Raedwulf,

I am looking for reasons NOT to believe the article, as I have stated repeatedly.

I have found none- the percentages that are used ( 2% per year and 25% for a single "Cuban missile Crisis) event ) are reasonable and within thee bounds of accepted risk estimates , as given by analysis of the incidents the author mentions.

"Reflecting upon the Crisis, Graham Allison wrote that while President Kennedy thought that the chance of nuclear war was between 33% and 50%, "what we have learned in later decades has done nothing to lengthen those odds." "

I MAKE NO CLAIM- I ask for valid reasons to refute the article, and none have been presented here.

Three of four arming devices went off- and you think that the NK will have that many safeties on each warhead? The US is presently debating GETTING RID of the land-based part of the Triad, BECAUSE it has NO safeties against detonation ONCE LAUNCHED. The article addresses the launch of missiles DUE TO mistaken or false information. That is what is meant by accidental launch, not that the launch was not intended to go up- it would be INTENTIONAL, but for reasons based on false information, as reading the article would show you.

The author even assumes that only 50% of the warheads will even explode. I would not be so optimistic.