hey guys I'm currently doing a research project for my high school. its about nuclear proliferation, and I'm doing a model un on this topic. The country I will be representing is the united states. I actually want to do an interview to broaden my understanding of this topic. If anyone is an expert in this field, including nuclear chemistry to diplomatic affairs, I would be really interested in getting your expert opinion on this matter.
Thanks
Thanks
if you are interested in allowing me to get your opinion, please inform me and I will contact you
as far as i know, no one here is an expert in this field. but i would guess that people would be willing to tell you their opinions.
definitely not an expert, but just wanted to say good luck! I did a model UN thing like this in HS too.
I'd suggest watching the good the bad and the ugly. I think that would provide deep insight on international policy and nuclear non proliferation.
this post has been archived.
Here are a couple of results that fall out of assuming that the probability of a massive wide scale nuclear exchange is greater than zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume:
1. massive wide scale nuclear exchange is a game over scenario (for the majority of the world's population)
2. the more nations have nuclear weapons the greater the probability of a massive wide scale nuclear exchange.
Therefore:
Nuclear proliferation leads to a greater probability of the game over scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume:
1. the probability of a massive nuclear exchange (so long as nuclear weapons are available) is greater than zero for all t>0.
2. as time the number of time periods observed goes to infinity the probability of any event occurring (at least once) approaches 100%.
Therefore:
So long as there is a possibility of nuclear weapons being used on massive scale is greater than zero for any future time period, the possibility of massive nuclear exchange becomes a certainty if you wait long enough.
Critiques:
1. If the probability is small enough then there might be a very small chance that massive nuclear exchange will occur in our life time. Do we care about the potential beyond our own personal lifetimes?
2. This implicitly assumes that each draw is independent. Which it probability isn't. It is easy to argue that the longer the world goes without nuclear exchange the less likely we will see a massive nuclear exchange. Meaning that the probability of seeing a nuclear exchange over an infinite time horizon does not necessarily converge on 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume:
1. massive wide scale nuclear exchange is a game over scenario (for the majority of the world's population)
2. the more nations have nuclear weapons the greater the probability of a massive wide scale nuclear exchange.
Therefore:
Nuclear proliferation leads to a greater probability of the game over scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume:
1. the probability of a massive nuclear exchange (so long as nuclear weapons are available) is greater than zero for all t>0.
2. as time the number of time periods observed goes to infinity the probability of any event occurring (at least once) approaches 100%.
Therefore:
So long as there is a possibility of nuclear weapons being used on massive scale is greater than zero for any future time period, the possibility of massive nuclear exchange becomes a certainty if you wait long enough.
Critiques:
1. If the probability is small enough then there might be a very small chance that massive nuclear exchange will occur in our life time. Do we care about the potential beyond our own personal lifetimes?
2. This implicitly assumes that each draw is independent. Which it probability isn't. It is easy to argue that the longer the world goes without nuclear exchange the less likely we will see a massive nuclear exchange. Meaning that the probability of seeing a nuclear exchange over an infinite time horizon does not necessarily converge on 1.
Well that's not entirely true... only 2 maybe 3 nations have anywhere near enough of a nuclear stockpile to come close to a "game over scenario".
As long as the US, China, and Russia refrain from letting loose with a full salvo, we should be fine.
As long as the US, China, and Russia refrain from letting loose with a full salvo, we should be fine.
the arguments hold so long as at least one nation has sufficient nuclear arsenal to bring about game over. you might even argue that so long as at least two or three nations together have sufficient arsenals this thought experiment is still valid. it relies on independent draws with p(exchange)>0.