How an 89-year-old cold warrior became America’s nuclear conscience
politico.com
politico.com
[1] http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/hair-trigger-alert/clo...
(This was before MAD was fully in place, so in the worst case outcome the US still would have survived the resulting conflict largely intact. Europe and the USSR would have been pretty much obliterated, though.)
The wikipedia page on depth charges [1] explains the Cold War usage: "During the Cold War when it was necessary to inform submarines of the other side that they had been detected but without actually launching an attack, low-power "signalling depth charges" (also called "practice depth charges") were sometimes used, powerful enough to be detected when no other means of communication was possible, but not destructive."
Nope, that's not it. People aren't worrying about it because it's emotionally costly to worry and the optimal strategy for emotional well-being is ignorance.
While it's true that the consequences of a nuclear apocalypse are much more dire on a global scale, the personal consequences are indistinguishable from a car crash, plane crash or...if we wanted to include a natural disaster, death from a dam failure or a volcanic eruption.
If a typical person worried about every possible way to die today, no matter how minute, that would truly be a miserable experience. Besides, in the case of nuclear apocalypse it is literally impossible to adopt a strategy that minimizes your chances of death in the case it actually occurs, barring moving to the middle of nowhere and digging yourself a deep personal bunker.
So the only reasonable strategy is to ignore it entirely, in which case the likelihood of it happening is irrelevant.
I think you are right mostly, its probably more that than anything but I do think people allow a very limited observational ability to give them a feeling for how likely something is, despite the fact that they cannot really internally measure it at all just based on the facts they observe in daily life. I think people use a similar reasoning to assume Trump (or anyone else) could ever be a serious threat to our democracy simply because things "never seem to change" no matter who is in power, which I think is equally irrational.
>So the only reasonable strategy is to ignore it entirely
I think that is pretty overkill, to me the only reasonable strategy is to take what actions you reasonably can (be aware of what is going on in the world, communicate your concerns to your representatives, not elect a madman who talks about nuclear weapons as if they were a nerf gun) and then you can only sit back and relax. Electing someone who expresses a desire to use nuclear weapons is a pretty direct way to have control over whether they are used (and subsequently destroy the world), so nobody can pretend that they have no control over it.
The generation growing up with Reagan had the ability to 'choose' option 2; later generations raised by those 'choosing not to think about it' are literally unequipped to understand. Perry is telling the truth, & I know this by personal experience.
Source: My dad was in the thick of compartmentalized NSA projects; I was writing book reports re. NORAD & MAD in 7th grade.
>“I do not think it is a probability this year or next year or anytime in the foreseeable future. But the consequence is so great, we have to take it seriously. And there are things to greatly lower those possibilities that we’re simply not doing.”
A nuclear catastrophe, statistically, poses a much lower risk to my well being than tornado season. Also occasional flash flooding, especially while driving. Oh, and extremely dry summers with little rain that make for wildfire conditions. Also, there's heat stroke if I'm being active...I guess what I mean is I do believe, deep down, that there are people who genuinely care and will work on such serious matters.
Serious people who take things seriously. I applaud them and hope my tax dollars support them appropriately, public and/or private sector. Sort of like geologists working to study the devastating potential of fault lines or volcanic activity. After seeing what extreme weather can do, and how resilient the US population seems to be, I'm honestly grateful to not have to have "Duck and Cover" as part of my everyday psyche.
> Perry wishes more people were familiar with the concept of “expected value.” That is a statistical way of understanding events of very large magnitude that have a low probability. The large magnitude event could be something good, like winning a lottery ticket. Or it could be something bad, like a nuclear bomb exploding. Because the odds of winning the lottery are so low, the rational thing is to save your money and not buy the ticket. As for a nuclear explosion, by Perry’s lights, the consequences are so grave that the rational thing would be for people in the United States and everywhere to be in a state of peak alarm about their vulnerability, and for political debate to be dominated by discussion of how to reduce the risk.
