![]() ![]() So if you want to make a difference, nuclear might well seem lower priority.īut these propositions deserve greater scrutiny. AI, bio and climate have more international momentum behind them right now than nuclear, which seems paralysed by US-Russia confrontation. AI, at least, is a so far relatively less studied risk. As argued above, governments already know roughly how to do nuclear risk reduction. On the face of it, all that seems reasonable. Maybe nuclear is an existential risk that can be left to governments? Part 2: Is nuclear traction really a priority for the EA community?Įven if we accept that getting traction on nuclear risk is in principle possible and extremely important, much of the EA community seem to regard nuclear risk reduction as less neglected, and therefore see nuclear projects as less likely to gain EA community traction than projects on AI, bio or climate. In fact, a triple importance because, in the short term, nuclear catastrophe is currently still the most likely trigger to end humanity. So, arguably, it has a double importance. If you believe as we do that great power competition is the single greatest driver of anthropogenic existential risk, then nuclear risk reduction is not only desirable in itself but is also the first step towards eliminating a massive chunk of wider existential risk. The openings for traction on nuclear are clear. Washington professes interest in strategic stability. Beijing and Moscow have interests in constraining and mirroring the United States. But great power security establishments ‘speak’ nuclear, have come to know they cannot win nuclear arms races or sustain covert nuclear programmes and are more confident about calculating their interests and then cutting deals on nuclear risk reduction than on AI or even bio. Climate risks aren’t yet deeply integrated enough into great power security establishments to provide the diplomatic bridge to military risk reduction. ![]() On the contrary, it is surely more plausible that nuclear risk reduction is the key that could unlock international progress on the control of AI applications and bio risks. But in the present dire state of great power relations is it really more likely that great powers will regulate their AI race more easily than their nuclear one, or add a verification component to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention more easily than find a way forward after the US-Russia nuclear New START treaty expires in February 2026? This is not to say that getting traction on nuclear risk reduction is easy nor that AI or bio risk reduction is impossible. Moreover, such agreement would change the weather on nuclear risk and make it far easier for other nuclear weapons states and the international community to follow suit. Unlike climate or environmental negotiations, which generally have to involve the entire international community, major nuclear risk reduction could be achieved by agreement between just three capitals - Beijing, Moscow and Washington. Verification of existential risk reduction agreements - essential for sustaining reduced risk internationally - seems likely to be less intrusive and thus far easier to negotiate for nuclear than for AI or bio. Unlike AI, they have already negotiated many agreements and have an international framework. The major nuclear powers have a well-established sense of the risk and know roughly how to do nuclear crisis management and risk reduction, unlike AI. Getting traction on existential and catastrophic nuclear risk looks much easier than climate, AI or bio risks. This first part asks whether people outside of government can achieve traction in reducing global nuclear risk, before we address neglect and some ideas to achieve impact. This three-part post draws on a keynote speech delivered by the European Leadership Network’s Director, Sir Adam Thomson, to EA Global in London last month alongside reactions to our earlier post. Part 1: Is traction on nuclear risk possible? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |