But I'm actually fairly worried. And my friends know, I am not a worrier in general. If anything, I think I err on the side of blasé.
Show this thread
-
That they think a nuclear-armed DPRK makes them much more threatened than before. Rather than just a bit more. That they were never safe.
Show this thread
I don't think we'll ever live in a world where the nuclear risks of this sort will ever diminish. I'm not that optimistic.
-
-
But there are more and less dangerous times, even if the danger is never zero. Right now, the danger feels very high. Unacceptably high.
Show this thread -
I hope I'm wrong. We'll see. I hope that those who are in positions of amplified power act reasonably. But, again, I'm not an optimist.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If the risk of an event is nonzero and never diminishes, do the laws of probability not say that the event will eventually happen?
-
Over an infinite timescale, sure. It's not the infinite I'm concerned with, though.
-
So it's not unlikely that we'll see a nuclear war rather soon, but we're certain to see one if nuclear disarmament is never completed?
-
If one is considering extremely long timelines, then lots of possible futures are conceivable, good and bad.
-
I take "nuclear abolitionism" to be about the relatively short term (e.g., decades, not centuries).
-
My goal for the relatively short term is to reduce the risk of nuclear war, and to reduce the consequences if the systems fail.
-
Also, I would correct on thing. The odds do change over time. They can go up and down. As do the consequences. It is not a static risk.
-
The odds of a nuclear war in the early 1960s was high, as were the consequences. The odds decreased until 1980s, but consequences increased.
- 2 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.