We really need to close that place down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
[FARLEY ADDENDUM]: This one was super irritating to me so I’m just going to expand a bit:
- The linked argument makes the distinction between NATO and US nuclear weapons. Pinker doesn’t, but of course the distinction is super-important because both Britain and France have their own nuclear arsenals. Minor error maybe but I don’t know that Pinker is fully aware of the distinction.
- Pinker absolutely does not understand nuclear deterrence theory. Ukraine lacks nuclear weapons, and it was attacked by Russia. Russia has nuclear weapons and has made clear it can use them, so NATO has not attacked Russia. Lots of alternative explanations for both of these but “nuclear deterrence” does an awfully good job of explaining both.
- I’m not a big credibility or reputation guy, but even I wonder at the long-term wisdom of just giving Russia something that it wants because it invaded one of its neighbors.
- “in return for ending the invasion” is such an ambiguous turn of phrase that even Pinker should be ashamed. What does that mean? Russia returns to 2014 borders? To February 2022 line of control? Russia stops advancing at current line of control? Russia evacuates the country and pays war reparations? These are all issues that countries are willing to fight and kill for and so assuming that removing US nukes from Europe would solve everything is… juvenile.