AI and nuclear doomsday

Summary

Today, Explained – “AI and Nuclear Doomsday”

Date: November 3, 2025
Host: Noel King
Guests: Tony Capaccio (Pentagon reporter, Bloomberg News), Josh Keating (Senior Correspondent, Vox)

---

Episode Overview

This compelling episode explores why nuclear anxiety is back in the cultural spotlight, driven in part by Kathryn Bigelow’s new Netflix film A House of Dynamite, and recent developments in U.S. missile defense strategy. Hosts Noel King and guests Tony Capaccio and Josh Keating unravel how a single movie set off Pentagon alarm bells, and, even more critically, how the rise of AI in nuclear command is reshaping both policy and public fear. Through technical breakdowns, historical anecdotes, and candid analysis, the episode considers how movies, government secrecy, and emerging tech all contribute to society’s nuclear nightmares.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Netflix Movie That Freaked Out the Pentagon

• A House of Dynamite depicts a failed U.S. missile defense interception after a nuclear attack, spurring real-world anxiety and official concern.
• Tony Capaccio reveals the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) prepared an unusually detailed memo about the film days before its release (02:50).
  • The memo outlines that the film’s portrayal is inaccurate, emphasizing that real defense success rates are higher:

    “If you look at the last decade with improved warheads, our success rate is 100%. Literally. That is accurate.” — Tony Capaccio (03:55)

• The film’s core metaphor—that missile interception is like “hitting a bullet with a bullet”—is unpacked and, technically, understated:
  • On the true challenge:

    “Hitting a bullet with a bullet is not as difficult as hitting a missile with a missile.” — Tony Capaccio (06:05)

2. Missile Defense System Realities & ‘Golden Dome’

• The MDA memo attempted to calm leadership nerves, not trash the movie, but the Pentagon rarely issues direct film rebuttals.
• President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” system would amplify U.S. missile defense, but details and feasibility remain unclear (06:36).
  • Tony Capaccio frames the public’s logic:

    “If this limited defense system didn’t work against one missile, maybe they got a point… Maybe it should be a broader system to protect parts of the United States.” (06:45)

• The episode highlights prior examples of Pentagon-media interaction, such as “The Day After” and “Zero Dark Thirty.”
  • Pentagon usually supports or ignores films, only publicly intervenes when public confidence or official projects (like Golden Dome) are at stake (08:02-11:34).

3. AI & Nuclear Weapons – Fact vs. Fiction

• Josh Keating discusses the longstanding fear of AI-guided nuclear “doomsday,” often rooted in movie fictions but edging closer to real policy questions (15:21).
  • Movies like Terminator and WarGames serve as reference points for real-world officials debating automation in nuclear command (15:46-17:07).
• Contrary to sci-fi fears, the near-term worry isn’t rogue AI, but rather how humans interact with and potentially over-trust decision-support systems.
  • “What I think is the more real concern is that as AI gets into more and more parts of the command and control system, like do the human beings in charge… really understand how the AIs are working?” — Josh Keating (18:28)
• U.S. nuclear systems have historically been shockingly “low tech” for security—e.g., using floppy disks until 2019 (19:13).
• Current doctrine: AI can augment analysis but must not make launch decisions (20:34).

4. The Risks and Unknowns of AI Integration

• Flaws in AI systems, vulnerability to hacking/disinformation, and “automation bias” (humans blindly following computers) all present grave risks (21:28).
  • Historical close calls recounted:
    • 1979 U.S. computer error that nearly prompted an unnecessary response (22:53)
    • 1983 Soviet incident where “human error-checking” averted a potential nuclear launch (23:19)
• Good decision-making often rests on human caution and fear—a vital human brake that AI may lack:
  • “From my perspective, I think we want to make sure that there’s fear built into the system, that entities capable of being absolutely freaked out by the destructive potential of nuclear weapons are the ones who are making the key decisions...” — Josh Keating (24:13)

