DC, New York, and San Francisco are among the highest-likelihood-of-being-hit-in-a-full-nuclear-exchange cities in the US.… For San Franciscans, going to Santa Rosa is probably nearly as good as going to the middle of the mountains, or going to Eugene, and it’s much less costly.
Can someone share their credence for why Russia would use only a few warheads against America, attacking only a few cities? If Russia uses many warheads, most US cities that most of us would feel at ease in are a no-go. If we expect Russia to use many if they use them, it is even less worth leaving (unless you want to exit America and NATO regions).
Major question: What is America’s public-facing policy on retaliation? Do they fire number of warheads proportional to how many Russia fires at us/our allies? If so, it incentivizes Russia using fewer missiles. But I have the vibe that we have told them we would use everything at our disposal, so they don’t have a reason to only target a handful of cities.
[[EDIT: Found the source of the picture. It is from 2015 at latest, so would look (very?) different today. And don’t think of the purple triangles as first priority to be launched by Russia: “The 2,000-warhead attack [black] assumes a first strike by the Russians. The 500-warhead attack [purple] would be a retaliatory strike in the event the United States launched first, thus limiting the Russian arsenal.” The black dots are more relevant in this climate. Apologies for confusion]]
Image courtesy of Rob Bensinger from fb, don’t know where he got it
The black dots assumes Russia has 2000 functional missiles that they successfully launch against the US and that successfully detonate, and that the US is unable to shoot many of them down/destroy missile launch sites before launch. My understanding is, concretely, that even if all Russian missiles currently reported ready for launch are launched, there’s 1500 of them not 2000, and that one would expect many to be used against non-US targets (in Ukraine and Europe). The 500 scenario (purple triangles) seems likelier to me for how many targets Russia would try to hit.
Further, my impression of the competence of the Russian military, the readiness of their forces, the state of upkeep on their nukes and missiles, the willingness of individual commanders ordered to launch to do so, etc. is quite low. In many cases they have had an incredibly embarrassingly low success rate at firing missiles at Ukraine, which is an easier task than launching on short notice in a nuclear war. They seem to be using un-upgraded Soviet technology that is often degrading and failing, and the theft of parts for sale on the black market isn’t uncommon.
For each nuclear missile, lots of things need to go right: the missile needs to be in good shape/ready to launch, the people ordered to launch need to do it, the missile needs to be successfully launched before anyone destroys the launch site, the missile needs to not be shot down, the missile needs to successfully be aimed at the target (this isn’t even very hard, but there’ve been notable Ukraine failures) and the missile needs to actually detonate at the right time. US capabilities to shoot down ICBMs, if such capabilities exist, would be extremely secret (we have no such public capabilities) but it seems like we almost definitely cannot shoot down or prevent the launch of submarine-launched missiles (of which there’d be perhaps a dozen). My personal median expectation is that submarine-launched missiles will likely hit and detonate and a relatively small share of non-submarine-launched missiles will hit and detonate. If Russia is also worried about this, they’ll probably concentrate missiles further on critical targets.
This is decision-relevant in a couple of respects, the most important being that the fewer missiles hit and detonate, the less likely that a nuclear exchange results in a collapse of civilization/post-apocalyptic wasteland, though note that even if you assume all the purple triangles hit you don’t have to go very far to be safe, and if we evacuate we’ll evacuate to somewhere outside any of the purple triangles. People in major coastal cities should be more worried as they’re likelier to be targeted by submarine-launched missiles which I think almost definitely 1) work 2) would be launched if ordered 3) could not be prevented from launching and 4) cannot be shot down, and people near US military bases should assume a lot of missiles would be launched at that target to make sure at least some get through.
People elsewhere in purple triangles are at, in my assessment, 5x to 20x less risk from a combination of more uncertainty about whether their city will be targeted and much higher likelihood an attempt wouldn’t work.
Thanks, I feel pretty safe at that! That said, it almost seems too low, like “wtf why would Russia even fire then” levels of low. So I wonder if those people are imagining better anti-missile defense than USA has (it’s designed for a rogue state like North Korea with ~20 missiles, NOT battle with the other major global nuclear power), or are now anchoring on 20%. But even if we arbitrarily raise it to say risk of hitting is 30%, it’s pretty comforting!
Are you really sure it’s appropriate to compare launch of strategic ICBMs to rockets in Ukraine? Wouldn’t those ICBMs be aimed in advance, and wouldn’t their operation and upkeep be done by entirely different people using much more careful protocols, laid out over a longer time period?
Oh great, thanks so much, Kelsey! I didn’t know they only have 1500 ready, so I thought they’d have enough remaining to strike other nations. Definitely appreciate you bringing the human element (reluctance to follow orders) into the conversation as well.
