India vs. Pakistan: the nuclear option is dangerously close, and nobody seems to want to prevent it
http://qz.com/541502/a-nuclear-war-between-india-and-pakistan-is-a-very-real-possibility/
India vs. Pakistan: the nuclear option is dangerously close, and nobody seems to want to prevent it
http://qz.com/541502/a-nuclear-war-between-india-and-pakistan-is-a-very-real-possibility/
Much discussion in this SSC thread (http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/10/31/ot32-when-hell-is-full-the-thread-will-walk-the-earth/#comment-255433) of what "nuclear war" would really mean. Mostly focused on a total US/USSR type situation, but still made a big change in how I thought about the subject in general.
Pakistan’s arsenal of short-range tactical nuclear weapons is a game changer in other ways. Pakistan clearly intends to use these weapons—on its own soil if necessary to counter [an Indian tank invasion.]
Using nuclear weapons on your own soil probably wouldn't cause anywhere near as much retaliation from your enemies and the international community then if your nuclear weapons hit enemy soil.
I was wondering about the state of the deterrence in place against nuclear weapons usage, having always assumed it to be massive, and I can't tell if there's actually any formal international treaty about the use of nuclear weapons in war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_of_mass_destruction_treaties has arms-reduction, non-proliferation, and test ban treaties, but apparently nothing about who you actually nuke. I think Geneva says you can't target civilians with any weapon, but does anything prohibit nuking your enemy's army?
Estimates of nuclear weapons being deployed in a conflict between the 2 states in the next 10 years?
Poll is a probability poll as described here:http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Comment_formatting#Probability_Poll
values from 0 to 1
[pollid:1073]
So, this is exactly the sort of thing prediction markets should do well at, right? People without structural incentives to ignore a problem can make accurate predictions and make money. People who care about it can point to the market prices when making their point.
In the black swan case, I think prediction markets will do only somewhat better than alternatives, but here they should do vastly better. Right?
The article makes a good point: USA can lose very much in case of such war. If the world sees that nukes can destroy enemy army without turning whole country into a blasted radioctive wasteland like scaremongers say, then non-proliferation is a lost cause and US military might suddenly turns into a heap of useless expensive toys.
The article makes a good point: USA can lose very much in case of such war. If the world sees that nukes can destroy enemy army without turning whole country into a blasted radioctive wasteland like scaremongers say, then non-proliferation is a lost cause and US military might suddenly turns into a heap of useless expensive toys.
In my opinion the opposite is likely to happen if there is an actual war of this kind between India and Pakistan: once Pakistan uses nukes, India will be mostly ok as a whole, as you imply, but India will turn Pakistan into such a "blasted radioactive wasteland" in comparison, which will make anyone else terrified of such a war with the US. Apparently the Indian defense minister in 2003 said something like this publicly, saying something like "After we respond, there will be no more Pakistan."