Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

Let's look closely at this "geopolitical logic."
If you-
a) have a history as a grand power; and
b) have "the might to back it up," then
c) You can invade other countries, *and*
d) Those who object should be silent, lest they start unnecessary wars.

https://twitter.com/dsawyer/status/1487365393375055877

But geopolitical logic, as you call it, has obvious correlates.
Suppose, for example, that you're a country that doesn't want to be invaded by its bigger, grander neighbor.

I'm not sure, but I think the set of such countries must be identical to the set of every country in the world (n) - 1 (the biggest). I may be wrong, but I don't think any country wants to be invaded by a bigger one, no matter how grand that country is.

So what's the logical strategy for those n-1 countries that don't care to be invaded by larger, grander countries?
1) Declare themselves "grand." (This is, after all, a bit subjective.)

2) Nuke up. As fast as possible. After all, the stronger country always gets to invade the weaker one, in geopolitical logic, right?
So, let's apply this logic to the whole world.

(It's going to be a busy year over at 1-800-NORTHKOREA!) The NPT is in the crapper and every country--even the smallest and least stable--is nuked up.

How long do you give the human race, at this point?
I'm not feeling very optimistic about things.

So I'm wondering if maybe "moral logic" and "geopolitical logic" aren't as distinct as you suggest?