Once it's ready, please submit your draft for review by our team of Community Moderators. Thank you!
You have been invited to co-author this question.
When it is ready, the author will submit it for review by Community Moderators. Thanks for helping!
Pending
This question now needs to be reviewed by Community Moderators.
We have high standards for question quality. We also favor questions on our core topic areas or that we otherwise judge valuable. We may not publish questions that are not a good fit.
If your question has not received attention within a week, or is otherwise pressing, you may request review by tagging @moderators in a comment.
You have been invited to co-author this question.
It now needs to be approved by Community Moderators. Thanks for helping!
Decisions about how much to prioritize nuclear risk reduction and how best to reduce nuclear risk should be guided in part by our best guesses about:
how many deaths would occur given a large-scale nuclear exchange
what proportion of those deaths would occur fairly soon after the detonations (e.g., from the initial blast and fires) rather than later on (e.g., from fallout or nuclear winter effects)
For example, this is relevant to the existential risk posed by nuclear weapons and the value of investing in research and development on "resilient food".
See here, and the sources linked to from there, for previous discussion of these sorts of questions and why they matter.