Listen Get

The Apocalypse Markup

Abstract

We introduce three terms: the Price of Apocalypse ($33.1 billion (95% CI: $23.7 billion-$44 billion) per year, the cost of maintaining one nuclear-winter’s worth of warheads), the Minimum Viable Apocalypse (~4,400 warheads, the threshold for nuclear winter killing ~5 billion people), and the Apocalypse Markup (all military spending above the Price of Apocalypse). Nine nuclear states spend $92 billion per year on 12,241 warheads, 2.8x the nuclear winter threshold. Total military spending of $2.72 trillion represents an 82.3x (95% CI: 61.9x-115x) markup on the cost of ending civilization. A proposed 1% treaty would redirect $27.2 billion from the Apocalypse Markup to clinical trials, without touching nuclear arsenals or deterrence.

Keywords

war-on-disease, 1-percent-treaty, medical-research, public-health, peace-dividend, decentralized-trials, dfda, dih, victory-bonds, health-economics, cost-benefit-analysis, clinical-trials, drug-development, regulatory-reform, military-spending, peace-economics, decentralized-governance, wishocracy, blockchain-governance, impact-investing

The Price of Apocalypse is $33.1B (95% CI: $23.7B-$44B) per year. Your governments spend $2.72T. That is an 82.3x (95% CI: 61.9x-115x) markup on the end of civilization.

The Price of Apocalypse is $33.1B (95% CI: $23.7B-$44B) per year. Your governments spend $2.72T. That is an 82.3x (95% CI: 61.9x-115x) markup on the end of civilization.

The Price of Apocalypse is $33.1 billion (95% CI: $23.7 billion-$44 billion) per year. That is the cost of maintaining enough nuclear warheads to trigger nuclear winter once, killing roughly 5 billion people. Your governments spend $2.72 trillion on military. That is an 82.3x (95% CI: 61.9x-115x) markup on the end of civilization.

This paper shows the math. It is not complicated. A child could follow it. (The adults who set these budgets presumably also followed it, which makes the outcome harder to explain.)

The Price of a City

How much does one nuclear bomb cost?

The military bundles warhead costs into “modernization programs” and “delivery systems” to hide the individual price tags, in the same way a restaurant hides the cost of bread by calling it “table service.” But we have the B61-12 Life Extension Program as a benchmark:

One fancy airplane costs the same as four city destroyers. The airplane breaks a lot. The bombs would work perfectly on the first try, but you can only use them once.

One fancy airplane costs the same as four city destroyers. The airplane breaks a lot. The bombs would work perfectly on the first try, but you can only use them once.
  • Program Cost: $11 billion for 400-500 bombs
  • Unit Cost: $27.5 million per bomb

$27.5 million per city-destroying weapon. That is less than one F-35 fighter jet. You could buy 3-4 nuclear warheads for the price of one airplane. The airplane requires maintenance. The warheads just sit there, patiently, being worth more than your neighborhood.

The Price of a Person

NUKEMAP (created by historian Alex Wellerstein) simulates nuclear detonations. A single modern 300-kiloton W87 warhead over Manhattan:

How many people a nuclear bomb kills depends on three things: how big the bomb is, how many people are standing nearby, and whether you blow it up in the air or on the ground. Modern bombs are better at all three.

How many people a nuclear bomb kills depends on three things: how big the bomb is, how many people are standing nearby, and whether you blow it up in the air or on the ground. Modern bombs are better at all three.
  • Estimated Fatalities: 1,619,570 people

Immediate deaths. Blast, heat, initial radiation. Not counting fallout, disease, starvation, or the collapse of medical infrastructure. Those numbers are much higher. This is the conservative estimate.

Now the math:

Nuclear weapons are extremely affordable per death. This is the worst possible way to measure value for money, but here we are, measuring it.

Nuclear weapons are extremely affordable per death. This is the worst possible way to measure value for money, but here we are, measuring it.
  • Cost per Bomb: $27,500,000
  • Deaths per Bomb: 1,619,570
  • Cost per Death: $27,500,000 / 1,619,570 = $16.98

For the price of a coffee, your military can kill one human being. You have industrialized death to the point where killing a person costs less than caffeinating them.

I looked for a consumer product cheaper than $16.98 that is considered essential to daily life. A Starbucks latte costs more. A sandwich costs more. A movie ticket costs more. The cheapest thing in your economy is ending a human life with a nuclear weapon, and nobody put this on a graph, because putting it on a graph would make it real, and if it were real, someone might have to do something about it.

