is similarly written with an undercurrent of us
versus them, with "them" getting the lionshare of the blame even though it
does not cohere with history.

If you start the conversation with us versus them, you start the conversation
with zero-sum mentality: the type of pitfall that led to the Cold War and its
escalation to begin with.

There is no good versus evil. Other nations have National Security interests
too. Do the god damn hard work to deconflict as much of this as possible. Do
the god damn hard work to build and maintain transparent dialog. Do the god
damn hard work to eliminate strategic surprise, and the possibility for
strategic surprise.

And in the meantime, stop pointing fingers.

------
whack
TBH, I don't fear nuclear war with a nation like Russia or China anytime soon.
Neither country has a deathwish or a desire to end the world. What does really
scare me is the possibility of a terrorist attack involving nukes. A dirty
bomb that goes off anywhere in the downtown of a major city. I'm glad that
this hasn't happened in the past 10 years, but that isn't a very long time.
Given the pace of technology, and the inevitable slipups that will happen, the
cynic in me thinks it's only a matter of time.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/opinion/a-nuclear-9-11.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/opinion/a-nuclear-9-11.html)

~~~
marcosdumay
Well, nuclear terrorism isn't something easy to do.

Yes, the amount of complexity of preparation terrorists are able to get away
with today is amusing. But grabbing a nuclear bomb is in a completely
different mark, and successfully launching one is still a completely different
level of complexity.

~~~
jat850
This isn't meant to exhibit a personal paranoia, but is it reasonable to keep
the prospect of terrorism more in scope if we allow for hacking efforts that
would exploit security vulnerabilities in existing systems? Gut feel (no
basis, though) is that it may be more likely to take that approach than the
steal-materials-and-build-and-launch one.

------
codingdave
I think people are worried. But we have a split personality these days, of
what is visible online and in the media vs. us older silent generations. The
younger generation is more vocal online, and they are not as worried. I could
speculate about how they did not grow up in the cold war, blah, blah, blah,
whatever the reason is... but their lack of worry is more visible online and
in the media. All the while, myself and my friends in our 40s and 50s are all
worried. But we also all grew up in constant fear of it, so it is the same
comfortable worry from our childhood, and we shrug it off instead of freaking
out.

------
daly
I have tried many times to get in touch with this effort without success. How
can I help?

There is an interesting movie called "Threads", a BBC drama by Barry Hines. Be
sure to watch it.

------
rbanffy
The sinking feeling you get when you think you dodged a bullet and realize
it's actually a very determined smart bomb who really, really wants to be with
you...

------
jseliger
I am: [https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-
nucle...](https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nuclear-
apocalypse/) and when I tell others why they just look at me strangely. I hope
they're right and I'm wrong.

~~~
eternalban
You know, I haven't drank the "kek" koolaid and given Mr. Trump's historic
cozy relations with the mob (Roy Cohn, Casinos), his strange manner of
draining swamps by filling it with the worst sort of toxic sludge from Wall
Street, and his irrational and excessive love for Israel ("they will [never]
pay for it"), am not willing to suspend disbelief regarding his being yet
another distraction for the citizenry of this nation by the moneyed class, but
you start off with:

"In a best-case Trump scenario, he bumbles around for four years doing not
much except embarrassing himself and the country."

This guy does not have a history of bumbling around. He seems to be quite an
effective man of action. I think you "embarrass" yourself by starting an
analysis with that paragraph.

Then a bit down below you say:

"It can be fun to have secret, unchecked powers when your guy is in office,
but is incredibly dangerous when the other guy does."

It can be "fun" to have leadership with "unchecked power"?

Man, get over your totalitarian urges before you decide to play cassandra for
the rest of us who do not think it "fun" at all, under any circumstances, to
have leaders with "secret unchecked powers" in our Republic.

[fix minor typos]

~~~
okreallywtf
Well hey, the right was terrified of Obama and he turned out to not be that
bad so its basically the same thing right? The world is grey and fears about
Trump are only as legitimate as fears about Obama and are all equally founded.
/s

~~~
wavefunction
That's a false equivalency to be sure. Right wingers were afraid of what they
claimed President Obama would pursue in policy. Critics of President-Elect
Trump are fearful of _his own stated policies._

~~~
okreallywtf
I was being sarcastic, not sure if /s was sufficient to flag it, I can't quite
tell from your response.

I agree and I've tried to explain that to my conservative friends and co-
workers but it never quite makes it through. Because Sharia law and death-
panels never came to be a lot of them feel fine in brushing off my concerns
about Trump, despite the complete false equivalency between the two.

------
guard-of-terra
And that's because you did not listen to George Kennan.

------
baybal2
>Who wins in a nuclear war?

The one who attacks first

~~~
daltonlp
That's certainly not true. The fundamental "strategy" of the cold war,
specifically the production of ~70,000 nuclear weapons, was about ensuring
that no aggressor would survive. Submarine-launched missles are the primary
tactic.

------
tedunangst
Well, you see, it's possible, even likely, that there will be at least some
survivors, so therefore nuclear war is a trivial concern compared to AI.

~~~
jat850
Am I understanding your comment correctly that you are more afraid of AI than
nuclear war?

~~~
tedunangst
The basilisk is coming! We need to build it before it gets here.

But more seriously, low grade poorly trained sub intelligent AI seems a lot
more likely to fuck up a lot more people's lives than nuclear Armageddon.

