I appreciated the comments in both this episode and the previous ones with Charlie around damage limitation. I understand Vipin's comment that he was more inclined to believe that after his stint in government that meaningful damage limitation is possible. However, I'd love if you guys could spend some time discussing what "meaningful" actually entails from a more philosophical perspective along some of the lines Charlie mentioned previously. To put it another way, could you convince a "normal person" - i.e. someone who doesn't spend their life thinking about these issues (including politicians and presidents) that there are levels of destruction that are distinguishable enough to compel them to act differently in a crisis. I realize this is a very difficult topic but I feel like it doesn't get enough attention. Really enjoy the conversation as always and the banter. Thanks again.
Thanks for all these materials! I had not seen the CNN story about DOE staffers visiting the White House to try to explain why testing is not in US interest. From the national laboratories to the anti-nuclear community, I know of no one who thinks that resuming nuclear testing is a good idea.
Thanks for answering my question re limited nuclear use. Though I suppose it's not very helpful to provide this after the fact, my frame of reference for the question is my work and interest in "humanitarian" response to nuclear detonations. With that in mind, I've noticed that many in the disarmament community seem determined to deny even the possibility of such a response. One of the arguments being that there can be no single or small number of nuclear explosions because escalation dynamics will inevitably lead to a full nuclear exchange (with all it's civilization-ending consequences). Another argument they utilize, including recently in op-eds paired with "House of Dynamite," is that even a single nuclear detonation causes "X number of hospitals destroyed; doctors and nurses are killed; burn beds are limited --> no humanitarian response is possible." QED. This argument can bring me to Vipin-levels of rage...
I appreciated the comments in both this episode and the previous ones with Charlie around damage limitation. I understand Vipin's comment that he was more inclined to believe that after his stint in government that meaningful damage limitation is possible. However, I'd love if you guys could spend some time discussing what "meaningful" actually entails from a more philosophical perspective along some of the lines Charlie mentioned previously. To put it another way, could you convince a "normal person" - i.e. someone who doesn't spend their life thinking about these issues (including politicians and presidents) that there are levels of destruction that are distinguishable enough to compel them to act differently in a crisis. I realize this is a very difficult topic but I feel like it doesn't get enough attention. Really enjoy the conversation as always and the banter. Thanks again.
Thanks for all these materials! I had not seen the CNN story about DOE staffers visiting the White House to try to explain why testing is not in US interest. From the national laboratories to the anti-nuclear community, I know of no one who thinks that resuming nuclear testing is a good idea.
Thanks for answering my question re limited nuclear use. Though I suppose it's not very helpful to provide this after the fact, my frame of reference for the question is my work and interest in "humanitarian" response to nuclear detonations. With that in mind, I've noticed that many in the disarmament community seem determined to deny even the possibility of such a response. One of the arguments being that there can be no single or small number of nuclear explosions because escalation dynamics will inevitably lead to a full nuclear exchange (with all it's civilization-ending consequences). Another argument they utilize, including recently in op-eds paired with "House of Dynamite," is that even a single nuclear detonation causes "X number of hospitals destroyed; doctors and nurses are killed; burn beds are limited --> no humanitarian response is possible." QED. This argument can bring me to Vipin-levels of rage...