Obviously, I don't go into these discussions thinking that I am going to convince you or others committed to the deterrence position to get behind preventive war. But these discussions can nonetheless be clarifying for people who are more open to persuasion (either way).https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/1015044576485232640 …
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
End of conversation
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.