5. A Nuclear Future with AI – Are We Stuck Here?

• Complete disentanglement of AI from nuclear infrastructure seems unrealistic; modernization is irreversible and happening worldwide.
  • “If you don’t think humans can build a trustworthy AI, then humans have no business with nuclear weapons.” — Quoted by Josh Keating (25:49)
• Bottom line: it’s not just about whether AI could go rogue, but whether AI will make catastrophic human mistakes in the fog of a real crisis more likely. Nuclear deterrence and risks, in many ways, remain more about flawed people than flawed machines (26:30-27:06).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Pentagon’s response to movies:
  “We're talking incredibly rare... rarely does the Pentagon come out and blast a movie. They support a lot of films. It becomes news when they don’t.”
  — Tony Capaccio (08:09)

• On U.S. missile defense hype vs. reality:
  “Once the kill vehicle separates, our mid course intercept system has a success rate of 61%.”
  — Josh Keating (05:03)
  “So it's a fucking coin toss, but…”
  — Tony Capaccio (05:11)

• On AI’s potential downsides:
  “Even the best AI models… are still prone to error.”
  — Josh Keating (21:28)
  “There are abundant examples from history of times when technology has actually led to near nuclear disasters. And it's been humans who've stepped in to, you know, prevent escalation.”
  — Josh Keating (22:53)

• On the human factor:
  “I think part of it is just like, how terrifying it is… humans understand the destructive potential of these weapons... fear is a big part of it. So, from my perspective, I think we want to make sure that there's fear built into the system.”
  — Josh Keating (24:13)

• On the inescapability of nuclear AI:
  “It sounds like what you’re saying is we may have reached a point at which we are not going back in time. AI is a part of nuclear infrastructure for us, for other nations, and it is likely to be that way.”
  — Noel King (25:20)

---

Important Timestamps

• [02:29] Pentagon scrambles to address the Netflix movie’s impact
• [03:10] Missile Defense Agency memo details
• [04:54] Breaking down the “bullet with a bullet” analogy
• [06:25] “Golden Dome” missile defense system discussion
• [08:02] Pentagon’s history of responding to films
• [15:21] AI and nuclear weapons—pop culture vs. policy
• [19:13] Surprisingly low-tech historical nukes infrastructure
• [21:28] The case against further AI integration in nukes
• [22:53] Historical close calls prevented by humans—not machines
• [24:13] “Built-in fear” as a necessary check

---

Conclusion

The episode thoughtfully interrogates our modern nuclear anxiety, showing how pop culture and Pentagon policy collide, just as AI’s role in life-or-death nuclear decisions becomes more entrenched. The chilling conclusion: while we may overstate fears of runaway robots, the real threat remains human—whether it’s faltering trust in missile defenses, poorly understood AI, or a disastrous, panicked decision at the world’s worst moment.
As Josh Keating reflects:

“The real thing we should be concerned about is that, like, we have these weapons at all.” (26:30)

---

Summary compiled for listeners and non-listeners alike, retaining the original insight, skepticism, and cautious humor of the hosts and guests.

Transcript

[Noel King]

To watch the new Kathryn Bigelow movie A House of Dynamite on Netflix is to immediately start freaking out about a nuclear war.

[Josh Keating]

We've already lost one American city today.

[Tony Capaccio]

How many more do you want to rescue? What kind of fucking question is that?

[Noel King]

