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.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @wellerstein
If the risk of an event is nonzero and never diminishes, do the laws of probability not say that the event will eventually happen?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JennyImpatient
Over an infinite timescale, sure. It's not the infinite I'm concerned with, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JennyImpatient
If one is considering extremely long timelines, then lots of possible futures are conceivable, good and bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein
I take "nuclear abolitionism" to be about the relatively short term (e.g., decades, not centuries).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein
My goal for the relatively short term is to reduce the risk of nuclear war, and to reduce the consequences if the systems fail.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein
The odds of a nuclear war in the early 1960s was high, as were the consequences. The odds decreased until 1980s, but consequences increased.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein
Through 1990s-2000s, the odds of a US-Russia war decreased dramatically, as did the consequences. Still unacceptably high, but better.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.