It took a long time to get to the article's actual suggestions (eliminate all ICBMS?); until that, this was just fear mongering.
i find his paranoia political. we should be a lot more worried about india and pakistan having nuclear weapons than a president who uses twitter.
He speaks out for concern on all of the above. The article states he hopes to meet with Trump & Mattis to work with him and give his advice.
as to whether we should be concerned, where was this article five months ago? it's thinly veiled political commentary.
http://www.wjperryproject.org/
If you want to disagree with him, then give an argument. However if you want to do a quick smear and dodge then keep repeating that it's "thinly veiled political commentary" over and over again.
Would three months ago count, or does it need to be exactly five? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/opinion/why-its-safe-to-sc...
> I would guess
Based on what? Unless it's based on something similar to where you got the 0.1% risk for a tornado it's no more accurate a guess than if you had said 0.01% or 1% or 80%.
I'm not making any claim to accuracy. That's why I used the word "guess."
Note that the comment I replied to implies that the risk of a nuclear holocaust is "much lower" than 0.1% per year. Why aren't you hassling them about that claim too? Unlike me, they just stated it as if it were a plain fact.
In all seriousness, calculating a probability of death from nuclear calamity isn't going to be possible without a great number of caveats and assumptions. It isn't like a meteor strike, because we at least have some record of that stretching back a long time. It's also not like meteor strikes because I believe the disaster generating process (people with buttons wired to faulty / hackable control systems) to be a giant mess of scary.
EX: "Solar Sunrise" is not that old and the US was seriously considering using nukes as NORAD was having major issues. IMO, large scale nuclear war was still unlikely, but the odds where probably well over 1% that year.
PS: Remember, WWI started from a chain of events that also seemed unlikely. But, a lot of stuff happens in any given year making such chains more common than you would think.
You are in a locked room with 9 idiots each holding a granade. What's your life expectancy?
Even worse, with even more particle physics, gene engineering, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence etc. you'll be soon locked up in a room with 7 billion idiots each holding a granade, a bazooka and a flame-thrower.
One of the very interesting things I got out of reading Command And Control by Eric Schlosser, was the number of very severe accidents that have happened in the US in the handling of nuclear weapons. While probably somewhat overstated, to me it basically makes a case that the US is lucky it hasn't nuked itself by accident (and some of the stories told in that book are incredible, I enjoyed that book).
Also, some of the stories make the case about how abysmal the care and prudence was around handling these weapons, such as the reluctance for years to even put codes on the weapons, or when they were forced to, setting every code to 0000. While I do believe the attitude may have changed, I don't know that it's prudent to put unwavering faith into the people handling these arms, based on what's told in this book.
While I don't want to say you suffer from this, I've seen what I believe to be a miss-allocation of risk in some of the engineering roles I've worked at. What I mean by this, is that because an event hasn't happened, or hasn't happened recently, that we believe the risk has changed. I've literally been part of a discussion on why do we need backups, because we've never restored from one.
If I understand correctly, this was the sort of philosophy that led to the challenger explosion, we launched the rocket before and it didn't explode, so why would it happen this time. To me, this is a fallacy of risk, previous events or recent history don't change the risk.
So while you're right, the risk that a nuclear accident happens, compared to a tornado or flooding happening is much different, doesn't mean that a nuclear accident won't happen. I also highly suspect, that if a nuclear armed country accidentally nukes itself, it would grip the world in a much different way than any tornado or flood. And may change your well-being in very dramatic way's, especially if one doesn't realize it was even an accident to begin with.
edit: minor grammatical mistakes
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...
"Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years"
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuk...
So it was not actually eight zeros (or four) but apparently 6 zeroes (000000) and effectively the "key under the doormat" (in the safe with the key in the same base as the rocket, the opposite of what was claimed then). The procedure was more complex than just keying in zeroes, but everything was surely trained on the rehearsals.
Now, imagine somebody just and only once forgets to apply the "it's just a rehearsal" command.
What's the "acceptable" probability some city being successfully targeted, even only and just once, especially knowing that it can trigger the retaliation?
