Here's a strategy for reducing nuclear dangers that is clearly within our reach, as it would cost close to nothing, and depends only upon a will to act.
What if everybody working on nuclear weapons issues at a professional level were writing in one place? Professional experts, activists, engineers, diplomats, and any other nuclear weapons related professionals, all in one place, easily found and accessed by the general public. An online discussion forum would probably be the best vehicle for such a joint effort.
Participating on such a forum would not restrict an expert's ability to continue their writing elsewhere. They could still write their own blogs, books, speeches etc.
What such a forum would do is provide the public with a single place where they could easily access the experts and all of their work. And of course, it would make it easy for the experts to engage each other in public.
The professional nuclear weapons community seems to consider it's job to be to educate and influence policy makers. Ok, great, except for one thing....
We the public are the ultimate policy makers. Democratic institutions are designed to represent the will of the people, so until we the people are successfully engaged, politicians of both parties will continue to ignore nuclear weapons in every national election.
To see the problem being addressed by this post, just look at Substack. There are a handful of nuclear weapons experts writing here. But each of them is acting on their own, writing on their own blog, to very little interest. Neither the business ambitions of the writers, nor the larger question of national survival, are being successfully addressed.
The fact that the nuclear weapons community hasn't figured out how to write together in one place 30 years after the invention of the public Internet provides an example of a failed status quo which is ripe for disruption. If the entire nuclear weapons community were to gather in one place, maybe one or more of these professionals could become the agent of that much needed change.
Joe writes, "The first and easiest is for the existing groups to merge."
This assumes the primary goal of the groups is nuclear weapons, when it may be more accurate to suggest the primary goal is career advancement. Merging would require most of the group leaders to demote themselves to supporting players.
Joe writes, "The relative rarity of such cooperation is a testament to the strong institutional reluctance and competition for recognition that motivates most organizations in the field."
Ah, there you go, now we're talking. Thank you.
Joe writes, "Similarly, research programs and academic institutes could agree to cooperate"
Isn't this more of the same old thing that has consistently failed from the beginning? Where is the evidence that information and analysis can solve this problem? Wouldn't this be researchers doing what they like to do, instead of what must be done?
Not information. LEVERAGE. Pain inflicted as a necessary medicine.
Joe writes, "Another approach could be for major donors to encourage coordination by funding a new campaign."
How about all these people aiming their money at supporting the election of a congressperson who would pledge to talk about NOTHING every single day other than nuclear weapons? A single issue candidate laser focused on the single biggest threat to America, that almost all our other "leaders" are typically happy to ignore. The novelty of a proudly proclaimed single issue candidate might succeed in generating a lot of media coverage.
Joe writes, "Donors often look to duplicate the impact of the ABC movie event, The Day After."
That sounds promising! Less intellectual abstraction, and more in your face horror, speaking to the public where they live.
Joes writes, "Many thought that the award-winning film, Oppenheimer, could play such a role. "
Sadly, that was one of the worst movies ever made on this subject. I struggled mightily to finish it, and failed. Why it got so many awards is a complete mystery. As example, Fat Man and Little Boy, while being somewhat outdated at this point, did a much better job of telling that story.
Joe writes, "Films can validate the concerns of thousands of people already in motion but not generate momentum where none exist."
Good point. However....
The next detonation is coming, and it would seem helpful to be prepared for that crucial moment. Make the films, keep them handy, and wait for the right moment to release them.
Joe writes, "This article is intended to stimulate discussion"
Where? Who? When?
In the spirit of your original suggestion of merging efforts, how about this?
All the nuclear weapons experts and activists brought together on a single online forum, where their thinking could be easily accessed by the public. It would take someone like yourself to make that happen.
The problem of course, which you also mentioned, is that to a great degree the nuclear weapons expert community is as much about business as it is nukes. And so everybody wants to write on their own blog or book etc, where they are the focus of attention. And so I'd reluctantly agree, getting the entire industry to come together to write in a single place would be a major herding cats operation that perhaps even you couldn't organize.
I dunno. I really don't. But honestly, there just seems to be far too much focus by all the experts on the usual failed routines. Everybody is wearing their nice suit, sitting in their nice office, finishing up their latest book, promoting their book at the latest conference, going along to get along, complacently content in the group consensus, afraid to stick their neck out, or not seeing a need to do so etc.
Suggestion for a future article:
Where are the bomb throwers in the nuclear weapons experts/activists community?? Who is willing to jump up and kick over the card table their peers are sitting at?
Not obscure nobodies like me. People with some credibility and chance of being heard. Do such people exist? Can you find such folks and introduce us to them?
Here's a strategy for reducing nuclear dangers that is clearly within our reach, as it would cost close to nothing, and depends only upon a will to act.
