I think the only reason is luck really.<p>Stalin died shortly after the Soviet Union became a nuclear power. I read an interview of Beria's son explaining that Stalin was planning an all-out nuclear war. Given that killing a few dozen million people wasn't really a big deal to Stalin, there was a real risk he would have gone ahead.<p>McNamara in the excellent Fog of War also mentioned that Kennedy was extremely close to giving the order to bomb Cuba, I think he even mentioned that at one point the order had been signed, ready to go.<p>The Cold War is gone, but I think we have another danger. Drones and Robots have made it much cheaper for big powers to be more aggressive militarily. And the US is working actively on shields that could shoot down ICBMs. If the US can attack cheaply on the ground (as in with no US casualty) and not be deterred by a nuclear response, war is just bound to happen.
I'm glad the author says "one starts to wonder if it really is plain dumb luck". Another way to answer the question:<p>> Why Hasn’t the World Been Destroyed in a Nuclear War Yet?<p>Because in an alternative universe where there was a nuclear war, this has already happened, and there was no one left to ask the question. Or if there was, they certainly had better things to do.<p>See also: most questions and statements about real estate in 2007, or on Long Term Capital Management and their scientifically proven methods before their demise.<p>Survivorship bias is a PITA.<p>EDIT: Someone doesn't understand probability. Possible worlds is the only rigorous way of reasoning about counterfactuals.
Simple really. Rational nations led by rational leaders have had access to nuclear weapons. Both sides had one goal, to live, which means never really wanting to use them<p>the danger this day and age is that are some very irrational powers, possibly including leaders and the countries they represent, that, well, don't think the same.<p>Even India and Pakistan get along because neither side is governed by fanatical leadership. Likely the real danger comes from one of the more intolerant sects of Islam
In the book "The Stragegy of Conflict" Thomas Schelling proposes accidental launches as a form of "randomised threats" which let you position yourself in between "I certainly won't launch" (not a threat) and "I certainly will launch" (not a credible threat, as not rational due to MAD)<p>A Washington Post article [1] describes it like so:<p><i>So you're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You'll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal -- threatening to push him off the cliff -- would doom you both?<p>Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don't have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win.</i><p>So in the Cuban missile crisis accidental launches, not intentional launches, are what the Russians are threatened with. And when designing a nuclear deterrent, it's actually useful if the failsafes aren't 100% reliable - if a rogue general sets your nuclear launch code to all zeros [2] and they make sure the Russians find out about it, that's actually a good thing.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101336.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...</a>
[2] <a href="https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/12/11/for-nearly-20-years-the-launch-code-for-us-nuclear-missiles-was-00000000/" rel="nofollow">https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/12/11/for-nearly-20-ye...</a>
> (In the Cold War satire Dr. Strangelove, the Soviet Union deployed a similar “doomsday device” and also neglected to tell the world about it. In the film, Dr. Strangelove points out that not telling anyone obviates the deterrence of any deterrent device; the real-life Soviets seem to have missed the point.)<p>When I first read about the system, it was clearly explained that the idea was to put high-ranking Soviet generals at peace. If they know the system is there, they will not go paranoid and launch a nuclear war on their own (Dr Strangelove is one of the best movies ever). Yet, several times after that I have seen this "silly Soviets" way of telling the story, where authors completely seriously imply that the Soviets designed such a thing and then just, presumably out of pure stupidity (?), forgot to tell everyone. How can anyone find such an explanation acceptable?<p>Makes you wonder how much stupid shit we read every day, and accept it without noticing.
