Serious question: Does any nation have the right to deploy weapon systems that could result in the destruction of all human life on Earth? If so, why?
-
-
In the context of sovereign institutions obtaining the ultimate might, this particular use of "have the right" rings funny. I understand the sentiment, but the image of people on Twitter telling Putin, Netanyahu, Hussain, or the US that they don't have the right seems impotent.
-
Seems like the better question is what *should* individuals and sovereign institutions do to make humanity antifragile.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
First you say you're not asking about power politics, then get filled with dispair when someone discredits extinction. Well, actually extinction involves power politics (see the deterrence theory)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, basically you asked does humanity have the right to end itself... What did your expect?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe the question is: How could be peace maintained without this Damocles sword? Global competition would quickly degenerate into global ultraaviolence
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's very hard, for me at least, to think about your question not in terms of power politics. Perhaps that is to say that my only justification for weapons development is power.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Assume all nations on Earth save one are perfectly ethical. The one that isn't has enough WMD to create extinction, and is counter to human wellbeing (totalitarian). Isn't it then ethical to counter that, or do we all submit to mitigate extinction?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.