2030: The Last Chance. Why Superhuman ai could save humanity

A Historical Excursion

When did wars between human beings begin on Earth? And what were their motives? Is there a causal link between aggressive behavior in the distant past and the manifestations of aggression we see in the modern world?

Even the briefest excursion into human history shows that war appeared long before states, armies, and even agriculture.

Carl von Clausewitz did not study ancient wars. His horizon extended over roughly a century and a half of European conflict, from Frederick the Great to Napoleon. We, however, need to dig deeper, to go back to the sources, because only then does the whole river of time become clearer — a river in which peaceful periods were merely small islands in a violent current.

To dig deeper — in both the literal and figurative sense — is the task of archaeologists, and they have done it well. In northeastern Africa, on the territory of present-day Sudan, they uncovered a mass grave containing sixty-one individuals; in forty-five of them, arrowheads were still embedded in the bones, along with other signs of violent death. Historians regard this as evidence of an ancient mass conflict that took place about 13,000 years ago. In their view, groups of hunter-gatherers were killing one another over access to water and hunting grounds.4

This does not mean that there were no conflicts before that time. It means only that conflicts already existed 13,000 years ago. As for how human beings lived in earlier periods of history, we do not know, and can only speculate. But we will not indulge in guesswork. For our purposes, the last 13,000 years are more than enough.

The next well-documented massacre took place in Kenya about 10,000 years ago. During excavations at Nataruk, in Turkana County, the remains of twenty-seven murdered individuals were discovered — the skeletons of men, women, and children, ranging from a three-year-old child to an older man no younger than forty-five. One of the dead women was in the final months of pregnancy.

Study of the bones revealed numerous injuries: traces of blows from clubs or stone axes, fractures of arms, knees, and ribs. Stone projectile points from arrows or spears were embedded in the bones of two men. The position of some of the remains suggests that the victims may have been bound before death — or possibly afterward. No signs of intentional burial were found. In the view of the researchers, the bodies were left where they fell or thrown into the waters of Lake Turkana.5

About 7,000 years ago, a true slaughter took place at Talheim in what is now Germany: thirty-four people were killed at the same time by blows to the head from stone axes. There were no middle-aged men among the victims, which gave rise to the hypothesis that they had been taken captive.6

Between 3000 and 2500 BC, wars regularly broke out among the city-states of ancient Sumer, on the territory of present-day Iraq. Writing already existed by that time, which is why we know quite well what happened there and how it happened. In Sumer we see the emergence of the first armies and the first military commanders, who waged war mainly for resources.

Then historians point to the battles between ancient Egypt and the Hittite kingdom (ca. 1274 BC), the Assyrian conquests (ca. 900—600 BC), the Greco-Persian Wars (ca. 500—449 BC), Alexander the Great’s campaigns in his attempt to build a global empire (ca. 334—323 BC), Rome’s Punic Wars against Carthage (ca. 264—146 BC), the Hundred Years’ War between France and England (1337—1453), and the Napoleonic Wars of 1803—1815.

Of course, these are only the loudest milestones along the path of war, which has accompanied humanity from the most ancient times. But even they are enough to support one conclusion: war is not a deviation but a norm in relations between human beings; the causes of war have changed little — resources, fear, power; and the modern world is not an exception, but a continuation of an ancient line.

When a phenomenon or process — war, for example — ceases to be an exception and becomes part of normal reality, the need arises to study it. In 2007, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) was founded in the United States. Such structures do not arise from outside; they grow out of a society’s internal needs, its fears, its expectations, and its new ways of perceiving the world.

Alongside ISW, two other major global centers operate in this field: UCDP (the Uppsala Conflict Data Program) in Sweden and PRIO (the Peace Research Institute Oslo) in Norway. It is these institutions that provide the official statistics on conflicts across the planet.

If we look into their reports, we find a deeply alarming picture. According to UCDP and PRIO, there were 61 armed conflicts in the world in 2024—the highest number recorded since 1946.7

In 2025 and 2026, conflict activity did not subside, and the trajectory has continued upward. This creates a background in which nuclear escalation becomes increasingly likely.

Weapons of Doomsday

On July 16, 1945, in the Alamogordo desert, the first atomic bomb in history exploded. Its creation was the result of the efforts of several dozen of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century. The leading figures in that process were Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project; Enrico Fermi, creator of the world’s first controlled nuclear reactor; and Nobel Prize — winning physicist Niels Bohr.

This was the core of a project that ultimately involved more than 130,000 people: scientists, engineers, chemists, metallurgists, and military personnel.

The most famous physicist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein, did not personally take part in the Manhattan Project. Yet it was he who revealed the key to a weapon capable of destroying humanity. That key was the formula E = mc², derived and published by Einstein in 1905 within the framework of special relativity. The equation explained why the splitting of the atom releases enormous energy.

It later became one of the cornerstones of modern physics, a science to which Einstein’s work made a foundational contribution toward the creation of the atomic bomb. In 1939, he signed a letter to President Roosevelt urging the United States to begin atomic research. The argument behind that appeal was clear: Germany might be the first to build an atomic bomb.

It was a powerful argument. Roosevelt received the letter on October 11, 1939, when Europe was already in flames from the war unleashed by Germany.

In fairness, it should be noted that the letter itself was written by the American physicist Leo Szilard, and Einstein merely signed it. But it was that letter that became the political impulse behind the creation of the Manhattan Project.8

The world learned what human beings had created three weeks later, when the two atomic bombings of Japan brought the Second World War to an end: Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945.

The nuclear age had begun, along with the arms race and the Cold War. It was after the attack on Japan that a fear emerged which has shaped international politics ever since.

That race led first to the Soviet Union acquiring atomic weapons (1949), then the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964).

Later the list of states possessing nuclear weapons expanded to include India (1974), Israel (1979, unofficially), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006).

A clear understanding emerged across the world: if nuclear war were ever to begin, it would likely lead to the destruction of civilization on a global scale, and possibly of humanity itself.

And yet a paradoxical situation took shape: fear became the chief guarantor of peace and, at the same time, the fuel for the continuing arms race. States possessing nuclear capability began producing such weapons on a large scale, while simultaneously increasing their destructive power and the speed of delivery.

Consider these figures: since 1945, more than 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted by the world’s states. They were carried out on land, underground, in the air, underwater, and in space. The atmosphere, the oceans, and the soil have all borne consequences that we still do not fully understand.

As of 2026, the combined nuclear arsenals of all countries amount to 12,241 warheads. These weapons are distributed across land-based silos, submarines, and aircraft.

Scientists have repeatedly modeled scenarios of full-scale nuclear war. Although these models differ in minor details, they converge in their general picture of the consequences.

In the first hours, 1.5 to 2 billion people die. Another 2 to 3 billion die in the following months from burns, radiation, hunger, and the collapse of medical care.

That is to say: civilization ceases to exist as an organized system.

For roughly 10 to 20 years, a nuclear winter descends upon the entire planet. It kills no fewer than the explosions themselves. Between 150 and 180 million tons of soot rise into the atmosphere. Global temperatures fall by 10 to 15°C, and in continental regions summer temperatures drop to as low as —20°C. Crop yields disappear almost entirely.

The ozone layer is destroyed by 30 to 70 percent. It ceases to be a barrier to ultraviolet radiation, which becomes lethally dangerous.

Radioactive contamination spreads across the planet for decades.9

The End of the World arrives, and civilization is reset.

The Cuban Missile Crisis: Thirteen Days to the End

Fear of dying in the flames of nuclear apocalypse rose sharply after the events that later came to be known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. It unfolded in October 1962, and the world truly stood only a few steps away from nuclear war.

The background to the crisis was this: in 1961, the United States deployed PGM-19 Jupiter missiles in Turkey. The Soviet Union regarded this as an unacceptable threat and, in October 1962, secretly deployed R-12 and R-14 medium-range missiles in Cuba, both capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The world froze, one step away from the outbreak of nuclear war. What followed exceeded any Hollywood blockbuster.

On October 27, a group of American warships detected a Soviet diesel-electric submarine near Cuba. The Americans began dropping practice depth charges in order to force it to surface.

The commander of the submarine, in darkness and cut off from communication with Moscow, concluded that war had already begun and gave the order to prepare a torpedo armed with a 20-kiloton nuclear warhead for launch.

Launch required the consent of all three senior officers on board. Two agreed. The third — the flotilla chief of staff, who was also aboard the submarine — refused to confirm the order. He drew attention to the signals coming from the American ships and insisted that the submarine surface in order to establish contact with command.

In the end, the leaders of both countries did recognize that there would be no victors in such a war, and on October 28, 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union reached a settlement. Under the agreement, the Soviet Union removed its missiles from Cuba, and the United States removed its missiles from Turkey. Both sides carried out the arrangement.10

This episode became one of the clearest examples of how fragile peace is in the nuclear age — and how much can depend on the composure and clarity of thought of a single person standing at a combat post.

The NORAD False Alarm

On January 24, 1961, the American early warning system NORAD detected a massive launch of Soviet missiles. The signal looked absolutely real: by all parameters, it matched the beginning of a USSR nuclear strike.

Strategic B‑52 bombers carrying megaton-class nuclear bombs were immediately scrambled into the air. They set course for the Soviet Union, and their crews were ordered to prepare for combat mode.

Within minutes, it became clear that this was a false alarm, caused by a severe storm. The storm had knocked out communication lines, and the system interpreted this as the destruction of American radars by a first strike (some sources attribute the alarm to a “fire at a switching station in Colorado caused by a short circuit”).¹¹

The bombers were ordered back to their bases, and the threat of war due to a technical glitch temporarily dissolved.

Yes, unfortunately, only temporarily. Because the situation repeated itself on May 23, 1967, when a powerful solar flare triggered an intense geomagnetic storm. This storm knocked out American early-warning radars in Alaska, radars in Greenland, and radars in the United Kingdom. To the Pentagon, this looked like a coordinated Soviet attack on the U.S. missile defense system — a typical first step before a nuclear strike.

The military’s reaction was predictable: Air Force command concluded that the USSR was “blinding” American radars. The entire U.S. nuclear triad — strategic bombers, land-based missiles, and nuclear-armed submarines — was put on maximum alert as quickly as possible.

This time, the situation was saved by military meteorologists. They managed to report that the failure was caused by a solar flare, not an attack. After that, the order to prepare for a strike was canceled.12

But what if the meteorologists’ report had been delayed by just a few minutes? The United States might have moved into combat mode, and the USSR would have responded in kind.

That was a moment when space weather nearly became the trigger for nuclear war.

The next such moment was no longer about weather, but about computers.

On November 9, 1979, a message appeared on the screens of operators at the NORAD command center: “Launch of 2500 Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles.” This looked like a full-scale first strike by the USSR, and the military command immediately shifted to alert level DEFCON 1 (pre-war posture) — with all the actions prescribed by launch protocols.

The mistake was understood when several independent technical sources (satellites, external radars) failed to confirm the launches.

Where did the false message come from? The cause turned out to be absurd: a training tape, intended for drill scenarios, had been accidentally loaded into the system.13

These are cases that have made it into open sources. I would venture to guess that many more such episodes have remained “off the record,” and we will never know about them. But does that change anything in essence? Not at all. The picture is perfectly clear: nuclear war may begin not out of malicious intent, but by mistake.

Cyberattack

Recently, another risk has been added to technical failures like those described above — cyberattacks by hackers.

In the twenty-first century, cyberattacks are considered one of the factors capable of provoking nuclear escalation: they can send false signals, interfere with early warning systems, disrupt communications, and disable command centers. Theoretically, a cyberattack could block or, conversely, simulate commands, disable verification mechanisms, and ultimately lead to catastrophe.

And all this in systems where decisions are made in minutes.

Cyberattacks are characterized by invisibility, speed, and the ambiguity of the attacker’s intentions. And in a crisis situation, uncertainty is a powerful and terrifying enemy. If military command or political leadership fails to understand what is happening amid threat signals, the worst-case scenario may unfold.

But perhaps these threats are greatly exaggerated, and military facilities are well protected even against the most skilled hackers?

Unfortunately, practice shows the opposite.

In 2008, the Pentagon was hacked. Malicious code entered the network of the United States Central Command through an infected USB drive, creating a hidden communications channel and allowing data to be transmitted outside the network.

In 2010, the first digital strike in history was carried out. Its target was Iran’s nuclear program, specifically the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.

For this strike, the malicious program Stuxnet was created — a sophisticated computer worm that became an example of digital weaponry aimed at the physical destruction of infrastructure.

Stuxnet’s primary goal was to disrupt or slow down Iran’s nuclear program by disabling uranium enrichment centrifuges.

According to various estimates, Stuxnet disabled about 1,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility, roughly one-fifth of the total. This significantly slowed the development of Iran’s nuclear program.

This attack set a precedent, demonstrating the possibility of deliberately targeting another country’s critical infrastructure with malicious software.

In 2011, the control system of U.S. drones was hacked. A virus infiltrated the network of a U.S. Air Force base in Nevada where combat drones were operated. This showed that even highly protected systems are vulnerable.

Between 2013 and 2017, North Korean hackers repeatedly attacked the infrastructure of the South Korean Ministry of Defense, and in one case stole documents containing elements of the country’s defense plan.

All states take measures to protect their nuclear forces from digital threats. Nuclear systems avoid full automation — critical decisions are made by humans, not algorithms. They create parallel communication channels, backup command centers, independent verification systems, and isolate nuclear systems from the internet.14

The risks of unauthorized access to strategically critical nodes are reduced, but they do not disappear entirely.

There is another factor that increases the risk of nuclear war. This time, it is not people, nor technology — it is nature, specifically the climate changes that were already examined in detail in Chapter 2.

Now let us look at them from a different perspective.

Climate as a Threat of War

When assessing the risks of a nuclear war breaking out, experts mainly discuss the human factor and potential technical failures. These factors can still be addressed to some extent, and since war has not yet broken out, this struggle must be acknowledged as successful so far.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «Литрес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на Литрес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.