Error

This is a really good summary. I think the main area I have remaining uncertainty about these types of arguments is around if tech decisively favors finders or not. I believe there’s been a lot of analysis that implies that modern nuclear submarines are essentially not feasible to track and destroy, and there are others that argue AI-enabled modeling and simulation could be applied as a “fog of war” machine to simulate an opponent’s sensor system and optimize concealment of nuclear forces.

Nevertheless, without more detail these sorts of counterarguments seem highly contingent to me: they depend on the state of technology that actually gets deployed, and there may be decisive counter-counter arguments based on other military capabilities.

It would be interesting to see more EAs “grok” these sorts of arguments and to think through corresponding nuclear modernization and arms control strategies that would be implied by trying to assure a desirable long-term future. I’ve tended to think more redundant and accurate arsenals of low-yield weapons like neutron bombs would tend to strengthen deterrence while eliminating most of the risk of nuclear winter and long-term radiation, but it’s easy to imagine there might be better directions yet to ratchet competition and negotiation since that kind of proposal could also be very destabilizing!

Great notes. This is a real service to others.

-- Daryl Press

Thanks for the summary! :)

Nuclear stalemate predictions: (4) Reduced competition for strategic territory

While reading this part I wondered whether the book neglects economic concerns other than trade-routes and natural resources. In my head the cold war was in large part a competition between two economic systems, so I imagine having more profitable trading relationships should’ve been really valuable, too:

increased wealth → increased stability and power, increased attraction of the political system /​ winning the “ideological battle”, increased living standards