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 As example, Fat Man and Little Boy, while being somewhat outdated at this point, did a much better job of telling that story.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?
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?