Some enemy. It could be Russia. It could be North Korea. Launches a nuclear warhead at Chicago from the Pacific Ocean. It's okay. The U.S. has interceptors. They blast up into the air and they knock the nukes out. That is actually true in real life. That's our nuclear defense system. Except in the movie the Interceptors Fail. Except it's just a movie. Except. A few days before it came out on Netflix, the Pentagon started freaking out and talking internally about how to calm people down. Coming up on Today Explain from AI To Golden Dome to Netflix's new hit why everybody is suddenly talking about nuclear war. Support for Today explained comes from BetterHelp. BetterHelp says it's winter, and winter is often depressing. Instead of getting depressed, BetterHelp wants to encourage you to reach out to someone. Perhaps get coffee with an old friend, perhaps write a letter to a family member. Perhaps connect with a licensed therapist using BetterHelp this month. Don't wait to reach out, says BetterHelp. Whether you're checking in on a friend or reaching out to a therapist yourself, BetterHelp makes it easier to take that first step, says BetterHelp. You can get 10% off your first [e-mail] explained. That's betterhelp.com explained. Support for today Explained comes from Nuremberg, a film from Sony Pictures Classics. In the aftermath of World War II, as the world confronts the horrors of the Holocaust, a US army psychiatrist is tasked with evaluating Hermann Guring. Oh, God. Hitler's second in command. Meanwhile, the chief prosecutor leads the Allies in forming an unprecedented international tribunal for. For the trial of the century. Huh? As Dr. Kelly delves deeper into Guring's psyche, a tense psychological duel unfolds. Nuremberg, starring Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Leo Woodall, and Michael Shannon, starts Friday, only in theaters. What's happening?

[Josh Keating]

They're airing another episode of Today explained.

[Noel King]

What about the 1,766 other episodes?

[Josh Keating]

They're already here.

[Tony Capaccio]

Oh, my God.

[Noel King]

Oh, my God. I'm Noel King with Tony Capaccio. Tony covers the Pentagon for Bloomberg News. He's been covering defense for almost 40 years. So recently, Tony found out that in the days before A House of Dynamite dropped on Netflix, the US Pentagon, of all people, started circulating a highly unusual response to the movie.

[Tony Capaccio]

So on October 16th, the Missile Defense Agency issued an internal memo. Not publicly releasable, it said, underlined to give a heads up to leaders that this movie was coming out broadly and if there are questions about it. This is the current state of the U.S. ground based missile defense program.

[Josh Keating]

The goal is to ensure leadership has situational awareness and is not surprised by the topic which may come up in conversations or meetings.

[Tony Capaccio]

It was not a slash and burn memo trashing the movie. In total, it made points pretty clinically and like dryly that the movie's not accurate in terms of its portrayal of the success of the missile defense system. That's kind of the bottom line. And they gave four or five pages of technical insight into why they thought it was inaccurate.

[Josh Keating]

The fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target. And we understand this is intended to be a compelling part of the drama, intended for the entertainment of the audience. But results from real world testing tell a vastly different story.

[Tony Capaccio]

If you look at the last decade with improved warheads, our success rate is 100%. Literally. That is accurate. The track record on this thing over the last four tests, you know, indicates 100%. They did intercept the missile. It does say this. The 5050 chance of intercepting narrative is based on our earliest prototype versions of the GBI system when we operated with only a few early warning radars that were already decades old and a rudimentary command and control systems. We have since upgraded one of those early warning raiders in California and added other upgraded early warning radars to the missile defense system. Plus we also have added a sea based radar in the Pacific capable of discriminating threat objects with great precision. End quote. That's what they're laying out. What they have not done a good job of lately is putting the stuff out in public.

[Noel King]

The movie describes the process of interception chillingly as trying to hit a bullet with a bullet.

[Josh Keating]

Once the kill vehicle separates, our mid course intercept system has a success rate of 61%.

[Tony Capaccio]

So it's a fucking coin toss, but.

[Noel King]

That'S what $50 billion buys us.

[Josh Keating]

We are talking about hitting a bullet.

[Noel King]

With a bullet, which sounds like this'll work if you're damn lucky. Is that about the size of it?

[Tony Capaccio]

You're gonna love this. Inside the memo, there's actually a clinical description of hitting a bullet with a bullet. But here's what I'm going to read this. Hitting a bullet with a bullet in terms of closing speeds is significantly less than hitting a missile with a missile. The highest velocity rifle rounds travel at 4,500ft per second, giving closing velocity of two bullets, around 2.75 kilometers, kilometers per second. Missiles in space will have three to four times higher closing velocities. So I guess in layman's language, hitting a bullet with a bullet is not as difficult as hitting a missile with a missile.

