Nuclear Blackmail and Symbionts
Here's some thinking on the difference between nuclear blackmail and credible threats. Also, some thinking on what Twitter is and what to do with it.
Here’s a phrase we hear a lot to justify the unrestrained escalation of the war in Ukraine:
“We can’t submit to nuclear blackmail.”
It follows this chain of logic:
Nuclear war isn’t possible; it’s too dangerous.
Threats of using them aren’t credible.
Therefore, the threatened use of nuclear weapons is always simply coercion (nuclear blackmail).
The obvious problem with this logic is the first assumption. Nuclear war is possible, and the problem is determining when it is possible.
Let’s incorporate this change.
Nuclear war is possible, but it isn’t likely.
As long as nuclear war is unlikely, threats of using them aren’t credible.
Therefore, it is prudent to treat threats as nuclear blackmail when use isn’t credible and take them seriously when they are.
We now have a simple test for determining whether a nuclear threat is valid or blackmail.
Are the threats valid? In a speech on the 6th of October, President Biden said:
Putin is “not joking when he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.” The threat from Putin is real “because his military is — you might say — significantly underperforming.”
This assessment set off a flurry of activity across the NATO countries to find a way to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons. For example, a few days after this speech, NATO officials threatened retaliation:
Russia’s use of nuclear weapons would "almost certainly be drawing a physical response from many allies, and potentially from NATO itself"
So, it’s safe to conclude that Russia’s threatened use of nuclear weapons is credible and not atomic blackmail. Therefore, altering our strategy to avoid this outcome rather than resorting to hastily prepared threats of retaliation (of uncertain value) is the wise course of action.
What is Twitter?
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter has set in motion new thinking about what Twitter is and its role in society. To do this, we need to figure out what it is. Here’s the answer I posted:
Twitter isn't a conversational medium.
It's an idea and sentiment messaging system, an entirely new beast.
More neuron-to-neuron than brain-to-brain.
Elon amplified this view with a few tweets a day later:
Because it consists of billions of bidirectional interactions per day, Twitter can be thought of as a collective, cybernetic super-intelligence with a lot of room for improvement.
A neuron doesn’t realize it’s a neuron.
So, what does this mean?
Here’s a frame you will hopefully find helpful.
Twitter is a new social decision-making system. In many ways, you could say it thinks.
We don’t know how it works yet, and we’re just starting to figure it out.
It’s powerful and potentially very dangerous.
What is it?
It is a network symbiont.
This network is an emergent intelligence, but not in any ordinary sense.
It arises from the data and patterns of interaction produced by the people that use the network and the algorithms that influence and constrain it.
What do we want to do with it? We could try to destroy it, but it will likely emerge again in a more dangerous and less controllable form.
The best outcome is mutualism, or everyone wins (the network, society, and individuals all gain from the relationship).
The second best is commensalism; this is where the network gains but doesn’t harm or help the participants. Given that the network is owned and must produce revenue, this outcome isn’t possible.
The bad outcome is parasitism (commercial exploitation, political manipulation, etc.) with pathogenic tendencies (escalating us toward nuclear war and other bad ends like Gleichschaltung).
Sincerely,
John Robb
John: Highlighting for you an irreverent read from Dmitry Orlov that was on Zerohedge that takes a different perspective with regards to the possibility of nuclear war. You might remember him from some very early and interesting books about collapse during post-Soviet times and as someone who has lived extensively in both Russia and the U.S.
TL;DR -> his view is that while the West may be accelerating towards *provoking* a nuclear war, it is an ineffectual gambit because Russia hasn't been materially weakened by the West, in contrast to the West (and Europe particularly) being substantially weakened by cutting off Russia. Hence, it has no use for nuclear weapons and need merely defend the territory is has won in the Ukraine, while waiting for the energy / food situation in the West to deteriorate further.
Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this one. Thanks.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/orlov-new-cuban-missile-crisis-isnt
How does the swarm/network compete with the adage that "nation states always act with their own interests?" Is that the crux of what is changing here? That the swarm/network undermines this adage - resulting in chaos and unpredictable outcomes?