Thanks for this post! Though I disagree with some key claims in it (as noted in my other comments), I also thought it was a handy, concise summary of some important events and possible implications. And your suggested possible actions sound to me like they’d probably be useful. (Though I’m more agnostic about how high-priority they’d be, relative to other ways of reducing nuclear risk.)
Also, more generally, it seems to me that reducing odds of increases of numbers of warheads in countries that already have some is a relatively neglected possible goal for nuclear risk reduction. (This is a relatively tentative view, since that definitely does get some discussion, e.g. in the context of US-Russia arms control treaties. But it seems like the focus is usually on arms reductions, preventing proliferation, or reducing the odds of war.) So I appreciate this post highlighting that.
Thanks for this post! Though I disagree with some key claims in it (as noted in my other comments), I also thought it was a handy, concise summary of some important events and possible implications. And your suggested possible actions sound to me like they’d probably be useful. (Though I’m more agnostic about how high-priority they’d be, relative to other ways of reducing nuclear risk.)
Also, more generally, it seems to me that reducing odds of increases of numbers of warheads in countries that already have some is a relatively neglected possible goal for nuclear risk reduction. (This is a relatively tentative view, since that definitely does get some discussion, e.g. in the context of US-Russia arms control treaties. But it seems like the focus is usually on arms reductions, preventing proliferation, or reducing the odds of war.) So I appreciate this post highlighting that.