Thanks for the question, Johannes! My best elevator pitch is roughly an ITN case that starts with neglectedness:
The biggest funder in nuclear security just withdrew from the field, leaving only ~$32 million/year in philanthropic funding. That’s a third of the budget of Oppenheimer, and several orders of magnitude smaller than philanthropic spending on climate change. This is a huge blow to a field that’s already small and aging, and would leave defense contractors and bureaucrats to determine nuclear policy. But it’s also an opportunity to reshape the field for the better to deal with new challenges: unravelling arms control agreements, emerging technologies and new weapons systems, and a new world where there are three nuclear superpowers (two of them revisionist authoritarian states). Best of all, there are cheap funding opportunities! For example, $500,000 lets you triple the number of backchannel diplomatic exchanges between the U.S. and China on strategic nuclear issues. And there is low-hanging fruit that other funders ignore for non-impact-related reasons
For EAs, I would add that we don’t need to get bogged down in the debates about nuclear winter and extinction—nuclear war is:
A major global catastrophic risk for current generations in terms of death, suffering, grief, infrastructure and economic damage, and long-term radiation effects. And...
A potential existential risk factor with a technology that is already here and deployed. Consider
What cost-benefit calculations would Russia start to make about mass-casualty bioweapons as it depletes its nuclear arsenal in a protracted great power war?
Where do your compute supply chain chokepoints go after a limited nuclear war in the Indo-Pacific?
Do we really want to roll the dice on post-war values, global leadership, and the prospects of international cooperation?
Given this, I think $30 million to double the funding starts looking like a reasonable hits-based bet
For example, $500,000 lets you triple the number of backchannel diplomatic exchanges between the U.S. and China on strategic nuclear issues.
Huh! Is this a specific live funding opportunity you are tracking, or just an example of a specific outcome that philanthropic nuclear funding has generated before? Curious if you can elaborate, if not too sensitive!
There is currently just one track 2/track 1.5 diplomatic dialogue between the U.S. and China that focuses on strategic nuclear issues. ~$250K/year is roughly my estimate for what it would cost to start one more
Thanks for the question, Johannes! My best elevator pitch is roughly an ITN case that starts with neglectedness:
The biggest funder in nuclear security just withdrew from the field, leaving only ~$32 million/year in philanthropic funding. That’s a third of the budget of Oppenheimer, and several orders of magnitude smaller than philanthropic spending on climate change. This is a huge blow to a field that’s already small and aging, and would leave defense contractors and bureaucrats to determine nuclear policy. But it’s also an opportunity to reshape the field for the better to deal with new challenges: unravelling arms control agreements, emerging technologies and new weapons systems, and a new world where there are three nuclear superpowers (two of them revisionist authoritarian states). Best of all, there are cheap funding opportunities! For example, $500,000 lets you triple the number of backchannel diplomatic exchanges between the U.S. and China on strategic nuclear issues. And there is low-hanging fruit that other funders ignore for non-impact-related reasons
For EAs, I would add that we don’t need to get bogged down in the debates about nuclear winter and extinction—nuclear war is:
A major global catastrophic risk for current generations in terms of death, suffering, grief, infrastructure and economic damage, and long-term radiation effects. And...
A potential existential risk factor with a technology that is already here and deployed. Consider
What cost-benefit calculations would Russia start to make about mass-casualty bioweapons as it depletes its nuclear arsenal in a protracted great power war?
Where do your compute supply chain chokepoints go after a limited nuclear war in the Indo-Pacific?
Do we really want to roll the dice on post-war values, global leadership, and the prospects of international cooperation?
Given this, I think $30 million to double the funding starts looking like a reasonable hits-based bet
(It’s a long elevator ride)
Huh! Is this a specific live funding opportunity you are tracking, or just an example of a specific outcome that philanthropic nuclear funding has generated before? Curious if you can elaborate, if not too sensitive!
There is currently just one track 2/track 1.5 diplomatic dialogue between the U.S. and China that focuses on strategic nuclear issues. ~$250K/year is roughly my estimate for what it would cost to start one more