From the article, the annualized probability of a Cuban Missile Type Crisis (CMTC) resulting in World war III during the 50 years of the Cold war =

Low Estimate: 2 in 10,000 = .02% = .0002 = [3/50][1/3][.1][.1]

High Estimate: 5 in 1,000 = .5% = .005 = [3/50][1/3][.5][.5]

[annualized probability that an initiating event (such as the Berlin crisis of 1961) would lead to a CMTC (3 chances in the past 50 years, by Hellman's count)] x

[conditional probability that the event becomes a CMTC (one event was the actual Cuban Missile Crisis, so that's 1 in 3)]x

[conditional probability that the CMTC leads to the use of a nuclear weapon]x

[conditional probability that the use of a nuclear weapon leads to full-scale nuclear war]

Probability of a Major Nuclear war = [3/50][1/3][x][y]

x=y=10% to 50% => From Article

Here’s the article:

Leaving aside the former two scenarios, Hellman came up with a sort of equation for Armageddon: the annualized probability of a Cuban Missile Type Crisis (CMTC) resulting in World war III during the 50 years of the Cold war is equal to the annualized probability that an initiating event (such as the Berlin crisis of 1961) would lead to a CMTC (3 chances in the past 50 years, by Hellman’s count), times the conditional probability that the event becomes a CMTC (one event was the actual Cuban Missile Crisis, so that’s 1 in 3), times the conditional probability that the CMTC leads to the use of a nuclear weapon, times the conditional probability that the use of a nuclear weapon leads to full-scale nuclear war.

The stickiest points are the last two probabilities, because they have never happened. Hellman uses statements from participants in the Cuban crisis to come up with a lower bound of 10 percent and an upper one of 50 percent for the chance that nuclear weapons would be used. His estimate of the probability of nuclear weapon use leading to an all-out nuclear war is in the same range, based on statements by both the U.S. president at the time, John F. Kennedy, and his secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara.

Read More…

My Comment:

The assumptions used in his equation have a few issues:

1. The assumptions are from the Cold war era.

2. The assumptions are constant.

3. He doesn’t account for things like the fact that North Korea just threatened to nuke South Korea. Or that in the last ten years Pakistan and India almost waged nuclear war. Or the fact the Israel’s neighbors are planning war right now. Or the fact that China is threatening Taiwan on a regular basis.

If we look back over the last 100 years we can see that the probability of a major war is 2 in 100 or 2% for World war I & II. This seems to imply that Martin E. Hellman’s high estimate of .5% is probably closer to a low estimate.

What about my theory about Israel destroying Syria and bringing retaliation upon America? Can I connect the dots?

Check out this article titled Russia’s Nuclear Threat. Here we learn that Russia’s policy is that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons preemptively to protect itself and its allies.

Is Syria an ally of Russia? Check out this article: Russia to defend its principal Middle East ally: Moscow takes Syria under its protection.

This article discusses just how close Israel is to a Syrian chemical weapon attack.

“Should nuclear arms be used in response to powerful conventional attacks?”

So we learn that Israel is close to a Syrian chemical attack. Israeli unofficial policy is to respond with nuclear weapons to an unconventional attack. We know that Syria is an ally of Russia, and Russia has threatened pre-emptive nuclear strikes to protect its allies.

The dots seem to be all connected. 

No related posts.