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
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
Because I think doing so makes it clear that your approach to this has some issues to work out.
(While you're at it, your model also would suggest preemptively attacking Pakistan, would it not? For is the risk of terrorist acquisition not non-zero? What are the long-term odds that UK, France, India, and Israel will remain permanent US allies? Where does such logic end?)
(Separately, I don't think dismissing people with relevant expertise who disagree with you as being not "open to persuasion" is a very intellectually rigorous approach. I'm pretty open to persuasion. The logic needs to be good though. This is half-baked, and irresponsibly so.)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
