I’m not sure I have too much to add, and I think that I do have concerns about how Eliezer wrote some of this letter given the predictable pushback it’s seen, though maybe breaking the Overton Window is a price worth paying? I’m not sure there.
In any case, I just wanted to note that we have at least 2 historical examples of nations carrying out airstrikes on bases in other countries without that leading to war, though admittedly the nation attacked was not nuclear:
Operation Opera—where Israeli jets destroyed an unfinished nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.
Operation Orchard—where the Israeli airforce (again) destroyed a suspected covert nuclear facility in Syria in 2007.
Both of these cases were a nation taking action somewhat unilaterally against another, destroying the other nation’s capability with an airstrike, and what followed was not war but sabre-rattling and proxy conflict (note: That’s my takeaway as a lay non-expert, I may be wrong about the consequences of these strikes! The consequences of Opera especially seem to be a matter of some historical debate).
I’m sure that there are other historical examples that could be found which shed light on what Eliezer’s foreign policy would mean, though I do accept that with nuclear-armed states, all bets are off. Though also worth considering, China has (as far as I know) an unconditional policy on No Nuclear First Use, though that doesn’t preclude retaliation for non-nuclear air strikes on Chinese Soil; such as a disrupting trade, mass cyberattacks, or invading Taiwan in response, or them reversing that policy once actually under attack.
In both cases, that’s a nuclear power attacking a non-nuclear one. Contrast how Putin is being dealt with for doing Putin things—no one is suggesting bombing Russia.
I’m not sure I have too much to add, and I think that I do have concerns about how Eliezer wrote some of this letter given the predictable pushback it’s seen, though maybe breaking the Overton Window is a price worth paying? I’m not sure there.
In any case, I just wanted to note that we have at least 2 historical examples of nations carrying out airstrikes on bases in other countries without that leading to war, though admittedly the nation attacked was not nuclear:
Operation Opera—where Israeli jets destroyed an unfinished nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.
Operation Orchard—where the Israeli airforce (again) destroyed a suspected covert nuclear facility in Syria in 2007.
Both of these cases were a nation taking action somewhat unilaterally against another, destroying the other nation’s capability with an airstrike, and what followed was not war but sabre-rattling and proxy conflict (note: That’s my takeaway as a lay non-expert, I may be wrong about the consequences of these strikes! The consequences of Opera especially seem to be a matter of some historical debate).
I’m sure that there are other historical examples that could be found which shed light on what Eliezer’s foreign policy would mean, though I do accept that with nuclear-armed states, all bets are off. Though also worth considering, China has (as far as I know) an unconditional policy on No Nuclear First Use, though that doesn’t preclude retaliation for non-nuclear air strikes on Chinese Soil; such as a disrupting trade, mass cyberattacks, or invading Taiwan in response, or them reversing that policy once actually under attack.
In both cases, that’s a nuclear power attacking a non-nuclear one. Contrast how Putin is being dealt with for doing Putin things—no one is suggesting bombing Russia.