the amount of radiological weapons radiological weapons required to cover every part of earth’s surface would be massively expensive (likely as expensive as the largest existing nuclear arsenals), and serve no military purpose.
Do you mean that radiological weapons serve no military purpose, or that the amount required to cover every part of the Earth’s surface would serve no military purpose (relative to a more moderate amount of them)?
If the former, that claim surprises me, given that:
a large part of the military purpose of nuclear weapons in general is deterrence
it sounds like radiological weapons would in some cases cause more deaths per kiloton than standard nuclear weapons
So other nations may in some cases be more deterred by a country with some radiological weapons than a country with only standard nuclear weapons
If the latter, then it seems like your analysis is consistent with the view that there may still end up being a quite large amount of radiological weapons? If so, that seems potentially important, as it could perhaps affect indirect extinction risks or other existential risks from nuclear war (e.g., by perhaps increasing the expected number of deaths from a nuclear exchange, and changing where and how those deaths occur).
(Note: I don’t really know much about radiological weapons, have no particular reason to believe governments are likely to develop them, and would indeed be surprised if they developed enough to cover the Earth’s surface.)
I mean that the amount required to cover every part of the Earth’s surface would serve no military purpose. Or rather, it might enhance one’s deterrent a little bit, but it would 1) kill all of one’s own people, which is the opposite of a defense objective 2) not be a very cost effective way to improve one’s deterrent. In nearly all cases it would make more sense to expand second strike capabilities by adding more submarines, mobile missile launchers, or other stealth second strike weapons.
Which isn’t to say this couldn’t happen! Military research teams have proposed crazy plans like this before. I’m just arguing, as have many others at RAND and elsewhere, that a doomsday machine isn’t a good deterrent, compared to the other options that exist (and given the extraordinary downside risks).
But that still seems like it’d be consistent with thinking that quite a large number of radiological weapons would be developed. E.g., enough to kill 90% of the population of the US, but not the entire world’s population. This would of course not directly pose an extinction risk by itself, but seems like it could still be significant from a longtermist perspective when combined with other things (e.g., a large nuclear winter, or a view in which that level of death from conflict could be enough to cause negative trajectory changes).
Would you agree with that? Or do you think there are also separate reasons to think it’s very unlikely that even that many radiological weapons would be developed, or that they wouldn’t substantially increase how much longtermists should worry about nuclear war?
(I’m asking for my own understanding, not really to make a point; I don’t have a pre-existing stance on these questions.)
Yeah, I would agree with that! I think radiological weapons are some of the most relevant nuclear capabilities / risks to consider from a longterm perspective, due to their risk of being developed in the future.
Do you mean that radiological weapons serve no military purpose, or that the amount required to cover every part of the Earth’s surface would serve no military purpose (relative to a more moderate amount of them)?
If the former, that claim surprises me, given that:
a large part of the military purpose of nuclear weapons in general is deterrence
it sounds like radiological weapons would in some cases cause more deaths per kiloton than standard nuclear weapons
So other nations may in some cases be more deterred by a country with some radiological weapons than a country with only standard nuclear weapons
If the latter, then it seems like your analysis is consistent with the view that there may still end up being a quite large amount of radiological weapons? If so, that seems potentially important, as it could perhaps affect indirect extinction risks or other existential risks from nuclear war (e.g., by perhaps increasing the expected number of deaths from a nuclear exchange, and changing where and how those deaths occur).
(Note: I don’t really know much about radiological weapons, have no particular reason to believe governments are likely to develop them, and would indeed be surprised if they developed enough to cover the Earth’s surface.)
I mean that the amount required to cover every part of the Earth’s surface would serve no military purpose. Or rather, it might enhance one’s deterrent a little bit, but it would
1) kill all of one’s own people, which is the opposite of a defense objective
2) not be a very cost effective way to improve one’s deterrent. In nearly all cases it would make more sense to expand second strike capabilities by adding more submarines, mobile missile launchers, or other stealth second strike weapons.
Which isn’t to say this couldn’t happen! Military research teams have proposed crazy plans like this before. I’m just arguing, as have many others at RAND and elsewhere, that a doomsday machine isn’t a good deterrent, compared to the other options that exist (and given the extraordinary downside risks).
Yeah, that all makes sense to me.
But that still seems like it’d be consistent with thinking that quite a large number of radiological weapons would be developed. E.g., enough to kill 90% of the population of the US, but not the entire world’s population. This would of course not directly pose an extinction risk by itself, but seems like it could still be significant from a longtermist perspective when combined with other things (e.g., a large nuclear winter, or a view in which that level of death from conflict could be enough to cause negative trajectory changes).
Would you agree with that? Or do you think there are also separate reasons to think it’s very unlikely that even that many radiological weapons would be developed, or that they wouldn’t substantially increase how much longtermists should worry about nuclear war?
(I’m asking for my own understanding, not really to make a point; I don’t have a pre-existing stance on these questions.)
Yeah, I would agree with that! I think radiological weapons are some of the most relevant nuclear capabilities / risks to consider from a longterm perspective, due to their risk of being developed in the future.