 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
 Posted: 21-07-2009 14:11 Post subject: Chance of nuclear war is greater than you think |
 |
|
|
I'm putting this in the Human Condition Forum as the outcomes depend on human interaction and decisions. I don't think his Cuba analogies stand anymore. A mad North Korean regime is capable of anything but I think the Iranian Theocracy would be more likely to use (IF it had them) nuclear weapons against its own people to retain power rather than use them against Western targets.
Some comments at the article link.
| Quote: | Chance of nuclear war is greater than you think: Stanford engineer makes risk analysis
http://www.physorg.com/news167327145.html
July 20th, 2009 BY CHRISTINE BLACKMAN
Professor Emeritus Martin Hellman began his work on the threat of nuclear destruction in the 1980s.
What are the chances of a nuclear world war? What is the risk of a nuclear attack on United States soil? The risk of a child born today suffering an early death due to nuclear war is at least 10 percent, according to Martin Hellman, a tall, thin and talkative Stanford Professor Emeritus in Engineering.
Ads by Google
Ergonomic Risk Assessment - www.WorkstationAnalysis.ie
Experts in office ergonomics Achieve full regulatory compliance
Nuclear tensions in Iran and North Korea are increasing the need to take a long look at how the United States handles weapons of mass destruction, Hellman said.
Auto manufacturers assess the risk of injury to drivers, and engineers assess potential risks of a new nuclear power plant. So why haven’t we assessed the risk of nuclear conflict based on our current arms strategy? Hellman and a group of defense experts, Nobel laureates and Stanford professors are calling for an in-depth analysis.
With more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in existence and the ability to build many times more, the choice is between creating a safer world and having no world at all, Hellman wrote in his paper “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence.”
Weapons from the Cold War still remain, but public concern for nuclear strategy has dissipated, Hellman said. Many of those who do think about it, such as political leaders, say the fantasy of nuclear disarmament is too risky for national defense, he explained.
“People who are saying change is too risky are implicitly assuming that the current approach is risk free, but no one really knows what the risk is if we don’t change,” Hellman said.
Hellman’s story
Hellman first became concerned about nuclear war in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan became president. Reagan brought the nuclear threat into clearer focus by being honest about fighting plans, Hellman said. Also, a fellow Stanford professor, Harry Rathbun, started a group to convince people that nuclear weapons represented more than just scientific progress, but a real threat of global destruction. Hellman credited his wife, Dorothie, for getting him to join the group: “I never would have gotten involved if it wasn’t for her.”
In 1982, Hellman took an 18-month, unpaid leave from Stanford to work as a volunteer for the group started by Rathbun. During this time, Hellman became convinced that nuclear destruction not only could happen, but would happen unless we changed some of our fundamental beliefs about national security and war.
Hellman’s numbers
About fifteen years after Hellman became convinced of impending destruction, he began punching numbers to calculate the probability of such a catastrophe based on events focused around the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. According to Hellman’s numbers, the risk of a person not living out his or her natural life because of nuclear war is at least 10 percent.
Ads by Google
Risk Management Software - Governance, risk and compliance Modeling and monitoring solutions - www.mega.com
Risk Assessment - Control Potential Risk Hazards, We Provide Safety Solutions. - www.HealthAndSafetymanager.ie
Hellman gives another analogy: “The risk that each one of us dies as a result of failed deterrence is thousands of times greater than the risk you would bear if a nuclear power plant were built right next to your home.”
Determining such a risk seems a little like predicting the future, but Hellman is confident about his numbers. He justifies his probability by breaking down a catastrophe into a sequence of smaller failures, incorporating expert opinions, examining history and estimating within a range of numbers.
Hellman’s path to risk assessment
Before returning to Stanford from his volunteer leave, Hellman started a project with the Soviet Academy of Sciences through a committee led by Evgeny Velikhov, who later became Mikhail Gorbachev’s science advisor. In 1984, Hellman and his wife traveled to the Soviet Union to create dialog and build relationships with the Soviet scientists. Soviet restrictions on free speech prevented totally open discussion, but by 1986, Gorbachev lifted censorship, and the project became possible, Hellman explained.
The fruit of their labor came a year later in the form of a book called Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking. It had the radical thesis that either humanity would end war or war would end humanity.