[Noel King]

Okay. Hitting a bullet with a bullet is not as difficult as hitting a missile with a missile. And the whole point is we're supposed to be terrified by the idea that, like, hitting a bullet with a bullet is really hard. So question then to you, Tony, is we've talked on the show before about how President Trump would like to build a Golden Dome missile defense system.

[Tony Capaccio]

Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space.

[Noel King]

Where does something like that fit into this conversation about whether or not our systems that handle the nuclear threat are operating properly?

[Tony Capaccio]

So if I knew nothing about missile defense, and I'm a layer of viewer of this movie, and I know a little bit about what Golden Dome is supposed to be because the President says so, I would scratch my head and say, well, if this limited defense system didn't work against one missile, maybe they got a point. Maybe it should be a broader system to protect parts of the United States. Maybe I should wait and see what they disclosed. That's a logical way to look at this.

[Noel King]

That is what I thought truthfully last night as I was watching this movie. Okay, maybe we need Golden Dope.

[Tony Capaccio]

The movie gives one pause in terms of, well, maybe he's got a point. The problem with his point is that he said nothing about it beyond that it's going to be $175 billion and it should be deployed later. By the end of his administration, the Pentagon said virtually squat about the configuration of it, where this $175 billion estimate came from, and the technical difficulties involved. So we're in a wait and see mode on Golden Dome. But the movie does raise a question. If this limited system doesn't work, do we really need a broader system?

[Noel King]

How rare is it for the Pentagon to sort of have a response to something that's in theaters now?

[Tony Capaccio]

We're talking incredibly rare. In 1982, the Pentagon was asked by ABC to vet their script for the famous Day After. This is a movie of a nuclear holocaust in Kansas hit by a. We're not sure where the missile came from, but a nuclear holocaust the day after a nuclear bomb. Roger.

[Josh Keating]

We've got 32 targets in track and 10 impacting points.

[Tony Capaccio]

We want to Confirm.

[Noel King]

Is this an exercise? Roger. Copy.

[Josh Keating]

This is not an.

[Tony Capaccio]

The Pentagon reviewed the film. They didn't want to give aid to the filmmaker, ABC in the form of National Guard or military equipment because they felt the script implied that NATO started World War Three. But. And I saw some of the documents I wrote about it at the time, they actually complemented some of the film's depiction of the aftermath. We're talking, though rarely does the Pentagon come out and blast a movie. They support a lot of films. They supported Mission Impossible, the last one, the last two mission impossibles with V22 Ospreys, with the use of the George Bush carrier. Remember in the trailer when the Secretary of Defense said you gave him an aircraft carrier? That was actually true. They gave him the George Bush carrier for Tom Cruise and the rest of the film cast. I need you to trust me one last time. So they do routinely support films. It becomes news when they don't. Platoon, a famous one from like 25 years ago was one of them. They didn't support that and they didn't support Zero Dark Thirty, the famous movie that Kathryn Bigelow made about the killing of Osama bin Laden by Seal Team 6.

[Noel King]

Bin Laden is there and you're going to kill him for me.

[Tony Capaccio]

Zero Dark Thirty was kind of the code name for when the operation would take place in Pakistan, Abbottabad, Pakistan. A number of organizations were. And members of Congress were a little peeved that the Pentagon helped them or even helped vet their script. This is at a time when Secretary Robert Gates was telling the rest of the military, keep your mouth shut about the bin Laden raid.

[Noel King]

So, Tony, how might you interpret what happened here? Why did the Pentagon respond? Why did the Pentagon talk about this at all?

[Tony Capaccio]

I gotta think they are concerned that the Golden Dome will be trashed because of this. There's a line in here that says.

[Noel King]

Was this film made in response to the planned Golden Dome project?

[Tony Capaccio]

And it says, please direct all questions.

[Josh Keating]

Related to Golden Dome to the Office.

[Tony Capaccio]

Of the Secretary of War, which there was some sensitivity. This wasn't emphasized throughout, but I think part of it was. It showed a miss and they were worried about an erosion probably of US confidence in the public about the system that nobody's really thinking about at the moment. But to be proactive in terms of if they are asked about the subject.

