Luck.

In the short period of time we have had access to nuclear weapons, we have come very close to nuclear war between superpowers:

* Cuban Missile Crisis - Vasili Arkhipov Prevents launching of nuclear torpedo while his Soviet submarine flotilla is being bombarded by depth charges (happened to be signaling depth charges). Turns out the US warships above them just wanted the submarines to surface so they could communicate the end of hostilities.

* Computer Malfunction - Stanislav Petrov Holds off alerting officials of multiple incoming nuclear ICBMs because he "suspected" they were a glitch, preventing a likely nuclear counter-attack.

* Science experiment looks like nuclear attack - Boris Yeltsin correctly decides to wait launching a counter-attack based on an incoming rocket. All the while sitting in front of an activated nuclear briefcase and being pressured by aids to launch within the 12 minute response window. The rocket was meant for atmospheric testing.

There are many, many more.

Proliferation means more and more nation states have access to nuclear weapons. Balancing peace amongst all those nations can be difficult (look at India and Pakistan). Countries with existing nuclear stockpiles can undergo dramatic shifts in leadership and policy (US politics anyone?).

We also have 7.5+ billion people on the planet, consuming more resources than ever, on a planet with a finite amount of things.

Now throw in the further ramifications of climate change like political instability, infrastructure strain, resource scarcity, and refugee migrations into the mix. Or a truly mad guy with a nuke.

There are way too many people out there that are crazy optimistic that we aren't going to have a nuclear war...ever. We have always had warfare, and when the shit hits the fan, armies have always used the biggest weapons they have had.

Nuclear weapons may very well be our great filter.

> In the short period of time we have had access to nuclear weapons, we have come very close to nuclear war between superpowers:

And yet virtually every scenario is resolved in the same way: there's no reason that the other side would declare a surprise nuclear war, so the evidence I have of this fact is probably misinterpreted. That's not exactly luck, but people interpreting (and making) policy rationally. Which is why irrational political leaders are so god-damn terrifying.

Like, I'm very inclined to think it might happen soon.

But what is making me less inclined is the fact it didn't happen within the last ca. 70 years.

We haven't had a global pandemic in over 100 years and yet here we are.

Countries have nuclear weapons and the global community has to get it right every single day to avoid nuclear war.

I'm hoping it doesn't happen, but the lack of precedent doesn't mean nuclear war cannot happen. If we needed precedent for something to occur, we never would have a "first" of anything, and history is littered with firsts.

But here's hoping. Did I mention I'm great at parties?

We came uncomfortably close sometimes. Like the Russian submarine commander who defied his "party supervisor" when ordered to launch his nuclear weapons during the Cuban missile crises. It was not an isolated incident either. We've been lucky so far.

If it had happened we wouldn't be here. This is one thing that takes me an inch closer to believing the quantum suicide hypothesis and maybe even higher powers. We rolled the dice so many times and they kept coming up 7 over and over again.

Such an absurd situation.

Huh, the fact that we have not discovered (or they discover us) any advanced civilizations or even evidence of any in our galaxy makes me believe it extremely likely that civilizations wipe themselves out before very long. Right now, Global Thermonuclear War and Climate Destruction top my list as likely causes.

The anthropic principle?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KNtKKmcd9DsP7WuZ3/the-anthro...

That doesn't apply here. Nuclear war & nuclear winter wouldn't necessarily be an extinction event. It would result in millions of deaths and a regression in quality of life for those who remain, but they most people would be alive and experience that possible universe.

Unless someone has Cobalt Bombs in their arsenal.

Strangely, people who argue for that don't otherwise usually behave as though they believe nuclear war is imminent...

If you're an optimist, there is the view that neither side of the Cold War wanted to die. Excluding the truly religious people who believe that dying and going to heaven is better than being alive, most people want to avoid their own deaths. When politicians believed they could send soldiers off to kill without risking their own lives, they started wars. But since ICBMs meant than starting a ground war against a nuclear power put the leaders at risk, the leaders chose relative peace and deescalated when possible.

Do you think it is a big factor that leaders usually live a comfortable life?

I mean, a depressed and suffering leader might care way less about a nuclear war...

The cost is simply too high and even the leaders that were popularly perceived as being unstable haven't been that unstable.