Warren Buffet on mankinds 'ultimate problem'

[mdwh]

If the probability of a nuke being used (each year) decreases each year(through security, treaties, reduction of materials) then the long-term probability of at least one nuke does not approach one, but a set percentage below one.

I agree. More longer term possibilities are that we may have better defences against nuclear missiles (er, a Strategic Missile Defence?), or move to other planets.

Now yes, these are very long term things, but the whole argument is based on the idea that it will *eventually* happen, even if these means waiting hundreds or thousands of years for the probability to become significant. On these scales, the possibility we may have moved into space or other planets is also significant, at which point the probability of nuclear weapons destroying us all is greatly reduced.

 

[mdwh]

So what would be required here?
*The stockpiles of the US and USSR during the cold war ran into 10s of 1,000s. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.png ) Now, perhaps it's possible to achieve extinction with less, but that's not clear (even with this many, it's debateable whether it would actually wipe out humans). Certainly though, surely thousands would be needed (e.g., consider if each warhead could kill 1 million people).
*There's a difference between nuclear fusion bombs (which would be used in a nuclear war) and nuclear fission bombs. The former are, I believe, far harder to make. The latter are far less powerful (on the order of 100-1,000 times less powerful). Judging by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they might kill on the order of 100,000, so you'd need a lot to wipe out everyone.
*It's not just that making X number of weapons is X times harder than making 1 - the scenario of a terrorist nuclear bomb is based around obtaining the necessary radioactive materials from a country's supplies. If you try to steal 1,000s of times more, you're far more likely to be noticed, if it's even possible. They could manufacture their own, but now they need to build their own nuclear reactors.
*They also need a method of deploying the weapon - so terrorists could have a missile system capable of deploying everywhere in the globe? Most countries don't even have that, I thought! The scenario of a suicide bomber taking it directly is also far harder - it's far more likely to be spotted if you try to bring all these bombs into the country, and you'd need thousands of them all over the globe.

In other words, this is sheer fantasy. You might as well worry that it's inevitable we will one day get eaten by a black hole, or an asteroid will wipe us all out.

Now yes, it would still cause major problems even if "only" a few hundred warheads were deployed, but that still seems highly unlikely. There's also the question of why - given that one fission bomb would cause tremendous damage (although not be anything like a global catastrophe), I'm sure they'd go for that and be more than happy.

Also, I agree it's possible he's being misrepresented. The only direct quotes talk about his worry of them obtaining one atom bomb.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You guys remind me of Michael "According to my mathematical calculations NYC has no significant targets for terrorists" Chertoff, the Director of Homeland Security

 

[El_Machinae]

I tell you that the idea of a 'suitcase nuke' scares the hell out of me.

Nicole Kidman said it best: "I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nukes. I'm afraid of the man who wants one"