Hide table of contents

This post is part of a series of rough posts on nuclear risk research ideas. I strongly recommend that, before you read this post, you read the series’ summary & introduction post for context, caveats, and to see the list of other ideas. One caveat that’s especially worth flagging here is that I drafted this in late 2021 and haven’t updated it much since. I’m grateful to Will Aldred for help with this series.

One reason I'm publishing this now is to serve as one menu of research project ideas for upcoming summer research fellowships.

Some tentative bottom-line views about this project idea

ImportanceTractabilityNeglectednessOutsourceability
MediumMediumMediumMedium

What is this idea? Why might this research be useful? How could it be tackled?

“A nuclear electromagnetic pulse (commonly abbreviated as nuclear EMP, or NEMP) is a burst of electromagnetic radiation created by a nuclear explosion. The resulting rapidly varying electric and magnetic fields may couple with electrical and electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges” (Wikipedia, 2021). According to the US EMP Commission (2004):

Several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication. EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of US society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power.

Pry (2005) also claims analysts in other states see nuclear EMP attacks as a legitimate use of nuclear weapons or are concerned that their states may be targeted by such attacks. 

This project could investigate questions such as:

  • How likely is it that one or more nuclear EMP attacks will actually occur?
  • What is the probability distribution over various possible numbers of nuclear EMP attacks in a single conflict, if one such attack occurs?[1]
  • What are the most likely pathways to such an attack? (E.g., deliberate, accidental, or unauthorised use? Preceded by conventional conflict, by nuclear conflict, or by neither?)
  • How likely is it that such an attack is followed by nuclear, conventional, or other military attacks by either side?
  • What would the effects of such an attack be?
  • In particular, how likely are especially extreme effects (e.g., >50 million fatalities, >1 billion fatalities, existential catastrophe)?
  • How, if at all, do (perceived) answers to the above questions affect other aspects of states’ nuclear strategies?[2]
  • How does the answers to those questions vary between different potential aggressor and target states (or nonstate actors)?
  • What can be done to reduce the chance or harms of such an attack?
  • Given all of the above, is this risk worth any further attention from the longtermist community?

I’d guess that nuclear EMP attacks are less likely than other forms of nuclear conflict, that they would be far less harmful than nuclear winter, and that they would have less than a 1 in 1000 chance of causing or strongly contributing to an existential catastrophe. I think this makes this research project idea relatively low-priority. However, I also feel uncertain about those guesses and think that uncertainty might be substantially reducible with even just 0.5-3 weeks of work, which makes me think this project could be worth pursuing for someone with a strong fit for or interest in it. 

I expect it would be sufficient to simply:

I’d intended to briefly research this topic myself, so I made some rough notes on it, which can be found here.

Other people to talk to

  • Some staff at ALLFED have researched and are concerned by the possibility of nuclear EMP attacks
  1. ^

     Regarding the analogous question for more standard nuclear attacks, see # Nuclear Weapons Used by 2050, if Any? 

  2. ^

     For example, does this affect states’ desired number of nuclear weapons, missile defence systems, or alert levels for their nuclear weapons?

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for posting these ideas!

Some staff at ALLFED have researched and are concerned by the possibility of nuclear EMP attacks

One catastrophic scenario would be a terrorist organization co-opting control of 10 or so ICBMs, and the resulting NEMPs destroying the vast majority of global electricity/industry. This is quite unlikely. However, what is significantly more likely would be widespread use of NEMP during full-scale nuclear war. Because of the large destruction radii, this would destroy electricity/industry in rural areas in NATO/Russia and also throughout many more countries than just NATO/Russia, especially if US military bases around the world were targeted. This would make the case of nuclear war/winter much worse.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr