Quite a lineup on nuclear weapons in today's @washingtonpost Outlook section!
-
-
Replying to @Joshua_Pollack @washingtonpost
First,
@vermontgmg on the deep, ingrained reluctance to order a nuclear first strike:https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/would-the-president-actually-order-the-use-of-nuclear-weapons/2017/08/18/a7ff0ed8-837d-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.9d967f9e3815 …9 replies 3 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Joshua_Pollack @WardHayesWilson and
In both cases, Trump can easily be a counter-example if you want him to be. Not clear he has Truman's taboo. Not clear he cares about allies
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Joshua_Pollack and
They (taboo and deterrence) are unmeasurable, untestable, and not scientific in any serious sense.
6 replies 2 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WardHayesWilson @Joshua_Pollack and
Similarly, taboos can be broken. They cannot be relied upon to perfectly regulate behavior (with states or individuals).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @Joshua_Pollack and
Nothing can be relied on to “perfectly regulate behavior.” We are human beings. We never have perfectly regulated behavior.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WardHayesWilson @Joshua_Pollack and
The difficulty we have with the case of nukes is that the acceptable number of failures is zero or near zero.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @Joshua_Pollack and
Absolutely. Nuclear weapons require perfection. And human beings can’t be perfect.
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
5) Which makes me think that mitigation of the existential risks (arms control), rather than elimination (disarmament), is more realistic.
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.