Because if large-scale nuclear or biological war is reasonable likely then climate change really doesn't matter anyway. End of the world scenarios are always an easy "sell" but they are usually not helpful for constructive progress.
Before nuclear war, lots of constructive things like geoengineering could happen.
You're looking at it from the wrong end. Nuclear war seems unlikely now, but it might become reasonable once half of the world's population is banging on the borders of the other half.
Do you think if e.g. India or Pakistan start experiencing lethal wet-bulb temperatures and people there decide to mass-migrate to survivable lands, only to be stopped at the border and denied entry, will those people and these countries just throw their hands up in the air, seeing there's nothing they could do, and accept imminent death? Or maybe they'll try to threaten or force to be let in, using any means available, up to and including nuclear weapons?
(This applies to all nuclear-armed countries - I mentioned these two, because AFAIK they'll be the first nuclear powers likely to experience lethal wet-bulb temperatures - but that's not the only way climate change could make a country mass-evacuate, and such other factors could hit other nuclear powers first.)
So they commit suicide to escape deadly temperatures? If they nuke the countries they want to move to - how does that play out? The choices of providing local cooling, putting more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, shades in space etc. will all look more attractive than extended suicide. That also includes negotiating solutions.
See my comment on brinkmanship elsewhere in the thread.
Nuking your desired safe haven is obviously a stupid idea. But threatening them with nukes so they accept you in, that's a reasonable negotiation tactic when you're otherwise up against the wall. If they refuse, making a stronger threat is an obvious next move. There is, however, no obvious stopping point before tensions are so strong that a small mistake - or someone at high enough level getting irrational - will cause the nukes to be launched.
As I pointed out, it's not a reasonable negotiation tactic as following through on the threat would accomplish nothing - and both sides know that. Even if you succeed with your threat and some of your people are allowed in and then the border is closed again - what then? Nuke your own people?
All cooperative moves are much better than extended suicide - for both sides.
> it's not a reasonable negotiation tactic as following through on the threat would accomplish nothing - and both sides know that.
It's effective, because the other side is forced to bet their own lives on you eventually accepting defeat and agreeing to die, so that they may live. It's not an easy bet to make and stick to.
All cooperative moves are indeed better than suicide, but when we're at the point everyone wants to get to NZ, we're way past the time of cooperative solutions.
There is no indication that it will be even an effective tactic in the situation described. Even in simple cases, the other side could assume it might intercept some of nukes, some might not work, it might get some with conventional weapons on the ground - it will never be so clearcut (even ignoring any preemptive moves).
Also, assuming that there are only zero or negative sum moves left is a really big assumption.
New Zealand is always the obvious "lifeboat". It's a long way from populated area so difficult to get there, and it's fairly easy to sink any ships that try. It's in the southern hemisphere so will be protected from the majority of nuclear war which would be in the northern hemisphere.
Unless someone with nukes decides to threaten NZ to open up the borders for their people, or else.
With global changes this big, we can't expect the usual MAD Mexican Standoff a couple big powers to keep everyone safe. It may be that all nuclear powers (or all that remained after a brief nuclear war) will decide together to politely ask NZ to open up or else.
I say the people threatening with nukes here would turn to more subtle methods of invasion, that's their objectives. They won't destroy it because they can't have it. That'd be a waste of nukes.
Now is there someone threatening another country with nukes at the moment but not using them because he knows that'd be useless anyway and would it prove my point ?
Then I recommend you spend more time around people. Grown men have been convicted of throwing acid in an ex-girlfriend's face because "if I can't have you, no-one can."
> Now is there someone threatening another country with nukes at the moment but not using them because he knows that'd be useless anyway and would it prove my point ?
It doesn't prove your point because no country today is facing imminent extinction. Rationality changes when desperation comes into play.
> Then I recommend you spend more time around people. Grown men have been convicted of throwing acid in an ex-girlfriend's face because "if I can't have you, no-one can."
You come up with a stupid analogy based on children behavior and now you invoke people throwing acid ?
This is nickelodeon level debate here.
> It doesn't prove your point because no country today is facing imminent extinction. Rationality changes when desperation comes into play.
You are making the extraordinary (and quite childish considering you started with an analogy based on children behavior) claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there, it's up to you to prove it. So far, in the real world, no one has used nukes like that.
I'd follow the argument but if a guy would throw acid and was in position to throw a nuke over a country they were denied access to it's most likely plausible they have the means and resources to get into this country in a more discrete and safe way (safe as in: he's in a country that wasn't nuked).