The Overkill Calculation

The world’s nine nuclear-armed states maintain approximately 12,241 nuclear warheads65. This fact requires context.

How Nuclear Weapons Actually Kill

A single warhead detonated over Manhattan kills 1.6 million people from blast, heat, and radiation. That is the upper bound: the densest urban target on Earth hit by a modern strategic weapon. Across a realistic mix of military, industrial, and urban targets, the average drops to roughly 50,000-100,000 deaths per warhead.

At that rate, the entire global arsenal would kill 0.6-1.2 billion people directly. That is not even once through the world’s population. If nuclear weapons only killed people with blast and radiation, the arsenal would not be large enough for a single pass through humanity.

But nuclear weapons do not only kill with blast and radiation.

Nuclear Winter: The Actual Extinction Mechanism

Xia et al. (2022, Nature Food) modeled what happens after a US-Russia nuclear exchange79. Approximately 4,400 warheads detonated on urban and industrial targets produce 150 teragrams of soot. The soot blocks sunlight. Global temperatures drop. Crops fail. Within two years, approximately 5 billion people die of famine. Not from the bombs. From the dark.

The global arsenal contains 12,241 warheads. The nuclear winter threshold requires roughly 4,400. The overkill factor, measured against the thing that actually causes extinction, is 2.8x.

This is more modest than the 20x figure from the purchasing-power calculation above. It is also more terrifying. The purchasing-power metric asks “what could the budget buy?” The arsenal metric asks “what have you already built?” The answer: 2.8 times the weapons needed to starve 5 billion people to death in darkness.

Tiny sliver: cure diseases. Massive remainder: prepare for war. The military keeps 99 percent. They’ll barely notice it’s gone, like losing one fry from a large order.

Tiny sliver: cure diseases. Massive remainder: prepare for war. The military keeps 99 percent. They’ll barely notice it’s gone, like losing one fry from a large order.

Minimum Credible Deterrence

How many warheads do you actually need?

China maintained approximately 200-300 warheads for decades. Nobody invaded China. The UK maintains 225. France maintains 290. Israel maintains roughly 90, which is sufficient to deter every country in its region, several of which have tried to destroy it. Air Force researchers Forsyth, Saltzman, and Schaub published in Strategic Studies Quarterly that the United States could maintain effective deterrence with 311 warheads. These were not peace activists. They were active-duty officers.

The academic consensus on minimum credible deterrence: 100-300 warheads, depending on delivery system survivability. A submarine-based force requires fewer because nobody can find the submarines.

The world maintains 12,241. It needs, at most, a few hundred per nuclear state.

Eight billion people. Weapons that can kill 160 billion people. Even after the 1 percent cut. Someone should check if we’re doing math right.

Eight billion people. Weapons that can kill 160 billion people. Even after the 1 percent cut. Someone should check if we’re doing math right.

The Price of Apocalypse

The nine nuclear-armed states spend approximately $100 billion per year maintaining their arsenals60:

Country Annual Nuclear Spending Warheads
United States $51.5 billion 5,044
China $11.8 billion ~500
United Kingdom $8.1 billion 225
Russia $8.3 billion 5,580
France $6.8 billion 290
India ~$2.7 billion 172
Israel ~$1.2 billion 90
Pakistan ~$1.1 billion 170
North Korea ~$0.7 billion ~50
Total ~$92 billion ~12,121

The nine states spend $92 billion total on nuclear weapons, but the arsenal is 2.8 times the nuclear winter threshold. One apocalypse’s worth costs:

\[ \begin{gathered} P_{apocalypse} \\ = \frac{S_{nuke}}{Overkill_{winter}} \\ = \frac{\$92B}{2.78} \\ = \$33.1B \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Overkill_{winter} \\ = \frac{W_{global}}{W_{winter}} \\ = \frac{12{,}200}{4{,}400} \\ = 2.78 \end{gathered} \]

$33.1 billion (95% CI: $23.7 billion-$44 billion) per year. That is the Price of Apocalypse: the Minimum Viable Apocalypse, priced. Less than what Americans spend on Halloween candy. Less than NASA’s annual budget. The end of civilization costs less per year than the James Webb Space Telescope program cost in total. On Wishonia, we do not have a word for an organism that spends more looking at the stars than it would cost to extinguish them, because no organism has ever been that interesting.

