Great post, Alex! The subject is fascinating and you cover it in far more nuance than I've seen elsewhere. It's wild to think that this was probably the first time in our history that the possibility of self-inflicted human extinction was seriously on the table.
I must also wonder what would've happened if the uncertainity before Trinity had been higher. Let's say the calculations had suggested a small but real chance of a runaway reaction. Would they scrap the bomb they just spent billions developing, or would the temptation of a superweapon be too much?
On another note, an interesting fictional example of a catastrophic runaway nuclear reaction is found in Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" (1930). A future civilization is destroyed when an attack on a nuclear power plant causes every "fissile" ore vein in the planet's crust to explode, nearly causing human extinction. (Being from 1930, the reaction is not really fission but it's close enough, with only one element being suitable for the power plants.)
Thanks - I was aware of the issue and aware that there was a controversy. I was aware that the issue was "dismissed". But I never really understood it in totality. Now I finally understand the issue and the answer.
Luckily for us, Hitler took the idea of atmospheric ignition more seriously, when Heisenberg explained it to him. According to Albert Speer's memoirs, "Hitler was plainly not delighted with the possibility that the earth under his rule might be transformed into a glowing star."
Yeah, Ellsberg quotes this. I admit that I do not put a lot of stock in Speer's memoirs or any of the accounts given regarding Hitler's alleged attitudes towards nuclear weapons. The evidentiary base is too thin and the motivations for misremembering or invention are too high! The idea that Hitler was particularly wise about these matters (or any matters) is not one that I take very seriously.
It's always fascinating, this business of watching a bunch of curious physicists trying to solve the Fermi paradox by empirical means. Maybe next time?
I disagree with the odds of the final conclusion. It presupposes you have special knowledge of human behaviour under certain conditions. But you do not. You are not God obviously. So the odds being much higher for an existential war cannot be compared - they are as unknown as where the odds of igniting the atmosphere in 1945. I feel you are allowing a political master in your head lead your thought here.
This attitude (only God can predict the future) would preclude one from guessing the odds of *anything*. But I'm not making a strong prediction, here. I'm challenging *you* (the reader) to do so, and then to see if you can take it seriously.
I don't claim to know what the odds for nuclear war are. But I do think that in any other field of study, if you had, say, 3-4 close calls in 80 years, you would assume the chance of a close call was, let's just say, something like once every 20 years. Or if you want to be very conservative, let's say that everyone agrees the Cuban Missile Crisis was a close call — so once every 80 years.
We know from studying those close calls, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, that those involved in them, on both sides, felt that they were very close indeed, and that the chance of them going wrongly by means of miscommunication, misunderstanding, mishap, or simply poor decision-making was very high.
Those are still very, very high odds compared to what we are talking about, here. Let's be extremely, ridiculously optimistic, and imagine that a Cuban Missile Crisis like event is a once-in-a-century event. So that's a yearly risk of 1%. So that means it is 10,000 times more likely than one-in-a-million.
If you want to do mental contortions to avoid thinking about the problems in this way, by all means, you are welcome to... but don't let your political priors keep you from even *thinking* about it! :-)
Great post, Alex! The subject is fascinating and you cover it in far more nuance than I've seen elsewhere. It's wild to think that this was probably the first time in our history that the possibility of self-inflicted human extinction was seriously on the table.
I must also wonder what would've happened if the uncertainity before Trinity had been higher. Let's say the calculations had suggested a small but real chance of a runaway reaction. Would they scrap the bomb they just spent billions developing, or would the temptation of a superweapon be too much?
On another note, an interesting fictional example of a catastrophic runaway nuclear reaction is found in Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" (1930). A future civilization is destroyed when an attack on a nuclear power plant causes every "fissile" ore vein in the planet's crust to explode, nearly causing human extinction. (Being from 1930, the reaction is not really fission but it's close enough, with only one element being suitable for the power plants.)
Thanks - I was aware of the issue and aware that there was a controversy. I was aware that the issue was "dismissed". But I never really understood it in totality. Now I finally understand the issue and the answer.
Luckily for us, Hitler took the idea of atmospheric ignition more seriously, when Heisenberg explained it to him. According to Albert Speer's memoirs, "Hitler was plainly not delighted with the possibility that the earth under his rule might be transformed into a glowing star."
Yeah, Ellsberg quotes this. I admit that I do not put a lot of stock in Speer's memoirs or any of the accounts given regarding Hitler's alleged attitudes towards nuclear weapons. The evidentiary base is too thin and the motivations for misremembering or invention are too high! The idea that Hitler was particularly wise about these matters (or any matters) is not one that I take very seriously.
It's always fascinating, this business of watching a bunch of curious physicists trying to solve the Fermi paradox by empirical means. Maybe next time?
I disagree with the odds of the final conclusion. It presupposes you have special knowledge of human behaviour under certain conditions. But you do not. You are not God obviously. So the odds being much higher for an existential war cannot be compared - they are as unknown as where the odds of igniting the atmosphere in 1945. I feel you are allowing a political master in your head lead your thought here.
This attitude (only God can predict the future) would preclude one from guessing the odds of *anything*. But I'm not making a strong prediction, here. I'm challenging *you* (the reader) to do so, and then to see if you can take it seriously.
I don't claim to know what the odds for nuclear war are. But I do think that in any other field of study, if you had, say, 3-4 close calls in 80 years, you would assume the chance of a close call was, let's just say, something like once every 20 years. Or if you want to be very conservative, let's say that everyone agrees the Cuban Missile Crisis was a close call — so once every 80 years.
We know from studying those close calls, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, that those involved in them, on both sides, felt that they were very close indeed, and that the chance of them going wrongly by means of miscommunication, misunderstanding, mishap, or simply poor decision-making was very high.
Those are still very, very high odds compared to what we are talking about, here. Let's be extremely, ridiculously optimistic, and imagine that a Cuban Missile Crisis like event is a once-in-a-century event. So that's a yearly risk of 1%. So that means it is 10,000 times more likely than one-in-a-million.
If you want to do mental contortions to avoid thinking about the problems in this way, by all means, you are welcome to... but don't let your political priors keep you from even *thinking* about it! :-)