I'm curious what you think the "other angle" would be. The query was, "how likely was nuclear war?" The answer is, "that's hard to know, here is what people who know about this tend to believe, and here are some of the forces and policies that have an impact on that estimate."
But the one thing I would push back on: I don't think talking about the possibility of nuclear use is a totally privileged discussion. I mean, the outcomes would be bad for the unprivileged as well — arguably disproportionately so.
-
-
(FWIW, I have a student doing research on this at the moment. There is almost no literature on it in the nuke field, but there is in other disaster response fields. I have been tempted to suggest her call the paper, "Fallout Shelters So White.")
-
I don't think it has to be an either/or thing — we either talk about the possibility of a nuclear detonation, or we talk about systemic violence and poverty. This seems like a false choice to me (and there is journalism about the latter, to be sure).
-
There is a separate question about strategy, e.g., does talking about the damage serve as a hook to get people to care about the issue, which can then result in policy engagement? In my experience this is true, but this is also being studied.
-
(E.g., Does framing nukes in terms of social justice get a stronger response — esp. with younger voters — than framing them in terms of the "circles of death"? I don't know. This is an empirical question, not quite yet answered to my satisfaction, but we're looking into it.)
-
Anyway, I appreciate your comments.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
- 6 more replies
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.