Longview’s nuclear weapons fund and Founders Pledge’s Global Catastrophic Risks Fund (disclaimer: I manage the GCR Fund). We recently published a long report on nuclear war and philanthropy that may be useful, too. Hope this helps!

Hi Luke,

Note Carl Robichaud is a fund manager of the Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund, which you can donate to. You may want to check Global Catastrophic Nuclear Risk: A Guide for Philanthropists. Personally:

I encourage funders who have been supporting efforts to decrease nuclear risk (improving prevention, response or resilience) to do the following. If they aim to:

• Decrease the risk of human extinction, or improve the longterm future, support interventions to decrease AI risk by donating to the Long-Term Future Fund (LTFF), as I personally do with my donations.
• Increase nearterm welfare, support interventions to improve farmed animal welfare by donating to the Animal Welfare Fund, or ACE’s Recommended Charity Fund.
• Increase nearterm human welfare with high confidence, and put low weight on effects on animals, support interventions in global health and development by donating to GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund.
• Continue in the nuclear space, support Longview’s Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund, which “directs funding to under-resourced and high-leverage opportunities to reduce the threat of large-scale nuclear warfare”. It is the only fund solely focussed on nuclear risk, and aligned with effective altruism I am aware of, and I like the 4 components of their grantmaking strategy:
  • Understanding the new nuclear risk landscape.
  • Reduce the likelihood of accidental and inadvertent nuclear war.
  • Educate policymakers on these issues.
  • Strengthen fieldwide capacity.

These are my personal recommendations at the margin. I am not arguing for interventions decreasing nuclear risk to receive zero resources, nor for all these to be funded via Longview’s Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund.

I agree with Giving What We Can’s recommendation for most people to donate to expert-managed funds, and have not recommended any specific organisations above.

I've been looking for an answer to exactly this, in light of the Vox article; best answers I've come up w/ so far:
* Nuclear Threat Initiative

* Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation

* Arms Control Association

All of these organizations are primarily advocacy-based; but they've also served as a kind of "government-employee-waiting/training-area", for when US Administrations were not amenable to movement on arms control.

I've also looked at the Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund, but have had trouble figuring out who/what it grants to and its theory of change; I'd appreciate any material folks have found!

I hope some of the other commenters have answers for you, but tbh, I don't think the limitation here is donations.

This problem seems wildly intractable, but we could be wrong.

Instead, I suspect the limitation would be more gather a group of intelligent, persistent and creative EA's to dedicate serious time to rethinking this whole issue from the ground up in case there's anything that has been missed. I wouldn't put high odds on this turning up much, but it seems worth a shot.

I would suggest the Back from the Brink campaign in the United States (www.preventnuclearwar.org) or the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (https://www.icanw.org/) 

Both organizations are bringing a grassroots advocacy approach to push for multilateral efforts to prevent nuclear war. Grassroots advocacy is the most critically underfunded sector in the nuclear security space.