Analyzing and reducing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia
Abstract
This article develops a mathematical modeling framework using fault trees and Poisson processes for analyzing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war from U.S. or Russian misinterpretation of false alarms in early warning systems, and for assessing the potential value of options to reduce the risks of inadvertent nuclear war. The model also uses publicly available information on early warning systems, near-miss incidents, and other factors to estimate probabilities of a U.S.–Russia crisis, the rates of false alarms, and the probabilities that leaders will launch missiles in response to a false alarm. The article discusses results, uncertainties, limitations, and policy implications. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Science & Global Security to view the free online appendix with additional tables and figures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The background risk of incidental or inadvertent nuclear deployment is present unless there is total nuclear disarmament.
“The background risk of incidental or inadvertent nuclear deployment is present unless there is total nuclear disarmament (Barrett et al., 2013; Baum et al., 2018).”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2013
One model of inadvertent conflict between the US and Russia using historical data put the probability of nuclear war at 0.9% per year.
“Estimates of the probability of nuclear war are few and vary, but one model of inadvertent conflict between the US and Russia using historical data put it at 0.9% per year (Barrett et al., 2013).”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liu, H.-Y., Lauta, K. C., & Maas, M. M. (2018) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.009 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk
Tang, A., & Kemp, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.720312 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“The background risk of incidental or inadvertent nuclear deployment is present unless there is total nuclear disarmament (Barrett et al., 2013; Baum et al., 2018).”
Background
- Authors
- Barrett, A. M., Baum, S. D., & Hostetler, K.
- Venue
- Science & Global Security
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 106-133
- ISSN
- 0892-9882 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7800
- OpenAlex
- W2123478374
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 27.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science and Global Security (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Nuclear Issues and Defense
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- false alarms, early warning systems, US-Russia relations, nuclear crisis, fault trees, Poisson process, near misses, risk mitigation, nuclear deterrence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
