5 ms·
Or perhaps mainly consider your nationality. There's a relatively small minority of the world population who live in one of the two countries with arms suffici
by avar 7y ago
Or perhaps mainly consider your nationality.
There's a relatively small minority of the world population who live in one of the two countries with arms sufficient to "destroy the world" (although some of the runners up could certainly make life worldwide more miserable).
In practice people living in those countries have pretty much all the say in whether the world will get destroyed or not by choosing to vote for some nutcase in the next election. By comparison someone in <name pretty much any other country> has next to zero chance of moving the needle on potential world destruction.
- acqq 7y agoOn an uplifting note, we will all go together when we go (this year is the 60th anniversary of the song recording): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
- 1986 7y agoAnd yet, most of us living in those two countries actually have very little say in selecting the executive who's in charge of making that decision.
- roenxi 7y agoThe circle of people in those two countries who actually control the arsenal is very small in relation to the population. Diplomats from other countries probably have better access to them than any citizen of their own country. Nationality plays a role in who has the actual power but anyone can promote peace and have a real impact. Influential words and good ideas can come from anywhere.
- avar 7y agoYou don't need to directly control these systems to have a big influence. People in these countries (a tiny minority of humanity) opt to stay and pay the taxes that maintain these systems. But the main moral culpability is just not caring. Nuclear safety isn't even on the mind of the average voter in the US or Russia. If it were an issue as important as major wedge issues as say guns or religion are in the US even a small fraction of the population could have a major impact.