Thread by @CherylRofer

1. I've been trying to formulate some thoughts. Let me take off from Elbridge Colby's article in @ForeignAffairs to see what I can do.

@ForeignAffairs 2. I want to get out of some of our old boxes. There are many points I can criticize in Colby's article, but I will focus on one for now.

I'm going to raise questions. I want them to remain questions. I don't want the conventional answers.

@ForeignAffairs 3. The article holds many "ifs". If Russia does this, if America does that. Let me turn those "ifs" into "whys."

Why would any country bring a nuclear war upon itself?

4. Most (all?) nuclear states have said that they will not be the first to use nukes. These statements are short of no-first-use pledges, but they are not meaningless.

5. We have not had a great-power war for over 70 years. The secondary powers that have acquired nuclear weapons have not used them.

6. The smallest nuclear powers have been clear that they have their arsenals for deterrence. Nuclear theorists agree.

7. In Colby's article and similar writing, many incursions are posited as leading to nuclear war. But how likely are those incursions, especially when they might lead to nuclear war? Or would they be more likely in the absence of nuclear weapons?

8. What motivates those incursions is largely demonstrations of power. Putin doesn't need the Baltic States. Pakistan doesn't need its attacks on India. The United States doesn't need to boast about its button or its useless missile "defenses."

9. We have nuclear weapons because we are afraid of what someone else will do. Maybe it's time to sit down with them and work out how not to do those things.
/fin

Thanks to all for holding back on the comments.