Annie Jacobsen: evaluation

Transcript context

…Keep in mind, the alternative to nuclear weapons — it’s not sticks and stones or pistols. It could be biological weapons, chemical weapons, many other nasty things. It could be AI as a kind of weapon. So, maybe the logic of mutual deterrence we can’t escape. We can choose in which physical form we want to manifest it. We have more experience with nuclear weapons. In that sense, they may be safer. It’s been since 1945 that we’ve worked with them in some way. Should we trade that all in for mutual assured destruction with biological weapons? I don’t see the case for doing that. Different lane, biological weapons, I would argue, and we can talk about that. But I think what you’ve hit upon would be exactly another scary point when you talk about “we.” The royal “we” have had these systems, and deterrence has held for 75 years since the Russians got the bomb in 1949. Very good point. You could say that the likelihood of a US-Russian full-scale nuclear exchange on purpose is therefore lessened because deterrence has held between these two superpowers. One must imagine, assume — choose your word — that Putin is schooled in deterrence. He knows, even though he’s changed his policy recently — we can get into the fine points — we agree on this point, that the danger lies in the newcomers to the field that do not have decades of precedent, that did not grow up watching and fearing, like your point in the very opening of our discussion. That is why, in Nuclear War: A Scenario, I chose the mad king scenario, which is North Korea launching, because this is a very new and formidable foe, if you will, a nuclear-armed superpower with rogue tendencies. They’re not ruled by a committee, right? I think of committees as more conservative on average than individuals.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.