As an interested member of the public, when I read discussions like this I see....
I see people of good intentions. I see intelligent, well educated and informed people making a good faith effort to address the threat.
I see the experts earnestly engaged in the same kind of thinking and activity which has consistently failed to meet the challenge presented by nuclear weapons for 75 years. And I see no credible evidence that this pattern of behavior will ever succeed.
As a thought experiment, imagine that you're in your garage trying to repair your car. You have a plan which you proceed to implement. The plan doesn't work, so you try again. And again. And again. But still it's not working. Hmm...
At some point the most constructive thing you can do is to stand back, and admit that your original plan isn't working. You don't know what will work, but now that you've abandoned your original plan at least your mind is now open to other possibilities.
I want to read articles from experts that saying something like this. "Nothing we've ever said or done is working, and we don't have a clue what to do next." I want to read that article, because that's what the truth is.
The problem here is that nuclear weapons experts can't speak this truth, because to do so would threaten the nuclear weapons experts business. And like everyone else, nuclear weapons experts very reasonably prioritize their family's future over the state of the world. Anyone would do that. Everyone should do that.
And so we are stuck. The only people the public (and thus the politicians) will listen to are the experts. And the experts can't say what needs to be said. And so we go round and round to nowhere on the hamster wheel of failure as humanity drifts towards the abyss.
I don't know what the solution is either, but I suspect it lies somewhere in this direction.
Awhile back I read about an open letter signed by 1,000 scientists expressing their alarm about nuclear weapons. That sounds good at first, until you realize that such letters are really just a mechanism for the scientists to let themselves off the hook from taking inconvenient action that might actually make a difference, for example, 1,000 scientists going out on strike.
The brain dead nuclear weapons denial disease status quo is not going to surrender to articles, books, speeches, conferences, information, reasoned analysis or any other products of the nuclear weapons experts industry.
Some form of effective leverage will need to be applied. And I predict that won't happen until after the next detonation. At that point anything could happen, for both the better and the worse.
While we await that turning point, we can explore another option which is currently engaging my interest. What if our assumption that global nuclear war is the worst thing that could ever happen is wrong? What if our assumption that life is better than death is wrong? Given the path we're currently on, such questions seem worth considering. If interested, try this as a place to get started:
As an interested member of the public, when I read discussions like this I see....
I see people of good intentions. I see intelligent, well educated and informed people making a good faith effort to address the threat.
I see the experts earnestly engaged in the same kind of thinking and activity which has consistently failed to meet the challenge presented by nuclear weapons for 75 years. And I see no credible evidence that this pattern of behavior will ever succeed.
As a thought experiment, imagine that you're in your garage trying to repair your car. You have a plan which you proceed to implement. The plan doesn't work, so you try again. And again. And again. But still it's not working. Hmm...
At some point the most constructive thing you can do is to stand back, and admit that your original plan isn't working. You don't know what will work, but now that you've abandoned your original plan at least your mind is now open to other possibilities.
I want to read articles from experts that saying something like this. "Nothing we've ever said or done is working, and we don't have a clue what to do next." I want to read that article, because that's what the truth is.
The problem here is that nuclear weapons experts can't speak this truth, because to do so would threaten the nuclear weapons experts business. And like everyone else, nuclear weapons experts very reasonably prioritize their family's future over the state of the world. Anyone would do that. Everyone should do that.
And so we are stuck. The only people the public (and thus the politicians) will listen to are the experts. And the experts can't say what needs to be said. And so we go round and round to nowhere on the hamster wheel of failure as humanity drifts towards the abyss.
I don't know what the solution is either, but I suspect it lies somewhere in this direction.
Awhile back I read about an open letter signed by 1,000 scientists expressing their alarm about nuclear weapons. That sounds good at first, until you realize that such letters are really just a mechanism for the scientists to let themselves off the hook from taking inconvenient action that might actually make a difference, for example, 1,000 scientists going out on strike.
The brain dead nuclear weapons denial disease status quo is not going to surrender to articles, books, speeches, conferences, information, reasoned analysis or any other products of the nuclear weapons experts industry.
Some form of effective leverage will need to be applied. And I predict that won't happen until after the next detonation. At that point anything could happen, for both the better and the worse.
While we await that turning point, we can explore another option which is currently engaging my interest. What if our assumption that global nuclear war is the worst thing that could ever happen is wrong? What if our assumption that life is better than death is wrong? Given the path we're currently on, such questions seem worth considering. If interested, try this as a place to get started:
https://www.youtube.com/@cominghomechannel
2 trillion. For starters. Follow where that money goes, and you see who is writing policy for government to implement.