[Noel King]

Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio. Coming up. The prospect of nuclear war was scary enough. It always has been. But now we are actively adding AI to our nuclear infrastructure. How freaked out should we be? Support for Today explained comes from DeleteMe delete me says they make it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone, including you, vulnerable. How does it work? You can sign up and provide Delete Me with exactly the information you want deleted. Their experts take it from there. It's not just a one time thing. Delete Me can constantly monitor and remove personal information you don't want on the Internet. Here's Claire White Delete Me has put.

[Tony Capaccio]

Me at ease over the last year.

[Noel King]

I get less spam calls, less spam emails. I feel a lot more safe being.

[Tony Capaccio]

On the Internet because I know that a lot of my information has been scrubbed and it's been scrubbed for a year now.

[Noel King]

See why Wirecutter named Delete Me their top pick for data removal services? You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20 off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com today. Use the promo code today at checkout. The way to get 20 off is to go to Joinselete me.com today. Enter code today at checkout. What's that? That's joined elite me.com today code today Support for Today Explained comes from Select Quote Perhaps you've been putting off life insurance. Select Quote says you can only put something off for so long before it really matters. Select Quote says they take the guesswork out of finding the right term life insurance policy. For over 40 years, SelectQuote has been one of the most trusted brokers in the insurance business, according to Select Quote. They say they've helped more than 2 million Americans secure over $700 billion in coverage. You don't have to sort dozens of confusing options One of their licensed agents will sort through dozens of confusing options to find the right policy at the right price for you. They compare plans from trusted top rated insurance companies. Select Quote works with providers who offer same day coverage up to $2 million worth. Select Quote says life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than [e-mail] explain save more than 50% on term life [e-mail] explain today to get started. What's that? That's slugquote.com explained support for today explained comes from Chime. What's Chime? Chime is different. Chime is a financial technology company that wants you to embrace each and every dollar when you set up direct deposit with Chime, you can get access to fee free features like overdraft protection or they say you can get paid up to two days early and even more. Speaking of no fees, Chime says that when you open a checking account with them, there are no monthly fees and no maintenance fees. And without qualifying direct deposits you can be eligible for free overdraft up to $200 on debit card purchases and cash withdrawals. Not to mention although I will 47,000 fee free ATMs. You can work on your financial goals through Chime today. You can open an account in two [e-mail] explain. That's chime.com explain. Chime feels like progress. Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services and debit card provided by the Bancorp Bank NA or Stride Bank NA members FDIC spot me eligibility requirements and overdraft limits apply. Timing depends on submission of payment file. Fees apply at out of network ATMs. Bank ranking and number of ATMs according to US News and World Report. 20 time checking account required.

[Tony Capaccio]

You listen to this podcast and the guy said this is Today Explained.

[Josh Keating]

I'm Josh Keating. I'm a senior correspondent at Vox and for the last few months I've been working on a fellowship where I'm writing a series of articles on the intersection of AI and and nuclear weapons.

[Noel King]

Human beings have had fears around AI and nuclear weapons for as long as we've had AI I would think. And you see them quite vividly sometimes in movies.

[Josh Keating]

The system goes online on August 4, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self aware at 2:14am Eastern Time. August 29th.

[Noel King]

General, what you see on these screens up here is a fantasy, a computer enhanced hallucination. Those blips are not real missiles. They're phantoms. Most recently there's a part in A House of Dynamite where they're trying to figure out what the hell happened and whether AI is involved. The Chinese navy has been experimenting with AI assisted launch systems. So this could be a technical mishap. Are these movies with these fears onto something?

[Josh Keating]

Well, I mean I think the interesting thing about movies when it comes to nuclear war is this a kind of war that's never been fought. We don't have real world examples of it. There are no sort of veterans of nuclear wars other than, you know, the two bombs we dropped on Japan, which is a very different scenario. And so I think like that movies have always played A kind of outsized role in debates over nuclear weapons. You can go back to the 60s when you know that Strategic Air Command actually like produced its own rebuttal to Dr. Strangelove and fail Safe in movies like that. You yourself have flown profile missions over and over again.