The logic of the nuclear war is: "if the rockets come to you, you have to send yours to them, because otherwise they won!" -- they think it's better that the civilization gets wiped out than to appear to be a "chicken." Even a kind of semi-automated response surely exists.
Isn't the idea behind Mutually Assured Destruction not some ego battle, but a deterrent? If nuking another country definitely results in one's own country being nuked, that provides a clear incentive towards self-preservation and not nuking that country in the first place.
When the missile launch crews, routinely were tested. And something along the lines of a set of codes was used for a test launch. And a different set of codes was used for a real launch. On one of these tests, the real launch codes were used by mistake. But due to the crew asking for confirmation several times, the person eventually noticed their mistake and cancelled the order. But if I understand/remember correctly, strictly speaking these crews were given a valid launch command.
While I didn't find my source for that particular example, I do believe it does happen where training and real have gotten mixed up. The most famous of which, is I think when the operator used a training tape in the early warning system, which caused the US to think they were under attack.
https://www.damninteresting.com/the-apocalypses-that-might-h...
The semi-automated response is a good thing, it makes your commitment to retaliate even more certain.
This is because the enemy is typically expected to be aware of your capability, rational, and selfish. If they know that you won't fire the rockets back in response, they CAN win, and they might use their weapons. If they won't win, they won't fire the rockets in the first place.
Now, to be precise, the important part of the scheme is only that the enemy thinks you will fire the rocket. After the rockets are launched towards you, it doesn't matter anymore, and yes, you could (and should) nobly self-sacrifice your nation so that humanity survives. But any suggestion or expectation that this will happen makes it more likely that the enemy will call your bluff and destroy you.
Honestly, with this logic in consideration, it makes me wonder if some of the rumors and leaks about how close we have been to launching counterattacks are fabricated. Though given the risk of espionage, it's probably safer to simply not bluff.
All this falls apart if the enemy is either unaware of or disbelieving in your retaliation, so they might fire their missiles expecting you to not fire back. Or if they're irrational, failing to understand that they will not win. Or if they're not selfish (perhaps the scariest of the possibilities): Perhaps because they are suicidal, which could be considered a sub-class of irrational. Or because they think you will not retaliate against them, instead retaliating against someone else: For example, if through subterfuge the US could fire Pakistani missiles at North Korea, not being dissuaded by North Korea's retaliation against Pakistan because the destruction would be on a different continent, or for example the military or political leadership initiating the attack are in another country, or better yet, on another planet) and not personally harmed by their own country being destroyed.
I completely agree that the world would be a safer place if these weapons did not exist. Unfortunately, they do, and we're neither able to modify physics so that they don't, nor to unanimously agree that no use them, so we're stuck with this sub-optimal equilibrium.
That's not at all true. The logic of nuclear war is that your enemy must believe with a high degree of certainty that you will launch if attacked. Whether you actually do or not is beside the point.
That said, the PALs weren't fitted to the entire US arsenal until the late 80's so lots of nukes had mechanical keys for decades. Hopefully they took the rehearsal part more seriously than the security of the arsenal...
The probability may be lower. But the consequences are way, way, way, way, way bigger.(I am assuming nuclear catastrophe means nuclear war.)
From a personal point of view. A heart attack or cancer it is much bigger risk. You die and the world ends for you. But from the point of view of humanity. A nuclear war it is a much higher risk, since it would jeopardize our future.
And NOW suddenly we're supposed to be afraid of a total nuclear war? Don't insult my intelligence.
I've been terrified of nuclear war, terrorism, accidents, pollution since I can remember.
Don't pretend this is a new concern.
I simply bristle at the notion that I should suddenly live in fear because a carnival barker I don't like just won an election. The US federal government has been a hot mess since the early 1900's. NOW I'm suddenly supposed to be alarmed?
I consider anyone who suggests we should grow the federal government in its current configuration to be a busybody or a fool, sorry to be blunt. In my opinion, return power to the states or GTFO.
