Excellent writing by Ian as usual, but he might have gone even deeper with his analysis. My major concern is this: under our political system, it is effectively impossible for anyone to get into power who would be prepared to take the necessary measures to avert genuine existential threats to humanity, of which an all-out nuclear war is only one. The other major one (more serious and definitely more likely than nuclear war) is of course catastrophic climate change. I genuinely cannot see any likelihood of any country that has sufficient global influence for it to matter ever choosing a leader who was intending either to unilaterally disarm or to undertake the massive changes needed to avert the impending climate catastrophe. Nor can I see this happening at sufficient scale in either of the two major dictatorships (China and Russia). I want liberal democracy as much as Ian does (more so than ever, having read his writing on the topic), but neither liberal democracy nor its alternatives seem likely to be able to rise to the challenges we currently face. I'd love someone to convince me I am wrong.
Interesting point about Reagan, too, who apparently was bright enough to understand the size of the catastrophe that nuclear war would represent. Does anyone seriously think Trump is?
All very well, but the Russian bomb seem to steer very much the non action of the German govt (and parts of the US one ) in regrads of serious kit for Ukraine
Even by Ian's high standards, this is a terrific piece of writing. A real masterclass on how to get across a nuanced, thoughtful argument in transparent language and with moral clarity. Cheers!
Excellent writing by Ian as usual, but he might have gone even deeper with his analysis. My major concern is this: under our political system, it is effectively impossible for anyone to get into power who would be prepared to take the necessary measures to avert genuine existential threats to humanity, of which an all-out nuclear war is only one. The other major one (more serious and definitely more likely than nuclear war) is of course catastrophic climate change. I genuinely cannot see any likelihood of any country that has sufficient global influence for it to matter ever choosing a leader who was intending either to unilaterally disarm or to undertake the massive changes needed to avert the impending climate catastrophe. Nor can I see this happening at sufficient scale in either of the two major dictatorships (China and Russia). I want liberal democracy as much as Ian does (more so than ever, having read his writing on the topic), but neither liberal democracy nor its alternatives seem likely to be able to rise to the challenges we currently face. I'd love someone to convince me I am wrong.
Interesting point about Reagan, too, who apparently was bright enough to understand the size of the catastrophe that nuclear war would represent. Does anyone seriously think Trump is?
All very well, but the Russian bomb seem to steer very much the non action of the German govt (and parts of the US one ) in regrads of serious kit for Ukraine
Even by Ian's high standards, this is a terrific piece of writing. A real masterclass on how to get across a nuanced, thoughtful argument in transparent language and with moral clarity. Cheers!
The answer is to force everyone to watch Threads