Regarding #nuclearweapons, I believe the following are all true:

1. As long as nuclear weapons remain, there is a risk of a nuclear use

2. Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used

3. Nuclear use risks escalation to general nuclear war

4. Nuclear escalation isn't automatic
5. Even one nuclear weapon could cause an immense disaster with consequences that are difficult to predict

6. One or few nuclear weapons in themselves are unlikely to cause a disaster even comparable to the Second World War
7. All-out nuclear war could cause the greatest disaster in human history

8. Even all-out nuclear war and its consequences would probably be unable to destroy every society in the Southern Hemisphere
9. Standing up against nuclear blackmail may end in the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons

10. Not standing up against nuclear blackmail may cause genocide and increase the risk of war, including nuclear war, in the future
11. Humans who have the authority to use nuclear weapons may make mistakes, and accidental use is a grave concern

12. Humans are reluctant to actually use nuclear weapons even in exercises designed to force them into using them
13. Decision-makers can have very different ideas about nuclear weapons than what we believe they have, and could see them as useful even if we don't

14. Even unhinged decision-makers probably don't make the decision to go nuclear lightly
15. In any conflict with a nuclear-armed power, prudence and caution are important

16. Too much prudence and caution may increase, not reduce the risks and damages in the long run
17. It is a moral duty to avoid war in general and nuclear war in particular, and end wars as soon as possible

18. It is a moral duty to help those who are attacked, instead of forcing them to yield to their attackers

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Janne M. Korhonen 🇫🇮🇪🇺🇺🇳🐟🇺🇦🇵🇸

Janne M. Korhonen 🇫🇮🇪🇺🇺🇳🐟🇺🇦🇵🇸 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jmkorhonen

Oct 19
Tämä näyttää olevan liian monen oikeistolaisen suoranainen tavoite.

Olen aiemminkin kirjoittanut, että oikeisto on kriisissä. Liberaalin oikeistolaisuuden kruununjalokivi, kapitalismin kulta-ajan oppeihin perustuva talousosaaminen, on ohittanut parasta ennen-päivänsä.
Sitä mukaa kun ihmiset tajuavat maailman olevan sittenkin rajallinen ja yksien rikastumisen olevan siksi toisilta pois, mitä oikeiston ideologiaan jää enää jäljelle?

Ei enää juuri mitään, mitä voisi asia-argumentein tehokkaasti puolustaa.

Jäljelle jää identiteettipolitiikka.
Britit näyttivät mallisuorituksen.

Tuhotaan maan talous vastoin asiantuntijoiden rukouksia rikkaiden rikastuttamiseksi vähäsen.

Mutta mitäpä siitä, kun on saatu omisteltua liberaaleja.

On kuin 16-vuotiaat IRC-edgelordit olisivat vallassa.

Saas nähdä miten Ruotsin käy.
Read 5 tweets
Oct 19
Tässä on kaksi venäjää puhunutta neuvostoliittolaista, joilla on jotain muutakin yhteistä.

Neuvostoliiton kansalaiselle myönnetty Mannerheim-risti.

Naiivi ei pidä olla. Muttei tyhmäkään. Moni Venäjältä tullut on tullut siksi, koska vastustaa Kremlin kleptokraatteja. Mikko Pöllä (1916-1994). Pa...Antti Vorho (1912-1991). Pa...
Tässä vielä Ilta-Sanomien juttu aiheesta tiedoksi iltalehtien senttareille ja muillekin.

is.fi/kotimaa/art-20…
Nyt varsinkin on varmasti tullut myös isovenäläisyyteen taipuvaista väkeä vain kutsuntoja pakoon, kun - kuten nationalistimouhoille tavallista - he eivät itte aio ikinä maksaa mouhoamisensa laskuja.

Mutta moni Venäjältä tullut on luotettavampi Kremlin vihollinen kuin persut.
Read 8 tweets
Oct 18
I believe Musk's cowardice stems in part from acceptance of what I'd call naive longtermism.

Long term thinking is really important. But using it to dismiss present problems is not just insensitive, I believe it's counterproductive for long term survival of civilization.
I'm convinced that if civilization is to survive the emergence of extremely powerful technologies, the only sustainable solution to the otherwise probably lethal unilateralist's curse is to limit the power of individual actors AND share this power equitably.
(Why this is so is a project I'm working on right now. In a word, the reason is competition.)

And this in part means that we not only have a moral responsibility to help those suffering from injustices and inequalities. Justice is needed to reduce existential risks.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 18
For about two years now, I've been cautiously optimistic about the future. My focus is on environmental issues and the questions of sustainable society. There are many indicators that suggest there's light at the end of the tunnel, and it isn't an incoming train! 1/
The biggest story to come is the rapid fall of the price of low-carbon energy and ancillary equipment - and frankly insane increase in production capabilities. E.g. very soon the world could install solar power in appreciable fractions of total electricity demand. EVERY YEAR. 2/ Solar PV installations keep...
The biggest hammer of the Industrial Revolution, mass production, is now beating down the prices of just about everything we need to end fossil fuel use. I suspect the transition will be much smoother and much faster than many believe. 3/ Fast transition could well ...
Read 18 tweets
Oct 18
Fukuyama was right. I too used to be mistaken by his use of the term “end of history.” But what that means is not that there aren’t any struggles left; it’s that democracy will eventually become the default.

And more democratic systems will outcompete less democratic ones.
This process will take much more time than many understood in the 1990s. It may take centuries. But the trends in technology, availability of information, and global problems practically guarantee, in my opinion, that over time, societies that prevail are getting more democratic.
More democracy simply means so great advantages in societal decision making and resilience, that less democratic societies will fail one way or another.

Democracies can fail as well, and some will. But democracy as a cause won’t, especially if technical civilization survives.
Read 7 tweets
Oct 17
One more thread about #nuclear weapons: why I don't worry much about nuclear war and believe surrendering to the Kremlin would present a much bigger risk of a disaster (including an actual nuclear war in the future).

In short: nuclear wars are notoriously hard to initiate. 1/
Sure, one could argue that we haven't seen a nuclear war, so how could we know how difficult it is to start one?

Well. We haven't seen a nuclear war after 1945. That's data point #1. Then there is data point #2: practically everything we know from _exercises_ says it's hard. 2/
Again, a disclaimer: nothing in this thread ought to be constituted as an attempt to minimize the terrible damage nuclear weapons can do, or the risks of nuclear war. There is always a risk of nuclear war, especially so when two nuclear powers are in confrontation. That said - 3/
Read 26 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(