In 75 years, nuclear weapons experts writing articles has never worked. In 75 years, nuclear weapons activists waving banners and chanting slogans has never worked.
While I sincerely have the greatest personal respect for anyone who has dedicated their career to this all important subject, someone with prominence in this field needs to stand up, walk to the microphone, and say something like...
"It makes no sense for us to keep on saying and doing those things that have a longstanding record of consistent failure."
It seems important to understand why this never happens. Once a person has established enough credibility to make a living in the nuclear weapons field, like anyone else they will seek to protect their income. And that means they can no longer risk publicly saying anything too far out of the ordinary, lest they be branded as a crackpot, thus putting their professional reputation and income at risk. And so the entire field of experts remains stuck repeating the same old things that have never worked over and over and over. These "same old things" are considered to define what is reasonable and realistic. But what is reasonable and realistic about patterns of activity that have never worked???
Nuclear weapons experts have the credibility and cultural authority needed to be heard, but they are trapped in a long standing pattern of activity which has proven to be a consistent failure. We in the public have nothing to lose by exploring beyond the supposed "realistic and reasonable" that has never worked, but nothing we say matters, because we don't have the credibility and cultural authority needed to be heard. And, there is no meaningful communication between these two groups, because the nuclear weapons expert and activist community is not interested in talking WITH the public, but only in talking AT the public.
What if nuclear weapons experts and activists established an online discussion forum where they all participated anonymously? Anonymous participation would liberate them from concerns about their reputations, and allow them to explore beyond the "realistic and reasonable" that has never worked in a safe environment. The price tag would of course be that participating anonymously would contribute nothing to the development of their careers.
Some limited access might be offered to the public. Perhaps the public could submit articles to an editor for review and possible approval. I would happily create such a forum myself, but if a member of the public created such a place, nobody from the expert community would show up. So if such a thing is to happen, it has to come from the expert community.
All we can really know for sure at this point is that what we've been doing for 75 does not work. It's entirely possible that "unreasonable and unrealistic" ideas outside of the expert group consensus also won't work. But we won't know that for sure until we start exploring such "unreasonable and unrealistic" ideas in earnest.
I agree with all of the above, except for this...
In 75 years, nuclear weapons experts writing articles has never worked. In 75 years, nuclear weapons activists waving banners and chanting slogans has never worked.
While I sincerely have the greatest personal respect for anyone who has dedicated their career to this all important subject, someone with prominence in this field needs to stand up, walk to the microphone, and say something like...
"It makes no sense for us to keep on saying and doing those things that have a longstanding record of consistent failure."
It seems important to understand why this never happens. Once a person has established enough credibility to make a living in the nuclear weapons field, like anyone else they will seek to protect their income. And that means they can no longer risk publicly saying anything too far out of the ordinary, lest they be branded as a crackpot, thus putting their professional reputation and income at risk. And so the entire field of experts remains stuck repeating the same old things that have never worked over and over and over. These "same old things" are considered to define what is reasonable and realistic. But what is reasonable and realistic about patterns of activity that have never worked???
Nuclear weapons experts have the credibility and cultural authority needed to be heard, but they are trapped in a long standing pattern of activity which has proven to be a consistent failure. We in the public have nothing to lose by exploring beyond the supposed "realistic and reasonable" that has never worked, but nothing we say matters, because we don't have the credibility and cultural authority needed to be heard. And, there is no meaningful communication between these two groups, because the nuclear weapons expert and activist community is not interested in talking WITH the public, but only in talking AT the public.
What if nuclear weapons experts and activists established an online discussion forum where they all participated anonymously? Anonymous participation would liberate them from concerns about their reputations, and allow them to explore beyond the "realistic and reasonable" that has never worked in a safe environment. The price tag would of course be that participating anonymously would contribute nothing to the development of their careers.
Some limited access might be offered to the public. Perhaps the public could submit articles to an editor for review and possible approval. I would happily create such a forum myself, but if a member of the public created such a place, nobody from the expert community would show up. So if such a thing is to happen, it has to come from the expert community.
All we can really know for sure at this point is that what we've been doing for 75 does not work. It's entirely possible that "unreasonable and unrealistic" ideas outside of the expert group consensus also won't work. But we won't know that for sure until we start exploring such "unreasonable and unrealistic" ideas in earnest.
Cirincione speaking truth to power. Power and people, please listen.