> > You come up with a stupid analogy based on children behavior and now you invoke people throwing acid ?
> It’s called an analogy. Given we’re talking about nuclear war, it’s not an insane analogy.
It looks more like a slippery slope bias to me. You can "prove" any dangers with that analogy but it's running against what history and reality have shown us so far.
> > claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there, it's up to you to prove it.
> I never said they’d try to settle the wasteland. I think you’re struggling to understand the analogy.
True, true, somehow the "threaten to" stayed in the keyboard. I still stand by the fact that this analogy doesn't scale to the real world.
I’m simply making a point that humans don’t always behave reasonably in a way that would achieve their stated goals. I tried to use an analogy to make this easier but you seem confused. I could have replaced “acid” with “murder.” Would that have helped?
> > It looks more like a slippery slope bias to me.
> I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Sorry, I reread the definition from the bias list and it's not the good one. Read the whole line, it's too small an illustration to fit a bigger picture:
> It looks more like a slippery slope bias to me. You can "prove" any dangers with that analogy but it's running against what history and reality have shown us so far.
> I’m simply making a point that humans don’t always behave reasonably in a way that would achieve their stated goals.
This, I agree with. But:
> I tried to use an analogy to make this easier but you seem confused. I could have replaced “acid” with “murder.” Would that have helped?
No. I understand your analogy but it happens that I disagree with how it is an argument in favor of your opinion (which I also disagree with but that's for another paragraph).
If anything, I think it undermines your position because it reduces the many more complex steps leading to nuking another country to a petty and cruel behavior from one individual. The analogy doesn't explain the reality behind a potential revengeful nuclear strike (geopolitical moves leading to that decision, climate disasters, consequences stemming from the reaction of other nations, etc.). All it is saying is "there are humans who would do crazy things so it follows that we are always at risks from one human doing the most crazy thing like nuking another country" but nuking another country, for the sake of the argument, requires more than one human (no matter how petty he is) and so far it hasn't been done yet (unlike people throwing acid at exes, which breaks the analogy). This is skewing proportions ("this analogy doesn't scale").
I'd rather we discuss the likelihood of such an event happening based on real world data and information, not using illustrations.
To follow on the analogy: unlike the guy with the acid bottle, the guy with the nuke has certainly the means to hop on a plane and buy his way into NZ rather than nuking it.
Of course we can always make the argument "but what if someone crazy comes and do the crazy thing" but how likely is it ? Adding "but what if he's under a lot of pressure ?!", that's still a what if scenario that would be better validated through real world examples/data than an analogy boiling down to "there are crazy people" or the single argument "people don't always act rationally so anything is possible. Well, duh.
> To follow on the analogy: unlike the guy with the acid bottle, the guy with the nuke has certainly the means to hop on a plane and buy his way into NZ rather than nuking it.
That assumes money matters any more. It’s not unreasonable that we go past that point, leading to the irrational scenarios.
It’s hard to apply regular probabilities to this, since we’re discussing a situation where the best option for all humans is to get to New Zealand! We have no frame of reference for this scenario.
They won't destroy it because they can't have it. That'd be a waste of nukes.
If your civilization is on the verge of extinction then you are not concerned about wasting nukes. You are way overestimating human rationality under extreme pressure.
I think I'll be keeping my nukes to defend myself from the next bigger bully (which would allow me to keep my country) rather than waste it on the smaller one (which would give me no advantage and less nukes).
> You are way overestimating human rationality under extreme pressure.
Ironically, pretty sure the people with the power to launch nukes won't feel the same pressure as people suffering from climate change consequences. So.. keep the restless and angry gods content and they won't wage war and spread destruction.
A hypothetical country threatening NZ with nukes in this example would be presenting an argument: either let us in, or else we will nuke you - in hopes that NZ prefers being overcrowded but surviving, over being glassed. NZ will not take the deal - at first. The other country can insist more and more, until the situation is so tense that any random event could trigger launching the missiles.
And then, if NZ acquiesces and lets people from one country evacuate to their land, another nuclear country would ask for the same deal. Or they may even point half the nukes at the first country early on, to make sure that either they get the deal or no one else.
Thing with brinkmanship is that at no point anyone wants to actually use the nukes - but at every point it's locally optimal to up the threat, and there is no obvious stopping condition until someone trips over a cable, hits a launch console, and the nukes starts flying.
There might not be any. Migration pressure from uninhabitable areas will keep mounting, and some of the countries in the "danger zone" have nukes.