Sam Harris

I have heard their name, I think, in sponsorship of PBS or NPR a bunch, but what do they do?

Okay, so let's talk about nuclear risk and just how it has waxed and waned over the years.

Most people still put the absolute peak of risk at the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

Isn't that the case?

And actually, we recently learned that it was quite a bit riskier than we even thought.

Perhaps you want to review some of that history because it really was what we were unaware of.

I'm thinking, of course, of the tactical nukes that the Soviets already had in place that we were apparently unaware of.

It's very easy to see how things could have spiraled out of control had we invaded as I think was recommended by the National Security Council.

And it was really just

JFK who decided no, we're not going to do that.

What do we know about what was happening there?

And so nuclear weapons- This is Vasily Arkhipov?

Well, I want to return to that logic of brinksmanship and just the game theory there, because obviously it's relevant to our current moment as we watch the war in Ukraine unfold and the concern about first use of nuclear weapons has suddenly become more relevant to everyone.

But before we get there, it's worth focusing on this feature of the problem, which is

I mean, it's not talked about enough, which is that there's so many moments where we have come close to nuclear catastrophe.

And the reason why we haven't has come down to a decision of a single person.

You know, in the case of JFK, it's understandable he's the president of the United States.

He's the person who should be deciding this.

I mean, as crazy as that sounds, I'm not sure we've even thought through the logic and psychology and practicality of having even a president make this decision.

But there are multiple cases where you have a low-level commander on the Soviet side who's deciding whether or not to start a nuclear war on the basis of some information that