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/
"A “pink flamingo” is a term recently coined by Frank Hoffman to describe predictable but ignored events that can yield disastrous results. Hoffman argues that these situations are fully visible, but almost entirely ignored by policymakers. "
Why are they ignoring this?
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.
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.