You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
What to do in 53? (9/9) So, my conclusion: deterrence failure prob high and we lucked out. It was a crazy risk to run and prev war would have been a better bet. A long reply—but a hard question! And, of course, thanks for the great NukeMap website.
So — let's put this together. You agree that applying your logic, you'd start a war that would end up killing millions preemptively, Europe trashed, etc.
(I mean, that by itself is a hell of a thing to admit. "I support preemptively killing millions of people, because I'm scared of uncertainty." That's... something to examine a little more. Another time, perhaps.)
How's that better than an unstable deterrence that bought *time*? Time that, in the end, led to the regime in question (the USSR) collapsing? Time that allowed for a wide variety of diplomatic negotiations, shifting alliances, and so on?
I think if your approach to DPRK's nuclear stockpile is all-or-nothing (they have to disarm now or we get a war that will kill probably hundreds of thousands of Americans AND untold numbers of Koreans, Japanese, etc.), it's a sign you haven't really adopted a nuanced view.
And I think history gives us a lot of examples of what such nuances can look like. If you find yourself concluding, "better to kill millions today, to avoid a potential threat tomorrow" — you've gotta reexamine your values. Because that's war crime logic.
(And if your model doesn't admit such considerations... consider revising your model.)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
