A National Pragmatic Safety Limit for Nuclear Weapon Quantities

Abstract

This study determines the nuclear pragmatic limit where the direct physical negative consequences of nuclear weapons use are counter to national interests, by assuming all unknowns are conservatively optimistic. The only effect considered is nuclear winter ("nuclear autumn" in the low weapons limits) and the resultant effects on the aggressor nation. First, the ability of low nuclear weapon limits is probed for maintaining deterrence in the worst-case scenario of attacking the most-populous nation. Second, the ability of aggressor nations to feed themselves is assessed without trade and industry resultant from a nuclear attack causing "nuclear autumn" (10% global agricultural shortfall). Third, the best-case wealthy aggressor nation with abundant arable land is analyzed for starvation and economic impacts given 7000, 1000, and 100 nuclear weapons scenarios. The results found that 100 nuclear warheads is adequate for nuclear deterrence in the worst case scenario, while using more than 100 nuclear weapons by any aggressor nation (including the best positioned strategically to handle the unintended consequences) even with optimistic assumptions (including no retaliation) would cause unacceptable damage to their own society. Thus, 100 nuclear warheads is the pragmatic limit and use of government funds to maintain more than 100 nuclear weapons does not appear to be rational.

Rapid repurposing of pulp and paper mills, biorefineries, and breweries for lignocellulosic sugar production in global food catastrophes

“…These include the eruption of a supervolcano, an asteroid/comet strike or nuclear war (Denkenberger and Pearce, 2015). Nuclear war has been quantitatively estimated to have a risk of ~1% per annum, making it the most probable of these three scenarios (Barrett et al, 2013;Hellman, 2008) While nuclear weapon stockpiles have fallen since the height of the cold war, eight of the nine nuclear powers are upgrading and modernising their weapons, each holding more than the 'national pragmatic safety limit' of 100, which is the limit in which using more nuclear weapons even in the best case scenario is counter to the national interest due to the expected environmental blowback (Pearce and Denkenberger, 2018).…”

Micronutrient Availability in Alternative Foods During Agricultural Catastrophes

“…Another alternative food route, which is particularly important in the transition from conventional agriculture to alternative foods because of ramp rates [6], is taking leaves from woody and non-woody plants and making tea, chewing, and spitting out the solids, or making leaf protein concentrate [26].…”

“…Two estimates based on quantitative models indicate the chance of full-scale nuclear war is ∼1% per year [4,5]. This is significant as most of the nuclear powers possess more than the pragmatic limit of nuclear weapons (where the direct physical negative consequences of nuclear weapons use are counter to national interests) [6]. Even a modest release of nuclear weapons on target cities as a one-sided [6] or regional nuclear war [7,8] could create a nuclear autumn that would starve millions throughout the world [6][7][8][9][10].…”

Preliminary Automated Determination of Edibility of Alternative Foods: Non-Targeted Screening for Toxins in Red Maple Leaf Concentrate

“…Two quantitative models indicate that the probability of full-scale nuclear war is at approximately 1% per annum [4,5]. Yet the majority of nuclear powers possess more than the pragmatic limit of nuclear weapons [6]. The pragmatic limit is set at where the direct physical negative consequences of nuclear weapons use are counter to national interests.…”

“…The pragmatic limit is set at where the direct physical negative consequences of nuclear weapons use are counter to national interests. Either a one-sided relatively minor nuclear weapons use on target population centers [6] or a small regional nuclear war [7,8] could render a global “nuclear autumn”, which would starve millions [6,7,8,9,10]. Similarly, an asteroid or comet impact [11], as well as a super volcanic eruption or continental basalt flows could induce the same long-term sunlight deprivation and mass starvation as conventional agriculture fails [12,13,14].…”