I worry that they will come up with a "compromise" solution that will be far too risky for what is warranted,
Show this thread
-
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.
-
Through 1990s-2000s, the odds of a US-Russia war decreased dramatically, as did the consequences. Still unacceptably high, but better.
-
I only bring this up because I do not conceptualize the risk or consequences as all-or-nothing. There are things that can affect it.
End of conversation
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.