[Noel King]

But there is one area in which you've had little or no actual experience nuclear effects.

[Josh Keating]

In the 80s, the TV movie the Day after was kind of a galvanizing force for the nuclear freeze movement. And President Reagan apparently was like very disturbed when he watched it, and it influenced his thinking on arms control with the Soviet Union. And in the specific topic I'm looking at, which is AI and nuclear weapons, I think there's, there's been a surprising number of movies that like, have that as the plot, you know, and it comes up a lot in the policy debates over this. I mean, I've had people who are advocates for integrating AI into the nuclear command system saying, look, this isn't going to be Skynet. And they're referring to the, you know, a computer system that takes over in the Terminator movies. And there's actually General Anthony Cotton, who's the current commander of Strategic Command, the branch of the military responsible for the nuclear weapons. He also advocates, you know, greater use of AI tools. But, you know, he referred to the 1983 movie War Games, where there's a computer system called Whopper that, you know, accidentally almost starts a nuclear war. And he said, look, you know, we're going to have more AI, but there's not going to be a Whopper in Strategic Command. So where I think it falls a little short is the, the fear tends to be that a super intelligent AI is going to take over our nuclear weapons and use it to wipe us out. You know, for now, that's a theoretical concern. What I think is the more real concern is that as AI gets into more and more parts of the command and control system, like do the human beings in charge of the decisions to make nuclear weapons really understand how the AIs are working and how is it going to affect the way they make these decisions? Which could be, you know, not exaggerating to say some of the most important decisions ever made in human history.

[Noel King]

Josh, answer that question. Do the human beings working on nukes understand the AI?

[Josh Keating]

We don't know exactly where AI is in the nuclear enterprise. You know, computers have been part of this, the beginning. I mean, some of the first digital computers ever developed were used during the building of the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. But I think people will Be surprised to know how low tech the nuclear command and control system really was. Up until 2019, they were using floppy disks for their communication systems. I'm not even talking about the little plastic ones that look like your save icon on Windows. I mean the old 80s bendy ones, like they were using those in their command and control system. So, you know, there's reasons for that, because they don't. They want these systems to be secure from outside cyber interference. So they don't want everything like hooked up to the cloud for very obvious reasons. But, you know, as you know, there's this ongoing multibillion dollar nuclear modernization process underway. A big part of that is updating these systems. And Multiple commanders of StratCom, including a couple I talked to, said they think AI should be part of this. What they all say is AI should not be in charge of making the decision as to whether we launch nuclear weapons. They think that AI can just analyze massive amounts of information and do it much faster than people can. And if you've seen House of Dynamite, one thing that movie shows really well is how quickly the president and senior advisors are going to have to make some absolutely extraordinary, difficult decisions. And so AI can help provide options and help take the decisions the humans don't have to make out of their hands and leave humans in charge of making the really important ones.

[Noel King]

Okay, so that brings us to a thing that makes everybody nervous, which is AI being integrated, more integrated. You told us about some of the pros. And truthfully, an indecisive president or a president that has to make a decision real fast being helped by something. That's a very good point. What are the big arguments against getting AI and nukes in bed together?

[Josh Keating]

Well, I mean, part of it is like even the best AI models that we have available today are still prone to error. You know, another worry is that there could be outside interference with these systems. It could be hacking or a cyber attack, or, you know, government, foreign governments could come up with ways to sort of seed inaccurate information into the model. There has been reporting that, you know, Russian propaganda networks are actively trying to seed disinformation into the training data used by Western consumer AI chatbots like, and, you know, another is just like how people interact with these systems. I mean, there is a phenomenon that, you know, a lot of researchers pointed out called automation bias, which is just that people tend to trust to a remarkable extent the information that automated systems, the computer systems are giving them. There are abundant examples from history of times when technology has actually led to near nuclear disasters. And it's been humans who've stepped in to, you know, prevent escalation. And so there was a case in 1979 when Spigniew Brzezinski, the US national security advisor, was actually woken up by a phone call in the middle of the night informing him that hundreds of missiles had just been launched from Soviet submarines off the coast of Oregon. And, you know, just before he was about to call Jimmy Carter, the president at the time, to wake him up and tell him America was under attack, there was another call that had been a false alarm. For six minutes this morning, the signals.