Also, I did look into the source and the only thing I found was this very brief CBS news piece from 2015. So the map is quite outdated, and the data used was surely even older. That said, it did have a key clarification I found worth reflecting on today (as someone who knew little before now, anyway):
”The 2,000-warhead attack assumes a first strike by the Russians. The 500-warhead attack would be a retaliatory strike in the event the United States launched first, thus limiting the Russian arsenal.”
So apologies for any confusion. I now see the black dots are not necessarily additional to the purple triangles, and vise versa. Given the US won’t strike first, I realize we should look at the black dots and expect Russia to empty a lot of missiles on our missile holding areas (the black dot clusters in middle-America). And, with what remains, they’d aim for other cities. Coupling that realization with your assessment (and JP’s linked assessment) of how many missiles would hit, I do feel pretty safe.
That said, I wonder what [anyone reading this] thinks of Texas’s risk? (Bear with me. I live here, but it’s also an EA question)
Houston, TX: Houston is America’s oil and gas hub, so destroying Houston might force the rest of the world to buy Russian oil(?), despite Russian bad behavior. And this year, Houston oil companies (mostly or totally) sold their Russian stakes and said they don’t want to work with Russia (so, bridges have been burned and Russia-Houston relations are likely smoldering). While we don’t think of Houston as a “coastal city”, might Russian submarines go to the Gulf of Mexico to ensure they hit Houston?
That is relevant for everyone’s expected value calculations because it would reduce the number of sub missiles for the West and East coasts. And...
Austin (and nearby military bases): I and other EAs live in Austin, TX, and I was thinking of inviting friends from coastal cities if careful people start relocating. But now, I can’t tell if Austin looks better than coastal cities like Santa Rosa, and I kinda wonder if we in Austin should be more willing to leave if things worsen a lot. So, if Russians prioritize Houston, might this also heighten the risk to other Texas citie(s)? -Austin: Texas’s capital, so hitting it might worsen Houston’s struggles. Billionaire hub, including the most famous one. Has an excellent research University (UT) that is also one of America’s largest universities. Has satellite offices of major US companies (Google, Apple, Amazon, IBM, Oracle, Tesla, and Meta). Overall way more notable than in 2015 when the above map was made. And, yeah, some EAs live here. -San Antonio: US’s largest joint military base. Fallout to Austin if hit. -Fort Hood: US’s third-largest single military base. Fallout to Austin if hit.
I was originally thinking Austin might be a standout city for American EAs and rationalists on [“nuclear risk” x “quality of life” x “existing EA/rationalist culture”], but now IDK. I’m at a loss as to where to rank it, and when we should consider extreme preparations or leaving compared to EAs on the coasts.
Can someone share their credence for why Russia would use only a few warheads against America, attacking only a few cities? If Russia uses many warheads, most US cities that most of us would feel at ease in are a no-go. If we expect Russia to use many if they use them, it is even less worth leaving (unless you want to exit America and NATO regions).
Major question:
What is America’s public-facing policy on retaliation? Do they fire number of warheads proportional to how many Russia fires at us/our allies? If so, it incentivizes Russia using fewer missiles. But I have the vibe that we have told them we would use everything at our disposal, so they don’t have a reason to only target a handful of cities.
[[EDIT: Found the source of the picture. It is from 2015 at latest, so would look (very?) different today. And don’t think of the purple triangles as first priority to be launched by Russia: “The 2,000-warhead attack [black] assumes a first strike by the Russians. The 500-warhead attack [purple] would be a retaliatory strike in the event the United States launched first, thus limiting the Russian arsenal.” The black dots are more relevant in this climate. Apologies for confusion]]
Image courtesy of Rob Bensinger from fb, don’t know where he got itThe black dots assumes Russia has 2000 functional missiles that they successfully launch against the US and that successfully detonate, and that the US is unable to shoot many of them down/destroy missile launch sites before launch. My understanding is, concretely, that even if all Russian missiles currently reported ready for launch are launched, there’s 1500 of them not 2000, and that one would expect many to be used against non-US targets (in Ukraine and Europe). The 500 scenario (purple triangles) seems likelier to me for how many targets Russia would try to hit.
Further, my impression of the competence of the Russian military, the readiness of their forces, the state of upkeep on their nukes and missiles, the willingness of individual commanders ordered to launch to do so, etc. is quite low. In many cases they have had an incredibly embarrassingly low success rate at firing missiles at Ukraine, which is an easier task than launching on short notice in a nuclear war. They seem to be using un-upgraded Soviet technology that is often degrading and failing, and the theft of parts for sale on the black market isn’t uncommon.
For each nuclear missile, lots of things need to go right: the missile needs to be in good shape/ready to launch, the people ordered to launch need to do it, the missile needs to be successfully launched before anyone destroys the launch site, the missile needs to not be shot down, the missile needs to successfully be aimed at the target (this isn’t even very hard, but there’ve been notable Ukraine failures) and the missile needs to actually detonate at the right time. US capabilities to shoot down ICBMs, if such capabilities exist, would be extremely secret (we have no such public capabilities) but it seems like we almost definitely cannot shoot down or prevent the launch of submarine-launched missiles (of which there’d be perhaps a dozen). My personal median expectation is that submarine-launched missiles will likely hit and detonate and a relatively small share of non-submarine-launched missiles will hit and detonate. If Russia is also worried about this, they’ll probably concentrate missiles further on critical targets.
