Nice piece and great visualization! Itās an interesting framework to classify left and right of boom. Another way is prevention, response, and resilience. I would argue that much of the work on the impacts of nuclear war is motivated by prevention, so if you look at how much money has been spent on each of response and resilience, it might be 100 times lower than prevention. As you say, just because response and resilience are neglected does not prove that if they are highly cost-effective. So then I think actual cost-effectiveness models are useful, such as this, this, and this.
just because response and resilience are neglected does not prove that if they are highly cost-effective.
However, I would argue assessing neglectedness based on past spending underestimates the expected neglectedness (see my comment here). Resources could go towards response and resilience after the catastrophe, which is not the case for prevention.
So then I think actual cost-effectiveness models are useful, such as this, this, and this.
Thanks, David! I really appreciate this comment. One reason I find this left/āright framework more intuitive than āprevention, response, and resilienceā is that there are right-of-boom interventions that I would classify as āprevention.ā For example, I think of escalation management after limited first use as āpreventingā the largest nuclear wars (especially if we think such a war poses qualitatively different problems).
Your cost-effectiveness models are very helpful, and I plan to cite them in the bigger project :)
Nice piece and great visualization! Itās an interesting framework to classify left and right of boom. Another way is prevention, response, and resilience. I would argue that much of the work on the impacts of nuclear war is motivated by prevention, so if you look at how much money has been spent on each of response and resilience, it might be 100 times lower than prevention. As you say, just because response and resilience are neglected does not prove that if they are highly cost-effective. So then I think actual cost-effectiveness models are useful, such as this, this, and this.
Hi David,
I agree with you that:
However, I would argue assessing neglectedness based on past spending underestimates the expected neglectedness (see my comment here). Resources could go towards response and resilience after the catastrophe, which is not the case for prevention.
Thanks, David! I really appreciate this comment. One reason I find this left/āright framework more intuitive than āprevention, response, and resilienceā is that there are right-of-boom interventions that I would classify as āprevention.ā For example, I think of escalation management after limited first use as āpreventingā the largest nuclear wars (especially if we think such a war poses qualitatively different problems).
Your cost-effectiveness models are very helpful, and I plan to cite them in the bigger project :)