But the cold war faded, along with public support, and Hellman focused his work on easing ethnic tension on campus (for which he won three awards) before retiring in 1995. After a few years of attending to family responsibilities, he returned to his work on risk assessment.
Hellman’s method
Hellman used a risk analysis approach, which breaks down a catastrophic event into a sequence of smaller failures. He further simplified the analysis by only considering failures triggered by a crisis involving Cuba. He began by evaluating three events that could have initiated a conflict: deploying American missiles in Turkey (which began in 1961), re-imposing a naval blockade around Cuba (which was threatened in the 1980s) and installing a missile defense system in eastern Europe, a current project that has drawn objections from Russia.
Based on the outcomes of these events, Hellman estimated these numbers:
• Rate of initiating events: six percent per year
• Probability that an initiating event leads to a major crisis: 33 percent
• Probability that a major crisis leads to the use of a nuclear weapon: 10 to 50 percent
The third probability is hardest to estimate because we have yet to drop a bomb on Russia (or vice versa). Hellman used the 10 to 50 percent range based on studying what transpired in the Cuban Missile Crisis and on statements by the participants. People can make irrational decisions when under the gun, he explained. Once a major crisis erupts, it becomes a question of who will back down first; like a game of nuclear chicken, he said.
Iran and North Korea
Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s nuclear testing add complexity to the assessment, Hellman explained. Nuclear terrorism was not included in the preliminary analysis, which makes Hellman’s probability more conservative. Factoring in nuclear terrorism adds a scary new dimension with additional risk, he said. A country with nuclear weapons and a terrorist presence could trigger a nuclear war, especially if the terrorist hostility is directed at a United States or Russian city, Hellman explained.
“If New York or Moscow went up in smoke, as horrendous as that would be, it could be a catalyst for an even worse catastrophe.” Conflict could arise as United States and Russian troops meet in the terrorist country to secure any remaining weapons, he explained.
According to Hellman, solving the conflict with Russia is the first key step to addressing issues with Iran or North Korea.
“Let’s work on the United States and Russia first because that’s where the most weapons are, it’s the easiest one to solve, and it will make a more fertile ground for solving later crises,” he said. “If we behave more rationally toward Russia, it might help Iran and North Korea see us as more trustworthy.”
Is disarmament the answer?
Moving toward a solution starts with taking small steps, such as recognizing the problem and analyzing the risk, Hellman explained.
“When people think about nuclear disarmament - if they do - they tend to think nothing will change except that we get rid of nuclear weapons. That’s not going to happen. Before we can even determine if nuclear disarmament is possible, we need to get beyond the simple good-guy/bad-guy view of the world and recognize that things are much more complex.”
While many might brand him as foolish for tackling such a seemingly insoluble problem, Hellman takes that as an unintended compliment, noting that his award-winning work in cryptography was seen in a similar light - until it paid off.
He looks to events in the past that give humanity hope for the future. If America had rejected seemingly impossible tasks, we’d still have slavery and women wouldn’t be able to vote; history has proven that people can change, he said.
Provided by Stanford University |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Ginando Great Old One Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Total posts: 323 Location: Somewhere other than where I really want to be Gender: Male |
| Posted: 22-07-2009 14:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| While it's an interesting article, I still would have far greater concerns that an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons would try to strike Israel, and the Israelis will respond several times over. That would inevitably bring several other countries into the mix, and bingo, canned instant sunshine for everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SHAYBARSABE Great Old One Joined: 05 May 2009 Total posts: 1379 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 24-07-2009 20:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Possbility because I grew up when I did, but the chance of nuclear war never seemed small. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| river_styx Chaos Magnet.
Pain Joined: 08 Feb 2002 Total posts: 2146 Location: Between Here aaaaaaand....There. Age: 35 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-07-2009 16:18 Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's the North Koreans that we need to keep an eye on, even though I don't think they'd start the ball rolling I do think they could be easily provoked into doing something daft.
I also think that now they do have the bomb it could lead them into a renewed belief that they should push into the South, sparking a new civil war which could bubble up into an international crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| krelnarb Grey Joined: 30 Mar 2004 Total posts: 10 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 27-07-2009 22:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| If your betting a tactical nuke toss between Pakistan and India in our life time is good odds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 08-05-2013 23:31 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Again this fits in Human Condition. Perhaps these officers need more than just retraining. Then perhaps the missiles need to be scrapped.
| Quote: | Air Force strips 17 officers of nuclear watch command
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22457265
The inside of the deactivated Delta Nine nuclear missile launch facility near Wall, South Dakota
The US Air Force has stripped 17 officers of the authority to control nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, US media have reported.
