Armageddon: The odds of nuclear war

Send To Pod

Content provided by SendToPod AI. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SendToPod AI or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

2+ y ago

MP3•Episode home

Original Article: Armageddon: The odds of nuclear war

Convert your long form article to podcast? Visit SendToPod

Follow me on Twitter to find out more.
----

The world's end

I'm going to lay out a series of fascinating facts and let you decide whether the world is likely to end within, say, 100 years.

The first thing to know is that the power of a nuclear bomb is greater than what most people imagine. One American B53 bomb generates 425 times more energy than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. There are 10,000+ warheads in the world today. ‍Source.

The second thing to know is the nuclear pressure cooker:

It takes one bomb to end the world—due to domino effects I'll explain.
Bombs often come close to accidentally being launched. These accidents aren't well-known, and I'll share examples.
More nuclear powers are emerging with erratic leaders whose political bodies allow them to launch nuclear strikes without approval.
It's unlikely we'll solve these problems. Society seems structured to fail.

In August 2022, the U.N. Secretary-General summarized it:

“Humanity is just one misunderstanding—one miscalculation—away from nuclear annihilation... [We're in a] time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War." Source.

Before I continue, I'll tell you if this post is for you—since I've received extensive feedback on it:

If you already believe the world is extremely unstable and might end within our lifetimes, you won't get much new out of this post.
If you're relentlessly optimistic about "humanity always finding a way," this post may not convince you otherwise, but it'll open your eyes to fascinating concerns you've never thought about.
If you don't see why the world might end within 100 years, or if you think the only pressing threats are climate change and nationalist politics, you'll get the most out of this post.

Strap yourself in.

Disclaimer: If you're in a dark place mentally—perhaps dealing with depression or existential dread—please do not read this.

To appreciate the entire threat of nuclear war, you must understand why a single warhead could end the world.

It's due to a military policy you've likely heard of called mutually assured destruction (MAD). In short, nuclear powers are on permanent alert to retaliate if they detect incoming warheads. They're outspoken about this policy because they want to signal that an attack on them ensures their enemy's destruction too.

The earlier quote from the U.N. Secretary-General—that we're "one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation"—therefore hinges on these two factors:

To save themselves, militaries are incentivized to attack enemies before they've confirmed that an incoming threat is both intentional and nuclear. This is where accidents happen.
Contrary to popular belief, there's no pausing the apocalypse by defending against incoming warheads. There's no buying time for cooler heads to prevail. Even the U.S. military will tell you that they can't prevent modest assaults. Our survival strategy fully hinges on MAD.

Let me show you why this is.

Russia, as one example, is working on small nuclear submarine drones that rest deep underwater off the coast of enemy territories. The idea is to be completely motionless and virtually undetectable. Russia calls these Poseidons.

If Russia...

190 episodes

#Tech #SendToPod AI