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
or B) Deterrence might have a high failure prob, but prev war is unethical so people just have to live with the risk that NK's nuke program creates. I don't think most people would agree (but we can see).https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/nuclear-weapons-taboo-breaking-majority-americans-support-save-troops-lives-conventional-warfare/ …
Look, I don't love nuclear deterrence. But if your options are "kill hundreds of thousands/millions because you fear it might fail in the future" or "find other ways to create as much stability as you can while you diplomacy it out" — only one of those doesn't lead to Nuremberg.
If you can't see that the risk of deterrence failing is not constant, but contextual... then you're gonna have a hard time understanding history. Both Cuban Missile Crisis and the War Scare of '83 were a result of bad policies. There are better and worse ways to do deterrence.
And I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to say, "oh, the people in favor of deterrence rather than preventative war aren't stating how much they don't think deterrence is a permanently stable solution," fine, BUT —
you've also gotta admit, straight up, that your own "rational" approach would have led to a slaughter that would have made WWII look tame, and possibly (depends on the megatonnage) put much of the world at risk anyway from the knock-off effects.
Wait—I think this is your approach! The world was definitely at high risk during Cold War. A nuke exchange in 1983 would indeed have made WW2 look tame, and knock on effects would have put much of the world at risk
Well, you do have to actually lose a war to end up before a war crimes trial though.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