For me to live in fear of things I can't control is not living. I refuse to snivel. When I can make a positive impact in my sphere, I try to do that; sorry I can't do any better.
It's worth adding context to the article, which breezes past some controversial bits maybe a bit too easily: for instance it writes "how to maximize the fearsome deterrent power of the U.S. arsenal, how to minimize the possibility that the old Soviet arsenal would obliterate the United States and much of the planet along the way". This places the blame of mutually assured destruction and global thermonuclear war, almost entirely on the Soviet Union.
The US's nuclear deterrent is "fearsome". The Soviet Union has an "arsenal" (not a deterrent?), which would obliterate the whole planet.
I'm sure the author didn't intend to do this, but he's contributing to the problem. The United States and Russia - as well as other nuclear powers - are partners in a dialogue. They share responsibility for the outcomes of the security situation, and for avoiding falling into security dilemmas. One can deeply criticize America for the nuclear security situation we are today, as it has done by far the most to weaken the now-stalled nuclear arms agreements (START, etc) that had once been in place. (This of course doesn't meet the bar for the article).
When both sides start by accusing one another, they have to work back to a position where they can find common ground.
When both sides are realistic, and accept their own blame there's a place to work from.
For instance - it should not be controversial for an American to accept that the Soviet Union had a nuclear deterrent during the Cold War and to call it by such. Similarly we should accept that the US has a nuclear arsenal today (the US is a nuclear first-strike nation by policy) that, if used, would destroy most of the world.
Much of the rest of the piece is similarly written with an undercurrent of us versus them, with "them" getting the lionshare of the blame even though it does not cohere with history.
If you start the conversation with us versus them, you start the conversation with zero-sum mentality: the type of pitfall that led to the Cold War and its escalation to begin with.
There is no good versus evil. Other nations have National Security interests too. Do the god damn hard work to deconflict as much of this as possible. Do the god damn hard work to build and maintain transparent dialog. Do the god damn hard work to eliminate strategic surprise, and the possibility for strategic surprise.
And in the meantime, stop pointing fingers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/opinion/a-nuclear-9-11.htm...
And they are quite doable as weapons - it just takes some careful preparation and handling, and access to some mildly expensive materials.
I'm not even sure that's necessary, if all you want to do is create terror...?
For instance, read about David Hahn (aka, the "Nuclear Boy Scout") who recently passed away (of what, they don't say):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
He managed to contaminate his neighborhood using almost nothing but smoke detector components. How difficult would it be to collect smoke detector parts? You can easily find them used for cheap or free at garage sales and thrift stores. If there were a concerted effort to acquire the parts using only cash, it wouldn't take very long to gather up enough of the material...
...at that point, you just need the delivery device, and we all know that isn't difficult to procure or produce (all the parts can be easily bought at Walmart).
TBH, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet; as a terrorist weapon, it wouldn't matter that it didn't cause mass death via radiation poisoning (not in the near term at least), but that it has the perception to do so. At the very least, it would make people less likely to visit the "hot zone" left over afterward (in a financially important city area it might lead to economic problems).
Much easier to buy guns and shoot people or run a truck into a crowd.
Of course, other motivations, like the panic generated by a physical attack, may be more important to someone choosing methods.
Yes, the amount of complexity of preparation terrorists are able to get away with today is amusing. But grabbing a nuclear bomb is in a completely different mark, and successfully launching one is still a completely different level of complexity.
There is an interesting movie called "Threads", a BBC drama by Barry Hines. Be sure to watch it.
"In a best-case Trump scenario, he bumbles around for four years doing not much except embarrassing himself and the country."
This guy does not have a history of bumbling around. He seems to be quite an effective man of action. I think you "embarrass" yourself by starting an analysis with that paragraph.
Then a bit down below you say:
"It can be fun to have secret, unchecked powers when your guy is in office, but is incredibly dangerous when the other guy does."
It can be "fun" to have leadership with "unchecked power"?