What if everybody working on nuclear weapons issues at a professional level were writing in one place? Professional experts, activists, engineers, diplomats, and any other nuclear weapons related professionals, all in one place, easily found and accessed by the general public. An online discussion forum would probably be the best vehicle for such a joint effort.
Participating on such a forum would not restrict an expert's ability to continue their writing elsewhere. They could still write their own blogs, books, speeches etc.
What such a forum would do is provide the public with a single place where they could easily access the experts and all of their work. And of course, it would make it easy for the experts to engage each other in public.
The professional nuclear weapons community seems to consider it's job to be to educate and influence policy makers. Ok, great, except for one thing....
We the public are the ultimate policy makers. Democratic institutions are designed to represent the will of the people, so until we the people are successfully engaged, politicians of both parties will continue to ignore nuclear weapons in every national election.
To see the problem being addressed by this post, just look at Substack. There are a handful of nuclear weapons experts writing here. But each of them is acting on their own, writing on their own blog, to very little interest. Neither the business ambitions of the writers, nor the larger question of national survival, are being successfully addressed.
The fact that the nuclear weapons community hasn't figured out how to write together in one place 30 years after the invention of the public Internet provides an example of a failed status quo which is ripe for disruption. If the entire nuclear weapons community were to gather in one place, maybe one or more of these professionals could become the agent of that much needed change.
Very much appreciate the attempt to outline action paths. Most likely will require some terrible scare to make any of them viable.
Joe writes, "The first and easiest is for the existing groups to merge."
This assumes the primary goal of the groups is nuclear weapons, when it may be more accurate to suggest the primary goal is career advancement. Merging would require most of the group leaders to demote themselves to supporting players.
Joe writes, "The relative rarity of such cooperation is a testament to the strong institutional reluctance and competition for recognition that motivates most organizations in the field."
Ah, there you go, now we're talking. Thank you.
Joe writes, "Similarly, research programs and academic institutes could agree to cooperate"
Isn't this more of the same old thing that has consistently failed from the beginning? Where is the evidence that information and analysis can solve this problem? Wouldn't this be researchers doing what they like to do, instead of what must be done?
Not information. LEVERAGE. Pain inflicted as a necessary medicine.
Joe writes, "Another approach could be for major donors to encourage coordination by funding a new campaign."
How about all these people aiming their money at supporting the election of a congressperson who would pledge to talk about NOTHING every single day other than nuclear weapons? A single issue candidate laser focused on the single biggest threat to America, that almost all our other "leaders" are typically happy to ignore. The novelty of a proudly proclaimed single issue candidate might succeed in generating a lot of media coverage.
Joe writes, "Donors often look to duplicate the impact of the ABC movie event, The Day After."
That sounds promising! Less intellectual abstraction, and more in your face horror, speaking to the public where they live.
Joes writes, "Many thought that the award-winning film, Oppenheimer, could play such a role. "
Sadly, that was one of the worst movies ever made on this subject. I struggled mightily to finish it, and failed. Why it got so many awards is a complete mystery. As example, Fat Man and Little Boy, while being somewhat outdated at this point, did a much better job of telling that story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man_and_Little_Boy_(film)
Joe writes, "Films can validate the concerns of thousands of people already in motion but not generate momentum where none exist."
Good point. However....
The next detonation is coming, and it would seem helpful to be prepared for that crucial moment. Make the films, keep them handy, and wait for the right moment to release them.
Joe writes, "This article is intended to stimulate discussion"
Where? Who? When?
In the spirit of your original suggestion of merging efforts, how about this?
All the nuclear weapons experts and activists brought together on a single online forum, where their thinking could be easily accessed by the public. It would take someone like yourself to make that happen.
The problem of course, which you also mentioned, is that to a great degree the nuclear weapons expert community is as much about business as it is nukes. And so everybody wants to write on their own blog or book etc, where they are the focus of attention. And so I'd reluctantly agree, getting the entire industry to come together to write in a single place would be a major herding cats operation that perhaps even you couldn't organize.
I dunno. I really don't. But honestly, there just seems to be far too much focus by all the experts on the usual failed routines. Everybody is wearing their nice suit, sitting in their nice office, finishing up their latest book, promoting their book at the latest conference, going along to get along, complacently content in the group consensus, afraid to stick their neck out, or not seeing a need to do so etc.
Suggestion for a future article:
Where are the bomb throwers in the nuclear weapons experts/activists community?? Who is willing to jump up and kick over the card table their peers are sitting at?
Not obscure nobodies like me. People with some credibility and chance of being heard. Do such people exist? Can you find such folks and introduce us to them?