I think all these claims are incorrect.
First, estimates of damage from nukes are very likely to be hugely (and intentionally) overblown, the same way as pre-WWII estimates for strategic bombing were off by an order of magnitude.
Second, even ignoring that, current arsenals (only warheads deployed on ICBMs, other are irrelevant in this scenario) are not sufficient for counter-population strike. Destroying large cities does not destroy the nation.
Third and most importantly, leadership ordering the first strike will surely survive! They just move to some remote location before, and then claim that the other side attacked first.
Quick fact check: atomic scientists cites this paper which claims 360 million deaths between Russia and the USA. That’s 75% of the current population. This pattern of unacceptable losses goes back, this source says 274 million dead in 1964, the USSR + USA population at that time was 417 million. So 65% in 1964.
You are correct that technically 25% of the population survive, and the prewar leadership could try to have their friends and family hide and they might survive.
Keep in mind that the distribution of losses won’t be even. A powerful nation requires a huge pool of specialists with unique skills that not everyone is trained in. Disproportionately more specialists will be killed, especially engineers and technicians and soldiers and so on. The survivors will likely miss skillsets and obviously all the distribution system to even allow prewar populations to exist is gone, so the survivors will likely be forced to flee to subsist as refugees in neighboring countries.
This outcome is the complete destruction of the military and economic power of the nation—even if everyone isn’t dead, there is going to be essentially no GDP and no means to resist outsiders doing whatever they want. That sounds like national suicide to me, what do you think?
Note also in a scenario of increasing tensions over AI, all the parties would be scaling their nuclear arsenals and preparing measures to continue to fight until the other party is annihilated. This would mean more deployed warheads probably on more forms of delivery vehicle that arms limitation treaties currently restrict. (like stealth cruise missiles)
Again, that some estimates are given in papers doesn’t mean they are even roughly correct. But if they are—then no, that scenario is not suicide. There are some nations now which have lower GDP per capita than USA had two centuries ago.
As for defense—well, that definitely wouldn’t be a problem. Who and why will be willing to invade a big and very poor country, leaders of which claim they still have some nukes in reserve?
Nuclear exchanges won’t end the world, but they will make the nations that started them forever irrelevant. If the top 100 major cities in the U.S. were wiped out, the U.S. would become the next Roman Empire for all sakes and purposes, an echo of the past. That represents an immense loss in GDP and a complete destruction of the economy.
Also you can’t have it both ways,
Either a nuclear exchange is deadly and a reason to abide a treaty (and suicidal enough that leaders won’t actually do it) or it’s not and people won’t abide by it.
The first claim is true—but ruling a third world nation is still better than being dead and ruling nothing. If the leadership has Eliezer-level conviction that AI would kill everybody, then the choice is clear.
The second isn’t—destroying the ability to build AI is much easier, so the reason for abiding the treaty is not “we all die” but rather “we become much poorer and don’t get the AI anyway”.
I think all these claims are incorrect. First, estimates of damage from nukes are very likely to be hugely (and intentionally) overblown, the same way as pre-WWII estimates for strategic bombing were off by an order of magnitude. Second, even ignoring that, current arsenals (only warheads deployed on ICBMs, other are irrelevant in this scenario) are not sufficient for counter-population strike. Destroying large cities does not destroy the nation. Third and most importantly, leadership ordering the first strike will surely survive! They just move to some remote location before, and then claim that the other side attacked first.
Quick fact check: atomic scientists cites this paper which claims 360 million deaths between Russia and the USA. That’s 75% of the current population. This pattern of unacceptable losses goes back, this source says 274 million dead in 1964, the USSR + USA population at that time was 417 million. So 65% in 1964.
You are correct that technically 25% of the population survive, and the prewar leadership could try to have their friends and family hide and they might survive.
Keep in mind that the distribution of losses won’t be even. A powerful nation requires a huge pool of specialists with unique skills that not everyone is trained in. Disproportionately more specialists will be killed, especially engineers and technicians and soldiers and so on. The survivors will likely miss skillsets and obviously all the distribution system to even allow prewar populations to exist is gone, so the survivors will likely be forced to flee to subsist as refugees in neighboring countries.
This outcome is the complete destruction of the military and economic power of the nation—even if everyone isn’t dead, there is going to be essentially no GDP and no means to resist outsiders doing whatever they want. That sounds like national suicide to me, what do you think?
Note also in a scenario of increasing tensions over AI, all the parties would be scaling their nuclear arsenals and preparing measures to continue to fight until the other party is annihilated. This would mean more deployed warheads probably on more forms of delivery vehicle that arms limitation treaties currently restrict. (like stealth cruise missiles)
Again, that some estimates are given in papers doesn’t mean they are even roughly correct. But if they are—then no, that scenario is not suicide. There are some nations now which have lower GDP per capita than USA had two centuries ago.
As for defense—well, that definitely wouldn’t be a problem. Who and why will be willing to invade a big and very poor country, leaders of which claim they still have some nukes in reserve?
Nuclear exchanges won’t end the world, but they will make the nations that started them forever irrelevant. If the top 100 major cities in the U.S. were wiped out, the U.S. would become the next Roman Empire for all sakes and purposes, an echo of the past. That represents an immense loss in GDP and a complete destruction of the economy.
Also you can’t have it both ways,
Either a nuclear exchange is deadly and a reason to abide a treaty (and suicidal enough that leaders won’t actually do it) or it’s not and people won’t abide by it.
The first claim is true—but ruling a third world nation is still better than being dead and ruling nothing. If the leadership has Eliezer-level conviction that AI would kill everybody, then the choice is clear. The second isn’t—destroying the ability to build AI is much easier, so the reason for abiding the treaty is not “we all die” but rather “we become much poorer and don’t get the AI anyway”.