This is decision-relevant in a couple of respects, the most important being that the fewer missiles hit and detonate, the less likely that a nuclear exchange results in a collapse of civilization/post-apocalyptic wasteland, though note that even if you assume all the purple triangles hit you don’t have to go very far to be safe, and if we evacuate we’ll evacuate to somewhere outside any of the purple triangles. People in major coastal cities should be more worried as they’re likelier to be targeted by submarine-launched missiles which I think almost definitely 1) work 2) would be launched if ordered 3) could not be prevented from launching and 4) cannot be shot down, and people near US military bases should assume a lot of missiles would be launched at that target to make sure at least some get through.
People elsewhere in purple triangles are at, in my assessment, 5x to 20x less risk from a combination of more uncertainty about whether their city will be targeted and much higher likelihood an attempt wouldn’t work.
See also:
Thanks, I feel pretty safe at that! That said, it almost seems too low, like “wtf why would Russia even fire then” levels of low. So I wonder if those people are imagining better anti-missile defense than USA has (it’s designed for a rogue state like North Korea with ~20 missiles, NOT battle with the other major global nuclear power), or are now anchoring on 20%. But even if we arbitrarily raise it to say risk of hitting is 30%, it’s pretty comforting!
I upvoted this comment and post.
But I’m unsure these threads are the best way to get people to chill out.
Are you really sure it’s appropriate to compare launch of strategic ICBMs to rockets in Ukraine? Wouldn’t those ICBMs be aimed in advance, and wouldn’t their operation and upkeep be done by entirely different people using much more careful protocols, laid out over a longer time period?
Oh great, thanks so much, Kelsey! I didn’t know they only have 1500 ready, so I thought they’d have enough remaining to strike other nations. Definitely appreciate you bringing the human element (reluctance to follow orders) into the conversation as well.
Also, I did look into the source and the only thing I found was this very brief CBS news piece from 2015. So the map is quite outdated, and the data used was surely even older. That said, it did have a key clarification I found worth reflecting on today (as someone who knew little before now, anyway):
”The 2,000-warhead attack assumes a first strike by the Russians. The 500-warhead attack would be a retaliatory strike in the event the United States launched first, thus limiting the Russian arsenal.”
So apologies for any confusion. I now see the black dots are not necessarily additional to the purple triangles, and vise versa.
Given the US won’t strike first, I realize we should look at the black dots and expect Russia to empty a lot of missiles on our missile holding areas (the black dot clusters in middle-America). And, with what remains, they’d aim for other cities. Coupling that realization with your assessment (and JP’s linked assessment) of how many missiles would hit, I do feel pretty safe.
That said, I wonder what [anyone reading this] thinks of Texas’s risk? (Bear with me. I live here, but it’s also an EA question)
Houston, TX: Houston is America’s oil and gas hub, so destroying Houston might force the rest of the world to buy Russian oil(?), despite Russian bad behavior. And this year, Houston oil companies (mostly or totally) sold their Russian stakes and said they don’t want to work with Russia (so, bridges have been burned and Russia-Houston relations are likely smoldering). While we don’t think of Houston as a “coastal city”, might Russian submarines go to the Gulf of Mexico to ensure they hit Houston?
That is relevant for everyone’s expected value calculations because it would reduce the number of sub missiles for the West and East coasts. And...
Austin (and nearby military bases): I and other EAs live in Austin, TX, and I was thinking of inviting friends from coastal cities if careful people start relocating. But now, I can’t tell if Austin looks better than coastal cities like Santa Rosa, and I kinda wonder if we in Austin should be more willing to leave if things worsen a lot.
So, if Russians prioritize Houston, might this also heighten the risk to other Texas citie(s)?
-Austin: Texas’s capital, so hitting it might worsen Houston’s struggles. Billionaire hub, including the most famous one. Has an excellent research University (UT) that is also one of America’s largest universities. Has satellite offices of major US companies (Google, Apple, Amazon, IBM, Oracle, Tesla, and Meta). Overall way more notable than in 2015 when the above map was made. And, yeah, some EAs live here.
-San Antonio: US’s largest joint military base. Fallout to Austin if hit.
-Fort Hood: US’s third-largest single military base. Fallout to Austin if hit.
I was originally thinking Austin might be a standout city for American EAs and rationalists on [“nuclear risk” x “quality of life” x “existing EA/rationalist culture”], but now IDK. I’m at a loss as to where to rank it, and when we should consider extreme preparations or leaving compared to EAs on the coasts.