If these states right-sized their arsenals to minimum credible deterrence (100-300 warheads each, submarine-based delivery), the cost would drop to roughly $30-40 billion per year, based on UK and French per-warhead costs. The savings: $50-60 billion per year on nuclear weapons alone.

But nuclear spending is not the point. It is 3.4% of the global military budget. The other 96.6% is the point.

The Apocalypse Markup

The Price of Apocalypse is $33.1 billion (95% CI: $23.7 billion-$44 billion). Global military spending is $2.72 trillion.

\[ \begin{gathered} M_{apocalypse,x} \\ = \frac{Spending_{mil}}{P_{apocalypse}} \\ = \frac{\$2.72T}{\$33.1B} \\ = 82.3 \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} P_{apocalypse} \\ = \frac{S_{nuke}}{Overkill_{winter}} \\ = \frac{\$92B}{2.78} \\ = \$33.1B \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Overkill_{winter} \\ = \frac{W_{global}}{W_{winter}} \\ = \frac{12{,}200}{4{,}400} \\ = 2.78 \end{gathered} \]

An 82.3x (95% CI: 61.9x-115x) markup. You are paying 82.3 times the sticker price of the end of civilization. The Apocalypse Markup is $2.69 trillion (95% CI: $2.68 trillion-$2.7 trillion): everything above the $33.1 billion (95% CI: $23.7 billion-$44 billion) that buys one apocalypse.

You are adding a home security system to a house rigged with enough explosives to destroy the neighborhood. The security system is not the problem. The question is why you keep buying more explosives.

“But conventional forces serve purposes other than extinction! Deterrence! Alliance commitments! Humanitarian operations! Power projection!” Correct. And those purposes are funded at a level where the nuclear arsenal alone, costing a small fraction of the budget, can already trigger nuclear winter 2.8 times over. Whatever “purposes” the surplus serves, it serves them on top of a civilization-ending guarantee that costs 3.4 cents of every military dollar. The other 96.6 cents is the Apocalypse Markup.

A 1% treaty146 asks for $27.2 billion from this surplus. It does not touch deterrence. It does not touch nuclear arsenals. It does not touch conventional readiness. It takes from the budget that sits on top of an extinction guarantee and redirects it to clinical trials.

How Much Defense Is Actually Enough?

The net return on US military hegemony is -$674 billion to -$1.38 trillion per year. The only quantifiable benefit ($20-200 billion in dollar reserve privilege) covers 2-23% of the cost. Switzerland spends $7 billion on defense, has not been invaded in 227 years, and the average Swiss citizen has higher income, longer life expectancy, and better healthcare than the average American who is paying 126 times more. The US Army ranked 17th in the world in 1939, behind Portugal, and won World War II by mobilizing in four years. For the full cost-benefit analysis, deterrence sufficiency data, and the evidence that hegemony creates the instability it claims to prevent, see The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Global Hegemony.

The Weapon Efficiency Rankings

Now that you know nuclear weapons cost $16.98 per death, you can compare them to other methods of killing people. This is the darkest optimization problem in human history. But here we are.

Bullets: expensive per death. Missiles: very expensive per death. Tanks: extremely expensive per death. Nuclear weapons: so cheap per death they broke the chart. Efficiency!

Bullets: expensive per death. Missiles: very expensive per death. Tanks: extremely expensive per death. Nuclear weapons: so cheap per death they broke the chart. Efficiency!

Small Arms

In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces fired approximately 250 thousand rounds for every insurgent killed8.

It takes 250,000 bullets to kill one person in modern warfare. This seems inefficient. At 40 cents each, that’s 100,000 per death. The bullets cost more than a house.

It takes 250,000 bullets to kill one person in modern warfare. This seems inefficient. At 40 cents each, that’s 100,000 per death. The bullets cost more than a house.

Artillery

Twenty big shells at ten thousand dollars each equals two hundred thousand dollars per casualty. Artillery is expensive. Being on the receiving end is worse.

