Quite a lineup on nuclear weapons in today's @washingtonpost Outlook section!
-
-
They (taboo and deterrence) are unmeasurable, untestable, and not scientific in any serious sense.
-
The evidence we do have on deterrence is that it is not 100% perfect as a strategy — it can fail for many reasons.
-
Was Khrushchev deterred by the danger of nuclear war in Cuba? Or did he just get a deal he liked? We can’t know.
-
You've set up a really impossible epistemological bar. We can know some things, there are levels of knowledge & plausibility.
-
I think I’m just asking for a certain level of scientific knowledge if we’re all going to be asked to risk being blown up.
-
We're in that position regardless.
-
But it’s not inevitable that nuclear weapons exist. We choose to allow them to exist. Don’t make me quote JFK at you.
-
Question for me is not whether deterrence exists (ideas exist, threats exist) but whether they are adequate given consequences of failure.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Deterrence and Taboo are both things that exist inside peoples' heads. Neither, therefore, can be measured in ant scientific sense.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Therefore claims of "knowing" things about them, or grouping experiences with them are no more than speculation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bottom line: President Trump is proof even stable, mature democracies can elect leaders who can't be trusted with
#nuclear weapons.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Therefore, nuclear deterrence has to go.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.