Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
wellerstein's profile
Alex Wellerstein
Alex Wellerstein
Alex Wellerstein
Verified account
@wellerstein

Tweets

Alex WellersteinVerified account

@wellerstein

Historian of science, secrecy, and nuclear weapons. Professor of STS at @FollowStevens. UC Berkeley alum with a Harvard PhD. NUKEMAP creator. Coder and web dev.

Hoboken, NJ / NYC
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
Joined September 2011

Tweets

  • © 2019 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    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

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Kevin James‏ @kevinrogerjames 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet

      What to do in 53? (3/N) But I admit that there is a tension between the top down estimate of deterrence stability (no nuke exchange during Cold War) and the bottom-up—all of the what look like (case by case) as near misses. I am going to write more about this, but briefly...

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    2. Kevin James‏ @kevinrogerjames 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet

      What to do in 53? (4/N) If we only had to-down evidence, then I can see how people estimate low prob of deterrence failure (but there are some very tricky stat issues here).

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    3. Kevin James‏ @kevinrogerjames 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet

      What to do in 53? (5/N) But we also have the bottom up evidence (case studies, some stat evidence on early warning system reliability, stat evidence on nuclear crisis episodes and what’s going on there). And that evidence points (in my reading) to high prob of deterrence failure

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    4. Kevin James‏ @kevinrogerjames 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet

      What to do in 53? (6/ How to reconcile? Option 1) bottom-up evidence is right and we lucked out. Top-down evidence is just what happened but no independent info; Or

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    5. Kevin James‏ @kevinrogerjames 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet

      What to do in 53? (7/N) Op 2: Top-down Stability means some hidden factor limits nuke war prob, so bottom-up evidence looks scary but really no risk.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    6. Kevin James‏ @kevinrogerjames 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet

      What to do in 53? (8/N) I am a micro-economist. But with that on table, I just don’t see the hidden factor. Analyzing bottom-up evidence suggests to me that nuke war could easily have happened if things had been very slightly different.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    7. Kevin James‏ @kevinrogerjames 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet

      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.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    8. Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @kevinrogerjames

      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.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @wellerstein @kevinrogerjames

      (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.)

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @wellerstein @kevinrogerjames

      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?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein 5 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @wellerstein @kevinrogerjames

      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.

      6:23 PM - 5 Jul 2018
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein 5 Jul 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @wellerstein @kevinrogerjames

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Alex Wellerstein‏Verified account @wellerstein 5 Jul 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @wellerstein @kevinrogerjames

          (And if your model doesn't admit such considerations... consider revising your model.)

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2019 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info