As a think tank bro, I am sorry your old friend has fallen to such bad analysis.
I will gladly defend the US presence in South Korea under longstanding security conditions and support by freely elected South Korean government (not the case for the vast majority of the cold war, admittedly). I'd describe my defenses of the harms and my own failure to prevent the.very much avoidable ones differently, but fair enough. I am sure Tupac wouldn't have kind words for me.
But a preventative kinetic attack on Chinese data centers is nuts. The expected value for investors wouldn't be that great because of a non-trivial risk that we'd all be dead. I would be *fascinated* to hear about how the US would signal, "Don't worry the B-21s are just there for your data centers, nuclear C2 and facilities themselves are off the table and we're keeping it entirely conventional. But for OPSEC reasons we didn't say any of this until the bombs started falling, surely you understand that."
Last time I checked, there weren't any recent Chicago surveys of international relations professionals, but I am confident that an alternate future you would be perfectly comfortable pointing out that such a proposal is not, to use that stereotypical blob term, *serious*.
I do hope to find some good surveys here and obviously think tanks and university scholarly communities have different distributions of beliefs. But I think your view of median think tank opinion is off, even in this fallen era.
If the system collapses, no hedge save antibiotics and fallout shelters may do you much good, and even that's cold comfort.
A non-nuclear direct conflict with China would have an immense economic cost, and could in theory be hedged, so not an exact analogy to Millman's case.
Obviously the US is at war in a costly and unwise conflict right now as well, without a notable stockmarket hit. Though the bond market is not happy in a way that starting to have a larger economic toll.
That fellow stokes the fires of conflagration
As a think tank bro, I am sorry your old friend has fallen to such bad analysis.
I will gladly defend the US presence in South Korea under longstanding security conditions and support by freely elected South Korean government (not the case for the vast majority of the cold war, admittedly). I'd describe my defenses of the harms and my own failure to prevent the.very much avoidable ones differently, but fair enough. I am sure Tupac wouldn't have kind words for me.
But a preventative kinetic attack on Chinese data centers is nuts. The expected value for investors wouldn't be that great because of a non-trivial risk that we'd all be dead. I would be *fascinated* to hear about how the US would signal, "Don't worry the B-21s are just there for your data centers, nuclear C2 and facilities themselves are off the table and we're keeping it entirely conventional. But for OPSEC reasons we didn't say any of this until the bombs started falling, surely you understand that."
Last time I checked, there weren't any recent Chicago surveys of international relations professionals, but I am confident that an alternate future you would be perfectly comfortable pointing out that such a proposal is not, to use that stereotypical blob term, *serious*.
I do hope to find some good surveys here and obviously think tanks and university scholarly communities have different distributions of beliefs. But I think your view of median think tank opinion is off, even in this fallen era.
Well, Mae culpa. Noah Millman works through convincingly that the market can't price in the risk of the apocalypse.
https://gideons.substack.com/p/the-market-will-not-price-in-the?r=bge7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
If the system collapses, no hedge save antibiotics and fallout shelters may do you much good, and even that's cold comfort.
A non-nuclear direct conflict with China would have an immense economic cost, and could in theory be hedged, so not an exact analogy to Millman's case.
Obviously the US is at war in a costly and unwise conflict right now as well, without a notable stockmarket hit. Though the bond market is not happy in a way that starting to have a larger economic toll.