Thoughts about global security

I just watched a YouTube interviewing an author on the dangers of nuclear cataclysm

When asked about a solution, the author discussed arms reduction. She recounted how Reagan became horrified by nuclear war, reached out to Gorbachev, and—long story short—the world went down from 70,000 weapons to a drastically reduced number right now.

That’s a non sequitur to her premise that right now we are minutes away from total destruction.

The right solution is to have a globally accepted logic that even hawkish generals would have to agree with. And what is that logic?

The real threat is a shallow understanding of “fire on warning .” People are not thinking clearly enough to ask “fire what on warning of WHAT?”

People assume “fire” means EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. And “warning” means ANYTHING YOU SEE. But that leaves us vulnerable to a significant chance that one ungovernable bad actor could trigger a global cataclysm.

“Fire on warning” should only refer warnings of MASSIVE NUMBERS in the air, something no small-time bad actor could achieve.

Observant analysts are aware this logic already worked real-world when, in 1983, Colonel Stanislav Petrov decided NOT to alarm Moscow of an American attack even though reliable equipment unquestionably reported America had just launched a handful of missiles at Russia.

Petrov’s correct logic was that there is no chance a nuclear power would provoke Russia yet leave their retaliatory capabilities intact.

Massive retaliation makes no sense absent confirmation of massive attack.

Reaching global agreement with this proven logic should be readily attainable. And since the chances that a nuclear power would launch an unprovoked massive attack are infinitesimally low, walking on egg shells could soon become a thing of the past.

American constitutional history demonstrates that prohibition strategies and appeals to self-restraint never work.

Efforts at achieving Global security and stability should immediately shift away from a focus on the number of weapons and toward a focus on preventing their erroneous deployment by appealing to reliable and mutually self-interested logic.