Geoffrey MillerVerified account

Let’s take some popular Twitter people as examples. @primalpoly and @BretWeinstein have recently posted on international relations/security and domestic politics/party dynamics respectively. /2

They are simply wrong. Not an ideological wrong, but an empirical ignorance of how politics actually works. On it’s face that okay, they aren’t political scientists and hence they can’t know everything. /3

But if someone points out they are wrong, they ignore it or dismiss it as “post-modern neo-Marxism” rhetoric. /4

Why am I wrong about why it would be idiotic to get involved in another Mid East war? When did I pretend to be a political scientist? When did I dismiss anything as 'post-modern neo-Marxism' rhetoric?

1) Trump won't do anything, but if he did it would be a limit airstrike. It is not the case that escalation would lead to war. Since 1945 there have been around the world 1,218 instances of force being used. There have been 121 instances of war.

2) Per this post. The power dynamics and international system largely determine if a conflict breaks out. The ability of leaders, domestic audiences, or domestic preferences are largely unable to direct foreign policy.https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/983398662196752387 …

3) Obama and HRC are not neo-cons. They are liberal internationalists. There is a sizable difference. See Fukuyama and Matt Kroenig as leaders in the neo-con IR tradition.

4) Your post on China's ALBM. a) Even if acquired it would not be a significant change in the nuclear triad. b) Chinese stealth capabilities are significantly behind the US's meaning we would detect their planes. 3) Even if they had both it would reinforce MAD not destabilize.