GCRI develops models to quantify the risk of nuclear war and evaluate nuclear weapons policy decisions.
The modern scientific study of global catastrophic risk dates to the initial development of nuclear weapons in the Manhattan Project. Despite this, there have been remarkably few attempts to characterize and quantify nuclear war risk. Instead, the attention has gone to the international relations that can lead to nuclear war, as well as the game theory of competition between nuclear-armed states. These topics are important, but risk analysis has an essential role to play on questions such as: How important of an issue is nuclear war? Do nuclear weapons make the world safer? And what are the most effective ways to reduce the risk?
GCRI has developed the most sophisticated models of nuclear war risk. For the probability of nuclear war, we model scenarios that could lead to the outbreak of nuclear war. We also compile historical data on near-miss events to help understand the probability. For the impacts of nuclear war, we model the full range of potential effects, including local effects of the explosion, global effects such as nuclear winter, and social effects such as changes in global politics. Additionally, we develop and assess policy solutions for reducing the risk of nuclear war.
Featured Publications
A model for the probability of nuclear war
Seth D. Baum, Robert de Neufville, and Anthony M. Barrett. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Working Paper 18-1, 2018
This paper presents a detailed model for the probability of nuclear war. It covers 14 scenarios for how nuclear war can break out and includes a dataset of 60 historical incidents that might have threatened to turn into nuclear war.
A model for the impacts of nuclear war
Seth D. Baum and Anthony M. Barrett. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Working Paper 18-2, 2018
This paper presents a detailed model for the impacts of nuclear war. It covers the five main types of effects of nuclear weapon detonations: thermal radiation, blast, ionizing radiation, electromagnetic pulse, and human perceptions.
Additional Publications
Seth D. Baum, 2021. Accounting for violent conflict risk in planetary defense decisions. Acta Astronautica, vol. 178 (January), pages 15-23, DOI 10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.08.028.
Seth D. Baum, 2019. Risk-risk tradeoff analysis of nuclear explosives for asteroid deflection. Risk Analysis, vol. 39, no. 11 (November), pages 2427-2442, DOI 10.1111/risa.13339.
Seth D. Baum, 2018. Reflections on the risk analysis of nuclear war. In B. John Garrick (Editor), Proceedings of the Workshop on Quantifying Global Catastrophic Risks, Garrick Institute for the Risk Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, pages 19-50.
Anthony M. Barrett, 2016. False alarms, true dangers? Current and future risks of inadvertent U.S.-Russian nuclear war. RAND Corporation, document PE-191-TSF, DOI 10.7249/PE191.
Seth D. Baum, 2015. Confronting the threat of nuclear winter. Futures, vol. 72 (September), pages 69-79, DOI 10.1016/j.futures.2015.03.004.
Seth D. Baum, 2015. Winter-safe deterrence as a practical contribution to reducing nuclear winter risk: A reply. Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 36, no. 2 (August), pages 387-397, DOI 10.1080/13523260.2015.1054101.
Seth D. Baum, 2015. Winter-safe deterrence: The risk of nuclear winter and its challenge to deterrence. Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 36, no. 1 (April), pages 123-148, DOI 10.1080/13523260.2015.1012346.
Anthony M. Barrett, Seth D. Baum, and Kelly R. Hostetler, 2013. Analyzing and reducing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Science and Global Security, vol. 21, no. 2, pages 106-133, DOI 10.1080/08929882.2013.798984.
