Slashdot Mirror
Forget Hashtag Activism: a Millennial's Guide To Nuclear Weapons Realism
Lasrick writes: Matthew Costlow is frustrated with his generation's tendency of "hashtag activism" and would like Millennials instead to get real on the issue of nuclear weapons. He writes: "Allow me to suggest a radical new mindset for my generation as it confronts the issues of nuclear disarmament, Russian and Chinese aggression, and nuclear proliferation: extreme humility. Instead of 'boldly' proclaiming the need to raise awareness, let's utilize our generation's greatest asset—access to data—and truly understand the issues before trying to solve anything. Instead of proposing 'fresh ideas' for their own sake, let's recognize that we are not the first generation to deal with these issues and probably will not be the last. Instead of studiously avoiding specifics or hard choices, let's face a messy reality and not simplify an increasingly complex world to bumper-sticker activism."
Guess what, those old people milling about in Congress and running around Iowa trying to become President, when they were young they didn't trust anyone over 30. They were the generation of Rock N Roll and psychedelic drugs. They were so special that they were going to change the world forever and usher in a new utopian age.
Now they're just old fogeys and the world still has war and poverty and nuclear weapons.
What the fuck is this, every day I have to read some bullshit fearmongering article here about so called Chinese or Russian aggression. How are the Chinese aggressive? Fuck you, slashdot fuck you and your fucking US bullshit.
What specific actions would free humanity from the threat of nuclear catastrophe?
1) nuclear disarmament is a start.
That's like saying, in response to a question on how to solve world hunger, that "coming up with a magical device that just produces free food for everyone is a start". I mean, yes, it technically is, but you haven't made anything clearer.
2) advancing our nuclear technology to use thorium would eat up nuclear waste and not produce plutonium.
That's one valid point. Of course, it doesn't really solve the problem that states want to produce plutonium, because they want to have nukes. Until you address that part, the rest is immaterial.
nuclear disarmament has been going on for a LONG time!
Yes, except that it, for the most part, hasn't been unilateral (in cases where some countries did unilaterally dispose of their nuclear programs and/or arsenals, there was always an implicit assumption that they have a bigger ally who'll step in for them for MAD purposes).
Furthermore, that process, despite going for a long time, has not really resulted in disarmament. There has been a significant reduction of stocks compared to the height of Cold War, but it basically went down to the level that's necessary for MAD and then stopped. If you want full disarmament, past experience is not necessarily helpful. And it's not even a given that the present configuration is stable, in light of the recent developments in world politics...
it will take time and money to fully develop and the public has been conditioned to be terrified of nuclear anything.
How much time? How much money? Where do we get those resources from? How do we recondition the public?
politics
Politics is one of the major factors in the development of human society - indeed, any coherent plan you might have for making things better is by definition also "politics". The question you should be asking is, how to rally people [who make decisions] behind your politics. If they aren't there already, it's either because they don't know about it (in which case, how can you make them be aware?), or because they perceive it to be conflicting with some of their other interests (in which case, how can you make it not conflict, or convince them that this is more important?), or because they don't think the plan will work (in which case, is it perhaps because there are some objective flaws in the plan, and how to address them?).
* How would unilateral nuclear reductions enhance our security?
It would ensure that these dangerous weapons are not used on humans.
Yes. A unilateral nuclear disarmament (especially complete) would indeed ensure that these dangerous weapons won't be used on humans. It will be some other dangerous weapons, of a country that did not disarm, that will be sued.
So... can we do those
Who is "we"?