[Tony Capaccio]

From the North American Air Defense Command Command headquarters indicated a nuclear attack against the United States. It was a false alarm. The cause, reported this evening, a computer error.

[Josh Keating]

A few years later, there was a very famous case in the Soviet Union. There was a colonel named Stanislav Petrov who was working in. In their sort of missile detection infrastructure, who was informed by the computer system that there had been a U.S. nuclear launch. And, you know, under the protocols, he was supposed to then inform his superiors who might have ordered immediate retaliation as their doctrine would have required them to. But it turned out the system had misinterpreted sunlight reflecting off clouds as a missile launch. And so that was a case where it's very good that Stanislav Fetrov took the decision to wait a few minutes and confirm that before he called his superiors.

[Noel King]

Yeah, it sounds. I mean, I'm listening through to those examples, and the thing I might take away, if I'm thinking about it really simplistically is that human beings pull us back from the brink when technology screws up.

[Josh Keating]

It's true. And I think there's some really interesting recent tests on AI models given sort of military crisis scenarios, and they actually tend to be more hawkish than human decision makers are. And we don't know exactly why that is. I mean, one thing I think about is that, like, if we look at why we haven't fought a nuclear war, why, you know, 80 years after Hiroshima we haven't. Nobody's dropped another atomic bomb, why there's never been a nuclear exchange on the battlefield. I think part of it is just like, how terrifying it is how, like, humans understand the destructive potential of these weapons and what this escalation can lead to, that, you know, that there are certain steps that may have unintended consequences and fear is a big part of it. And so, you know, from. From my perspective, I think we want to make sure that there's fear built into the system, that that intelligences Entities that are capable of being absolutely freaked out by the destructive potential of nuclear weapons are the ones who are making the key decisions on whether to use them.

[Noel King]

It does sound like, you know, watching a house of dynamite, you can, as I did last night, vividly think perhaps we should get all of the AI out of this entirely. Just like, just like, let's not have any mistakes, let's have any accidents. It sounds like what you're saying is we may have reached a point at which we are not going back in time. AI is a part of nuclear infrastructure for us, for other nations, and it is likely to be that way.

[Josh Keating]

Well, it's interesting. One thing, one sort of advocate for more automation told me he was like, if you don't think humans can build a trustworthy AI, then humans have no business with nuclear weapons. And you know, I think he's kind of right. Like, like, but, but the thing is, like, I think that that's, that's a statement that like, people who think we should eliminate all nuclear weapons entirely would also agree with. Like, it's, you know, I think I may have got into this worried that like, I was going to take over and take over nuclear weapons. What I realized, like, maybe, but like, right now I'm worried enough about, like, what people are going to do with nuclear weapons and, and the risk that, you know, it's not that AI is going to kill people with nuclear weapons, it's that AI might make it more likely that people kill each other with nuclear weapons. And so, you know, to, to a degree, like the AI is the least of our worries. Like, like the, the real thing we should be concerned about is that like, we have these weapons at all. And that as I think the movie shows well, just like how absurd the scenario in which we'd have to decide whether or not to use them really is.

[Noel King]

Josh Keating. You can find his [e-mail] Josh's reporting on this one was supported by the Outrider foundation and journalism funding partners. Kelly Wessinger produced today's episode. Jolie Meyers edited Laura Bullard and Abishai Artsy Check the facts. And Patrick Boyd and Adrian Lilly engineered the box membership sale, you should know is still ongoing. Ad free podcast folks. Other perks too. Good on you if you've taken advantage of the sale. And thank you to the person who said they signed up for the Today Explained hosts. Our boss reads those messages so we appreciate it. Vox.com members to take advantage of the sale. I'm Noel King. It's Today Explained.

[Tony Capaccio]

Sam.