One answer that is possible though not a popular idea is 'The UN.' More broadly it's the international governance that the UN is a part of. The UN's goal is/was largely preventing a nuclear WWIII, so it's at least worth considering.<p>It's easy to discount the UN. It's ineffective, self righteous without introspection, a paper tiger, a cynical dealmaking forum, undemocratic, etc. etc..<p>But… There are two influential UN agendas that have been to some extent, effective: Non Aggression and Non Proliferation.<p>Nonproliferation was a limited success. Only Pakistan, India, Israel & North Korea went nuclear despite it. Those are worrying, but do not amount to inevitable nuclear war.<p>If nuclear weapons were sold in the arms markets like ICBMs, fighter jets, cutting edge anti missile/aircraft defense systems, etc. then the list of nuclear powers would be much bigger than it is today. Sadaam's Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt & Saudi Arabia would have them (they have everything else). That's just one neighborhood. Non-State nuclear powers would be far more likely. 911 might have been a nuclear attack.<p>Non aggression is the second principle/agenda. Boiled down it means 'No Wars of Conquest'. If you conquer territory that is "rightfully" yours because ancestors or whatnot, no country will recognize your territorial gains ever.<p>Non Aggression has also been a limited success. Israel in 1967 is the high profile counter example. Russia in Ukraine is the bigger and more recent one. There have been other violations, but compared to the pre-UN period it is a different paradigm.<p>Instead, we have a paradigm of "intervention" and occupation instead of conquest or colonialism. It's not ideal but it does change the whole incentive-dynamic. No country's political discourse is dominated by the idea of expanding. That is uniquely true of the last 3 generations and no other period.<p>In that sense, the UN Non Aggression principle has successfully taken the spoils out of war and prevented the cyclical warfare which created the two Great Wars.<p>Ukraine is the counterexample and may be the end of the era. Who knows.<p>TLDR: The UN lowered incidence of wars between major powers via the "non aggression rule" and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to minor powers and non state actors via non proliferation initiatives. These two have been working together to keep the chances of nuclear war down, but it's a shaky system.
In the recent discussion about the article "Almost everything in Dr. Strangelove was true" [0], mikeash posted a link to a captivating alternate-history story about the Cuban Missile Crisis going horribly bad:<p><a href="http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=65071" rel="nofollow">http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=...</a><p>[0]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7109345" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7109345</a>
I think people miss point of Dead Hand.<p>It's not to prevent US from launching a pre-emptive strike, it exists to prevent USSR from launching a pre-emptive strike.
Basically, MAD plus level-headed ... sub captains equals stability. The number of near-misses was
vanishingly small.<p>In a sense, nukes were more peaceful - the practical effect
was to replace large armies with nukes for cost reasons. Using nukes destroys them, so there's a disincentive to
actually use them. They're only any good if you <i>don't</i> use
them. That's some catch, that Catch-22.<p>The Cold War is oh-so-much not nearly even close to WWI.
Bismarck pretty much predicted WWI - down to the Balkan
character of the spark that ignited it - not long after he
was forced out of power in Germany. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Last_warning_and_prediction" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Last_warning_...</a><p>"
According to Albert Ballin, the year before he died
Bismarck told him:<p><pre><code> "One day the great European War will come out of some
damned foolish thing in the Balkans".[81]</code></pre>
"
Submitting for opinions:<p>If any nation were to 'go nuclear' either preemptively or through natural escalation, they would in one stroke become the new Nazis and hold this title for the rest of recorded history; no societies with direct or indirect recollection of the event would ever forgive or forget the decision. Given that no nation on this planet is truly ruled by one person, the Collective in Charge would have to make the decision to out-Hitler Hitler. Therefore, i believe that even if [Russia were to use a 'Nuc after its initial thrust into Europe failed/ the US were to use a 'Nuc after Russia's initial thrust succeeded/ China were to use a 'Nuc after the Asian Pacific joined together in opposition/etc], no rational state actors would respond in kind.
Another explanation offered by Schelling is that nuclear is generically different, basically ickier than other explosives.<p><a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2005/schelling-lecture.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/lau...</a><p>Fukushima is kind of reinforcing that sense of ickiness to the long-term detriment of nuclear as an alternative energy source, which is unfortunate because to me at least it appears to be the most viable.
Because in this neighborhood of the superimposed wave function that comprises the multiverse that didn't happen. There are also an infinite number of neighborhoods where the ability to ask that question doesn't exist because of the event.<p>To ask why it didn't happen in this particular neighborhood is to ask why the lack of that event is possible. In a Q.M. multiverse "why" questions get real tricky.
Because we're still here to write about it !<p>Sorry for this silly recursive joke. However it has a point : For some philosophers (e.g : Gerard Dupuy) theorizing the self realizing prophecies, in order to prevent a catastrophy, you need to think about it as if it already happened in the future. It is the only way to act on it to counteract the curse of determinism... Enjoy the paradox !
Reminds me of that situation in The Dark Knight (Batman 2), where both sides couldn't bring themselves to kill so many people although they were sure that would mean their own death.<p>I wonder if we people really are like that, because at the same time there are many examples of people having threats to their own life or a loved one's life trigger them to kill another person.
Because a nuclear war with human weapons can not destroy the world nor even the life in the planet. Life is simply tougher than this.<p>A nuclear accident or weapon excels in one sigle matter, to wipe the human race. Humans are efficiently banned at least in some places of Ukranie and Japan now so... yes, is happening.