Man, get over your totalitarian urges before you decide to play cassandra for the rest of us who do not think it "fun" at all, under any circumstances, to have leaders with "secret unchecked powers" in our Republic.
[fix minor typos]
I agree and I've tried to explain that to my conservative friends and co-workers but it never quite makes it through. Because Sharia law and death-panels never came to be a lot of them feel fine in brushing off my concerns about Trump, despite the complete false equivalency between the two.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/04/496596466/how-donald-trump-los...
"How Donald Trump Lost $916 Million"
Paul Allen lost $15-$20 billion across dozens of poor business decisions spanning decades. That doesn't mean he's an idiot or ineffectual. He also still has $20 billion.
Trump lost $916 million? He has ~$4 billion. So that just makes him more effective than 99.999% of all business people on earth, right?
Successfull as a con man can be.
Giving the money of his father to an index fund would result in the same or more wealth today. But he got to be so "visible" this way... up to becoming a president for being a known TV face.
He started with a lot of money and a family business and has done well, but the organization is not that big and not very remarkable if you ignore the marketing. I realize "he is the president" is a pretty good counterargument to "he's not an effective man of action", but hopefully you understand what I'm saying. I think his record is somewhere in between "bumbling around" and "man of action", probably a little closer to bumbling if you look at all his failures.
As to what constitutes effective "action" for a developer, sure he didn't lay bricks, but he made the deals, got the (opportunistic) tax breaks, and managed to fix up properties that were sitting stagnant. The Commodore Hotel, for example. And this same media that is ragging on him used to nauseate people like me who don't worship the shiny metal with its pimping of Mr. Trump.
And failures in business are par per course. If failure in a business venture makes a person a bumbler, then what to make of our current business hero's statement that "failure is an option here. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough"? (That was Elon Musk, btw.)
Did you see his tweet against the GOP's gutting of the Ethics Office? He still has the ear of millions of Americans and will continue to have that ear for the next 4 years. To think that he isn't going to be able to use that to his advantage is naïve. This is someone who has literally been shaping US foreign policy over Twitter. The "he's at his peak and can't do much more from here" line of thought has been brought up since the Republican primaries and it is as wrong now as it was then.
And he does have the ear of half the country, but in the past it has seemed like he's really only good at marketing himself, not so much his products and businesses. So of course he can use his followers to his advantage, but I don't see a lot of evidence that he will use that advantage well. Being able to push something through Congress doesn't mean he'll be able to make it work and make people buy into it.
I took the "best case" to mean that Trump is so caught up in his daily Twitter fueds (Arnold Schwarzenegger today) to push any significant legislative changes or start a war. Clearly Trump has had some degree of success in the business and marketing world.
Personally I think Trump knows exactly what he is doing when he makes outrageous public statements or goes after someone (distracting from issues like Russia, his conflicts of interest, the repeal of the ACA etc), but it's not a great leap to see how that behavior could cause issues in the world of international diplomacy. He has already made comments about nuclear proliferation, nuclear arms races, the one China policy, and the role of Russia in our recent election cycle. The linked article alludes to how quickly normality can spiral out of control especially if everyone assumes "it can't happen".
"The same question I asked my parents: how could you let Hitler come to power? And their answer sounds frightening familiar: it sort of happened (he was elected after all), he promised to make the country great again and everybody thought that once in power, the guy would settle and not do too much damage.
Well, we all know how that ended. And that guy didn’t have a nuclear button. This one has."
- A citizen of this planet: January 4, 2017 at 4:06 am
Maybe it's because you write shit like this. Condescending doesn't even begin to describe your last paragraph.
If I were to begin arguing why your article is wrong, one thing would be that you overestimate the amount of power a president has, despite being commander in chief. There are too many vested interests operating behind what is publicly seen, that would not allow a nuclear apocalypse to happen.
The one who attacks first
But more seriously, low grade poorly trained sub intelligent AI seems a lot more likely to fuck up a lot more people's lives than nuclear Armageddon.