The unprecedented action was taken in April, after the unit's deputy commander wrote in an email the programme was suffering "rot".
The story was first reported by the Associated Press.
The Air Force's top official told a Senate hearing that the revelation shows it has strengthened inspections.
Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, said he was confident that the nuclear missile force was secure.
24-hour watch
In an email initially obtained by the AP, Lieutenant Colonel Jay Folds wrote that drastic action was needed because "we didn't wake up" after an underwhelming inspection the month before.
The 91st Operations Group at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, the unit responsible for 15 Minuteman III missile launch control centres, received an satisfactory review overall in March.
But the unit received the equivalent of a D grade on the test of its mastery of the missile launch operations.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Minuteman launch crews have long been marginalised and demoralised by the fact that the Air Force's culture and fast-track careers revolve around flying planes”
Bruce Blair
Former ICBM officer
Lt Col Folds also complained of unwarranted questioning of orders by launch crews and the failure of more senior officers to report infractions.
"We're discovering such rot in the crew force," he wrote, that the unit was accepting violations of safety rules and code compromises "all in the name of not inconveniencing yourselves".
The 17 officers were removed from duty of 24-hour shifts watching over nuclear missiles that can strike targets across the globe. Inside each underground launch control capsule, two officers stand "alert" at all times, ready to launch an ICBM upon presidential order.
The Air Force said the lapses never put the security of the nuclear force at risk and that the officers pulled from the watch will receive more training. They are expected to return to normal duty within two months.
The service has removed officers from nuclear authority before, but never so many at one time.
The move comes after a 2008 Pentagon report excoriated the Air Force for a series of blunders, including a bomber's mistaken flight across the country armed with nuclear-tipped missiles.
The top civilian and military leaders of the Air Force resigned over the report.
It had taken numerous steps since then to improve the force's nuclear performance.
Deep malaise
At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Mr Donley said the launch control officers were relatively junior in rank and needed to be reminded continually of the importance of "this awesome responsibility".
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said the nation's nuclear missile force is secure
The Air Force's chief of staff also endorsed the handling of the situation by Minot Air Force base officials and said it had been "more of an attitude problem than a proficiency problem".
But at least one senator was not calmed by official assurances. Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin, chairman of the Senate appropriations defence subcommittee, expressed outrage, saying the AP report revealed a problem that "could not be more troubling".
Bruce Blair, who served as an Air Force ICBM launch control officer in the 1970s and is a co-founder of nuclear weapons elimination group Global Zero, said the email points to a broader problem.
"The nuclear air force is suffering from a deep malaise caused by the declining relevance of their mission since the Cold War's end over 20 years ago," Mr Blair said.
"Minuteman launch crews have long been marginalised and demoralised by the fact that the Air Force's culture and fast-track careers revolve around flying planes, not sitting in underground bunkers baby-sitting nuclear-armed missiles." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| garrick92 Invisible Flaneur Joined: 29 Oct 2001 Total posts: 700 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-05-2013 23:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Chance of nuclear war is greater than you think |
Oh, great, just what I needed to hear.
Note to self: Remain living in London to ensure instant obliteration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kondoru Unfeathered Biped Joined: 05 Dec 2003 Total posts: 5788 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 11-05-2013 09:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Yes, because minding phallic objects you hope never to even think about using is stimulating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| garrick92 Invisible Flaneur Joined: 29 Oct 2001 Total posts: 700 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 12-05-2013 01:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 27-09-2013 13:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Almost happened, one person made the difference.
| Quote: | Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831
Stanislav Petrov says no-one would have blamed him if he'd just passed the information on
Thirty years ago, on 26 September 1983, the world was saved from potential nuclear disaster.
In the early hours of the morning, the Soviet Union's early-warning systems detected an incoming missile strike from the United States. Computer readouts suggested several missiles had been launched. The protocol for the Soviet military would have been to retaliate with a nuclear attack of its own.
But duty officer Stanislav Petrov - whose job it was to register apparent enemy missile launches - decided not to report them to his superiors, and instead dismissed them as a false alarm.