Twenty big shells at ten thousand dollars each equals two hundred thousand dollars per casualty. Artillery is expensive. Being on the receiving end is worse.
  • 10-50 rounds per target, $8,000-$14,000 per shell
  • Cost per death: $200,000

Precision-Guided Munitions

  • Excalibur GPS-guided: $176,624 per round. Cost per death: $177,000-$350,000
  • Air-launched missiles (AMRAAM, AARGM-ER): $1-6 million each. Cost per death: $1-6 million+

Nuclear Weapons (The Winner)

  • B61-12: $27.5 million per bomb, ~1.6 million deaths per detonation
  • Cost per death: $16.98

The Leaderboard

Weapon Cost per Death
Nuclear warhead $16.98
Small arms $100,000
Artillery $200,000
Precision artillery $177,000-$350,000
Missiles $1-6 million+

Nuclear weapons are 5,900x more cost-effective at killing than bullets. They are 10,000-350,000x more cost-effective than precision missiles. Your species optimized for maximum death per dollar and then expressed surprise at the result. On Wishonia, we have a word for organisms that optimize a single metric until it destroys everything around them. The word translates roughly to “cancer.”

Conventional weapons: expensive per death. Nuclear weapons: so cheap per death that accountants get excited. The accountants should probably not get excited about this.

Conventional weapons: expensive per death. Nuclear weapons: so cheap per death that accountants get excited. The accountants should probably not get excited about this.

The Bullet Metric

The efficiency rankings measure combat cost-per-death. But there is a simpler calculation that requires no combat at all.

A 5.56mm NATO round costs $0.4 (95% CI: $0.25-$0.6) at bulk military rates7. Global military spending is $2.72 trillion a year.

\[ \begin{gathered} n_{bullets/person} \\ = \frac{N_{bullets,yr}}{Pop_{global}} \\ = \frac{6.8T}{8B} \\ = 850 \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} N_{bullets,yr} \\ = \frac{Spending_{mil}}{c_{bullet}} \\ = \frac{\$2.72T}{\$0.4} \\ = 6.8T \end{gathered} \]

Every year, your governments spend enough on military to murder every man, woman, and child on Earth 850 times over. With bullets alone. Every year.

The nuclear overkill factor (20x) measures a stockpile: existing weapons, built over decades. The bullet metric measures something worse. It measures annual cash flow. You are not sitting on a one-time surplus of redundant death. You are renewing your subscription to it. Every year, you pay for the capacity to murder everyone 850 times, receive a receipt, and then pay again next year.

“But militaries don’t actually spend their entire budget on ammunition!” Correct. They also buy food, housing, vehicles, pensions, and very expensive airplanes. This is a purchasing power calculation. It measures the scale of spending by converting it to the cheapest lethal commodity available. In actual combat, it takes 250 thousand rounds to kill one person8. At that rate, the entire global military budget converted to small arms would kill roughly 27 million people. Not 8 billion.

This objection is interesting because the person making it thinks it helps their case. “We can only kill 27 million people with bullets, not 8 billion” is not the reassurance they believe it to be. I have noticed that on your planet, when someone points out that a number is obscene, the response is often to quibble about the denominator. The denominator is not the problem. The numerator is the problem. The numerator is $2.72 trillion.

Metric Overkill Type
Nuclear arsenal

20x

Existing stockpile
Bullet purchasing power 850x/year Annual spending flow

A 1% treaty moves the bullet count from 850 to about 842 per person. Nobody will notice.

The Receipt

The Death Budget is huge. The Not-Dying Budget is tiny. The proposal moves 1 percent from Death to Not-Dying. This should not be controversial, and yet.

The Death Budget is huge. The Not-Dying Budget is tiny. The proposal moves 1 percent from Death to Not-Dying. This should not be controversial, and yet.

The Price of Apocalypse is $33.1 billion (95% CI: $23.7 billion-$44 billion). The Apocalypse Markup is $2.69 trillion (95% CI: $2.68 trillion-$2.7 trillion). A 1% treaty asks for $27.2 billion.

The treaty does not touch the Price of Apocalypse. It does not reduce deterrence. It does not weaken a single military. It takes from the 82.3x (95% CI: 61.9x-115x) markup and redirects it to clinical trials, so that humans might figure out which of the 9.5 million untested treatment combinations actually work.

Your species can kill every person on Earth 20 times. It cannot cure most cancers. It spends $2.72 trillion a year on the first problem and a fraction of that on the second. The proposal is to move 1% from the budget that murders everyone 20 times to the budget that might stop some of them from dying.

That is the whole proposal. I have been trying to find the controversial part. I cannot find it. If you find it, please let me know, because I have been looking for several years and I am beginning to suspect it does not exist.