because the only "other" voices in the conversation will be extreme and foolish.
Show this thread
-
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.