I admit I'm still confused as to what you're advocating one discuss when talking about nukes to the public — I see much of what you don't think we should be doing, and I thought I had inferred what you were advocating we talk about, but I'm now quite unsure.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This might be seen as underestimating the public, but as someone who interacts with the public in many forms... I don't think it is. At least not without a "hook."
I'm super interested in C2 reform. But you're not going to get anyone in the lay public to care about it unless you wrap it in the question, "should Trump be allowed to start a nuclear war unilaterally?"
-
-
In my experience, unless people feel the nuclear issue is a personal one, they don't respond to it. The barriers for entry are huge. The wonky self-policing of technical language is huge. The structures of power seem very far away.
-
Emphasizing shared risk is one way to start the process of that kind of buy-in. It's the oldest way, anyway. But again, I'm interested in exploring other ways, too — that's a lot of what my RCD project is trying to look at: what actually gets people interested and involved?
-
This Tweet is unavailable
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.