It's more possible than I think a lot of people realize. I think history shows us it has almost happened more times than are safe.
Show this thread
-
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 -
-
-
Yeah, I personally agree. Of course I've read a bit too any survivors accounts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I'm on the abolitionist side
-
I think the trick is to not confuse no-nukes w/ no-use-of-nukes. Former implies latter (probably, assuming good verification/monioring).
-
But latter doesn't require former. I don't want them ever used in war again. And I think we could get by with fewer of them.
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.