All of Optimist's Comments + Replies

I read their reasoning is that any nuclear weapon will create a firestorm. So the size of the weapon is almost irrelevant. It is true that a smaller weapon created the Hiroshima firestorm. Therefore they argue that even a Pakistan-India conflict would generate enough firestorms and generate enough aerosols to disrupt agriculture and kill billions.

I do not believe modern cities would firestorm as easily as Hiroshima which had mostly wooden structures. Most concrete structures would collapse and smother material inside them extinguishing fires created from t... (read more)

I'd also be keen to see additional work on the climate, agricultural, and famine effects of nuclear war, perhaps ideally by a third team which isn't connected to either of those teams.

You have probably read the Nature article but they predict 5 billion dead (out of 6.7 billion using 2010 statistics.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0

People are freaking out over their analysis.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/wp3t34/nuclear_war_would_cause_global_famine_with_more/

My bad, the first paragraph should have my thesis statement right? That and the remaining paragraphs are the supporting arguments. Good luck. The HTML embedding is not working for links. Their is probably a breakdown somewhere but this site needs a better UI.

My point was abstract threats are not motivating. People are terrified of war. But we have been beaten down and have no political agency. For instance, your comment sucks Optimist. You got the moderator mad. Yeah I hope so. People want this problem solved myself included, but the academics are worried about funding and impact factors.

Threads and the day after were the reason the stockpile was reduced. Diplomats had no impact on it until the public was motivated.

Your perspective is refreshing. I agree that nuclear winter is overblown. Nonetheless achieving the same countervalue strategy is possible without directly attacking cities. The EMP commission reported that up to 90% of the US population would die within a year after an EMP attack with nuclear weapons. The weapons would not create smoke and an EMP would force the country to devote resources to keeping people alive. In other words an EMP attack keeps demand high by not killing anyone but instantly drops the supply which eventually kills almost everyone.

Nort... (read more)

This was a lot to unpack but I agree that it would be extremely difficult for the human race to go extinct. Although 99.9% of all species have gone extinct. It is our enormous numbers and ability to adapt and specialize in different ecological niches using our tools instead of our biology that makes us hard to kill. I keep coming back to this forum because I like to see the academic perspective on nuclear conflict. Although there is still a lot of misinformation on surviving a nuclear war.

In my experience most people avoid thinking about nuclear conflict a... (read more)

I will say it again this program needs to be fully funded. But I do wonder if the solution to this is genetic engineering.

Corn and potatoes are well adapted to the areas people live. Both are incredibly calorie dense with a high number of calories per acre. All GMO foods in existence now are further optimized to grow for the present sunlight and UV conditions.

What research has been done on creating GMO foods that are optimized to grow in low levels of sunlight and high levels of UV?

Ideally there would exist a variety of nuclear winter crops that are optimi... (read more)

Thank you for updating your research. I understand that only a handful of scientists are working on the nuclear winter problem. It seems like this is an area where effective altruism and yourself can make a major difference. I do have a few questions about nuclear winter since you mentioned looking into that subject in greater detail for future publications.

1. If cities burn without creating a firestorm to lift black carbon into the stratosphere then would a nuclear winter persist for years or would it quickly rain out?

2. Smoke is the result of incomplete

Even if I nailed the macro trends prediction, the Fed lowered interest rates, I cannot predict presidential tweets. Realistically, starting from the bottom you want to invest in low cost index funds.

VCs have a lot of capital to invest and only a few plays can make up for all their losses and then some. Most people cannot beat the market. I could spend all my time trying to squeeze out a few extra percent. However, I still would not know if I am a good investor with smart money or a dumb one who got lucky.

I can compound my investments historically around 10

I can see how an extractive economy lowers the cost of labor. High labor costs and excess capital are the prerequisites for investing in labor saving technology.

It is not difficult for a bad government to copy existing technology that is more efficient. I believe the key difference between Africa and Asia is the green revolution of the 60s and 70s. The arguments are outlined here:

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/a-green-revolution-this-time-for-africa/

As China increased their yields they were able to move labor from subsistence farming int

*correction

the cost $3340 should be multiplied by 0.003 and 72 years to make a nuclear winter lifetime hedge comparison to malaria. That is $721. This is about 10 years worth of wheat grain. It is still on par with malaria prevention but also looks better if it hedges against multiple existential risks.

The main roadblock to additional funding into alternate foods research is likely the same nuclear fatalism that also cuts into FEMA's budget. There is some validity to their arguments that this creates more countervalue targets. This is why decentralization, redundancy and resiliency is important. This same set of properties is what motivated the creation of the internet. A mixture of agricultural science, stored foods, alternate foods, fire prevention, arms treaties, and nuclear non-proliferation should all be pursued.

Any advances in those areas, es... (read more)

I appreciate your reply. I feel like I am learning a lot.

Have you ever read, Why Civil Defense Failed? The author argues civil defense failed because people took MAD literally. They believed that any attempts to stop or prevent total annihilation was utterly futile and only made things worse. They did not understand that an effective deterrence might be more effective and cheaper than guaranteeing total destruction. I think we both recognize the possibility MAD does not prevent conflicts but just makes them more deadly.

Civil defense during the cold war w... (read more)

I plan on reading your book first. I have noticed the assumption in this attack scenario is a surprise nuclear war, however, I think that is unlikely. There would be a period of tension when crisis upgrading and emergency personnel would be on alert. If an attack was expected then natural gas valves would be closed before the attack occurred. Preemptively shutting down utilities would be one way to encourage major cities to evacuate. Only 5% of the country would be subjected to lethal amounts of blast. It is more effective to spread out the population but ... (read more)

Sorry for the delay in my reply but I noticed your response after checking if she posted about risk mitigation.

I read the paper you linked and had previously listened to the 80000 hours podcast in alternative foods. I am for research into alternative foods. I think it is a good plan B and your methods should be tested to narrow down the uncertainty in their efficacy. However, my plan A would be $1,000 in flour baked into hardtack and a few thousand multivitamins or other food stores.

I do not think it is necessary to split hairs between counterforce and cou

I have read everything you have posted so far and your thorough analysis has piqued my morbid curiosity. I feel that I should be playing devil’s advocate.

I think you might be underestimating the number of initial deaths in a nuclear exchange and overestimating the number of deaths from a nuclear winter with your assumptions. You do acknowledge that you assume only one nuclear weapon per city which downplays the importance of MIRVs.

Smaller and more accurate weapons will not reduce the total number of fatalities but kill many more people. Increasing the yiel