Science, having become unmoored from political and religious constraints in the 18th century, is the dominant risk-enhancing (if not risk-creating) force in the world today

Science does drive technological change but becoming “unmoored” doesn’t have anything to do with it. Science is only risk-enchancing if you view change itself has inherently risky. I think that the progress of science and technology swaps one risk for another. Quite often, when swap a major risk arising from the natural world for a risk arising from human action. For example, science has wiped out routine plagues but the same knowledge can be used to create biological weapons. We have traded widespread and common natural deaths for the possibility of deaths from a human initiated plagues.

Science is a self-sustaining enterprise characterized by effectively unidirectional progress and the development of an immense array of dual-use technologies, making ever-more-dangerous weapons accessible to ever-smaller organizations

Science does increase the per capita destructive power but it also makes people and objects harder to destroy. For example, the cities of the developed world prior to 1900 used to be highly susceptible to fire. Building of wood and brick ignited easily and virtually every major city in the world experienced a major fire sometime during the 1800. Confederate agents attempted to burn down New York City in 1863 using a petroleum distillate and would have succeeded if they had understood the role of oxygen in starting fires. Any ordinary person today has access to many highly flammable substances compared to someone 150 years ago, yet we have far fewer deaths from fires because we can prevent and suppress fires much easier as well. I think that the increasing robustness provided by technological change balances out the destructive potential.

Culture, by contrast, is in a random walk; there is no such thing as “progress,” in the sense occurring in science, taking place in art, politics, or religion

Culture is no more a random walk than is biological evolution. Cultural beliefs and institutions change over time. For example, most Christians (and Atheist) used to believe in some form of racism yet few today do. Moreover, such changes are often a response to technological change.

Science also poses a growing and critical challenge to religion, in the form of imminent and substantial (if not indefinite) life extension, as well as the possibility of a combination of artificial-intelligence technologies with human brains

Science can challenge religion by explaining the natural world and by reducing fears of material harm but it can’t provide answers for the more metaphysical question such as the meaning or purpose of life.

The only institution capable of managing large-scale risks, such as those posed by ubiquitous dual-use technologies, is the nation-state.

As above, I think that technological risk is largely self-balancing. Moreover, I think that going forward, decentralized risk reduction will be key.

In particular, a charismatic and unscrupulous political leader could use a small number of WMDs to decapitate the leadership of a nation, even a large democratic nation, and seize power.

No, this cannot happen. Any particular group of individual leaders is easily replaceable in a democracy. In a democracy, political power comes from approval of the people. If one leader is killed, the people just appoint another. Someone could nuke Washington and kill all our Federal elected officials but there is no way they could translate that action into a government they controlled. A decapitation strike will not work against a democracy. It will just piss the People off.

In general, the likely mass-psychological effects of terroristic use of WMD and subsequent implosion of a major nation-state are far more frightening than the likely scale of immediate casualties in such an event, immense as it may be

I think I agree with this but as I have argued before, liberal orders collapse when they can no longer provide security and order. The real danger presented by terrorism is not that the terrorist themselves will take over but rather that the inability of the liberal orders to manage the threat of terrorism will cause the people to turn to an authoritarian order. No single attack can drive this. It would take a series of successful attacks to drive this change.

Prompt measures should be taken to: detect nuclear bombs; assure the continuity of the US government; enact mobilization laws; guard our territorial sovereignty; and enhance national unity

I think that most of that is already done. During the Cold War, we designed systems to function after a massive nuclear barrage. We may have grown lax but at the same time the threat is comparably smaller.

I think that Iklé has very 1950’s view of the world. He seems obsessed with centralized management. I don’t think he has much useful to say about the contemporary world.

Culture is not a random walk. Ask Hayek. Some do better than others, for a reason.

Were it not for the late hour, I would offer substantive responses.

For now, I end simply with …
… happy new year.