I think the 80K profile notes (in a footnote) that their $1-10 billion guess includes many different kinds of government spending. I would guess it includes things like nonproliferation programs and fissile materials security, nuclear reactor safety, and probably the maintenance of parts of the nuclear weapons enterpriseâmuch of it at best tangentially related to preventing nuclear war.
Most of these are relevant to preventing nuclear war (even if you do not think they are the best way of doing it):
More countries having nuclear weapons makes nuclear war more likely.
Fissile materials are an input to making nuclear weapons.
Malfunctioning nuclear systems/âweapons could result in accidents.
So I think the number is a bit misleading (not unlike adding up AI ethics spending and AI capabilities spending and concluding that AI safety is not neglected). You can look at the single biggest grant under ânuclear issuesâ in the Peace and Security Funding Index (admittedly an imperfect database): itâs the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (a former government funder) paying for spent nuclear fuel storage in MarylandâŚ
According to the footnote in the 80,000 Hoursâ profile following what I quoted, the range is supposed to refer to the spending on preventing nuclear war (which is not to say the values are correct):
The resources dedicated to preventing the risk of a nuclear war globally, including both inside and outside all governments, is probably $10 billion per year or higher. However, we are downgrading that to $1â10 billion per year quality-adjusted, because much of this spending is not focused on lowering the risk of use of nuclear weapons in general, but rather protecting just one country, or giving one country an advantage over another. Much is also spent on anti-proliferation measures unrelated to the most harmful scenarios in which hundreds of warheads are used. It is also notable that spending by nongovernment actors represents only a tiny fraction of this, so they may have some better opportunities to act.
A way to get at a better estimate of non-philanthropic spending might be to go through relevant parts of the State International Affairs Budget, the Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence and Stability (ADS, formerly Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance), and some DoD entities (like DTRA), and a small handful of others, add those up, and add some uncertainty around your estimates. You would get a much lower number (Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance budget was only $31.2 million in FY 2013 according to Wikipediaâdonât have time to dive into more recent numbers rn).
For reference, the range mentioned by 80,000 Hours suggests the spending on nuclear risk is 4.87 % (= 4.04/â82.9) of the 82.9 billion $ spent on nuclear weapons in 2022.
All of which is to say that I think Benâs observation that ânuclear security is getting almost no fundingâ is true in some sense both for funders focused on extreme risks (where Founders Pledge and Longview are the only ones) and for the field in general
I think one had better assess the cost-effectiveness of specific interventions (as GiveWell does) instead of focussing on spending. You estimated doubling the spending on nuclear security would save a life for 1.55 k$, which corresponds to a cost-effectiveness around 3.23 (= 5â1.55) times that of GiveWellâs top charities. I think corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 1.44 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities, and therefore 446 (= 1.44*10^3/â3.23) times as cost-effective as what you got for doubling the spending on nuclear security.
Thanks for the comment, Christian!
Most of these are relevant to preventing nuclear war (even if you do not think they are the best way of doing it):
More countries having nuclear weapons makes nuclear war more likely.
Fissile materials are an input to making nuclear weapons.
Malfunctioning nuclear systems/âweapons could result in accidents.
According to the footnote in the 80,000 Hoursâ profile following what I quoted, the range is supposed to refer to the spending on preventing nuclear war (which is not to say the values are correct):
For reference, the range mentioned by 80,000 Hours suggests the spending on nuclear risk is 4.87 % (= 4.04/â82.9) of the 82.9 billion $ spent on nuclear weapons in 2022.
I think one had better assess the cost-effectiveness of specific interventions (as GiveWell does) instead of focussing on spending. You estimated doubling the spending on nuclear security would save a life for 1.55 k$, which corresponds to a cost-effectiveness around 3.23 (= 5â1.55) times that of GiveWellâs top charities. I think corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 1.44 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities, and therefore 446 (= 1.44*10^3/â3.23) times as cost-effective as what you got for doubling the spending on nuclear security.