This was a breach of his instructions, a dereliction of duty. The safe thing to do would have been to pass the responsibility on, to refer up.
But his decision may have saved the world.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
There was no rule about how long we were allowed to think before we reported a strike. But we knew that every second of procrastination took away valuable time”
Stanislav Petrov
"I had all the data [to suggest there was an ongoing missile attack]. If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it," he told the BBC's Russian Service 30 years after that overnight shift.
Mr Petrov - who retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel and now lives in a small town near Moscow - was part of a well-trained team which served at one of the Soviet Union's early warning bases, not far from Moscow. His training was rigorous, his instructions very clear.
'Couldn't move'
His job was to register any missile strikes and to report them to the Soviet military and political leadership. In the political climate of 1983, a retaliatory strike would have been almost certain.
And yet, when the moment came, he says he almost froze in place.
"The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds, staring at the big, back-lit, red screen with the word 'launch' on it," he says.
The system was telling him that the level of reliability of that alert was "highest". There could be no doubt. America had launched a missile.
"A minute later the siren went off again. The second missile was launched. Then the third, and the fourth, and the fifth. Computers changed their alerts from 'launch' to 'missile strike'," he says.
Mr Petrov smokes cheap Russian cigarettes as he relates the incidents he must have played over countless times in his mind.
"There was no rule about how long we were allowed to think before we reported a strike. But we knew that every second of procrastination took away valuable time; that the Soviet Union's military and political leadership needed to be informed without delay.
"All I had to do was to reach for the phone; to raise the direct line to our top commanders - but I couldn't move. I felt like I was sitting on a hot frying pan," he told us.
Soviet missiles on display in Moscow, 1989
Soviet protocol said the military should respond to a nuclear attack with one of its own
Although the nature of the alert seemed to be abundantly clear, Mr Petrov had some doubts.
Alongside IT specialists, like him, Soviet Union had other experts, also watching America's missile forces. A group of satellite radar operators told him they had registered no missiles.
But those people were only a support service. The protocol said, very clearly, that the decision had to be based on computer readouts. And that decision rested with him, the duty officer.
But what made him suspicious was just how strong and clear that alert was.
"There were 28 or 29 security levels. After the target was identified, it had to pass all of those 'checkpoints'. I was not quite sure it was possible, under those circumstances," says the retired officer.
Mr Petrov called the duty officer in the Soviet army's headquarters and reported a system malfunction.
If he was wrong, the first nuclear explosions would have happened minutes later.
"Twenty-three minutes later I realised that nothing had happened. If there had been a real strike, then I would already know about it. It was such a relief," he says with a smile.
'Lucky it was me'
Now, 30 years on, Mr Petrov thinks the odds were 50-50. He admits he was never absolutely sure that the alert was a false one.
He says he was the only officer in his team who had received a civilian education. "My colleagues were all professional soldiers, they were taught to give and obey orders," he told us.
So, he believes, if somebody else had been on shift, the alarm would have been raised.
A few days later Mr Petrov received an official reprimand for what happened that night. Not for what he did, but for mistakes in the logbook.
He kept silent for 10 years. "I thought it was shameful for the Soviet army that our system failed in this way," he says.
But, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the story did get into the press. Mr Petrov received several international awards.
But he does not think of himself as a hero.
"That was my job", he says. "But they were lucky it was me on shift that night." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SHAYBARSABE Great Old One Joined: 05 May 2009 Total posts: 1379 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 30-09-2013 23:06 Post subject: Re: Chance of nuclear war is greater than you think |
|
|
|
| ramonmercado wrote: |
| Quote: | | Chance of nuclear war is greater than you think |
|
That chance could not possibly be greater than I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 01-10-2013 08:43 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sooner or later, someone is bound to use one. It will be the reaction to that which determines whether the human race retains any interest in global warming - or anything else.
The current deterrent policy has one flaw - if you don't know who set the darn thing off you don't know who to obliterate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gncxx King-Size Canary
Great Old One Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Total posts: 13561 Location: Eh? Gender: Male |
| Posted: 01-10-2013 22:23 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Someone has used one, two in fact, at the end of the Second World War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 02-10-2013 08:17 Post subject: |
|
|
|
But at the time no-one else had one, so there was no deterrent.
I believe the deterrent policy has worked from the 50's until now. Whether it will always work is another matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
