Nick Routledge@nick_routledge
Reply to @jamespoulos

@jamespoulos Ah, the nuclear issue, you mean.

Copy of tweet and quote tweet here: And patently facile, of course, to assume that Russian Christo-nationalist rhetoric and policy relating to nuclear weapons is a one-way street. Such theologico-political perversion, multilateral. In witness and response, a greater perspective may be more fully apropos, then? Quote tweet: Never mind the Samson Option, what of a truer perspective of Empire apologetics including the Orthodox-Russian axis and, in that light, 'sacerdotal cover' taking the form of a distinctively ecumenical mushroom cloud? Clearly, there's a role for the Planetary Prince of Peace, yet.
Image description

Original X alt text

Copy of tweet and quote tweet here: And patently facile, of course, to assume that Russian Christo-nationalist rhetoric and policy relating to nuclear weapons is a one-way street. Such theologico-political perversion, multilateral. In witness and response, a greater perspective may be more fully apropos, then? Quote tweet: Never mind the Samson Option, what of a truer perspective of Empire apologetics including the Orthodox-Russian axis and, in that light, 'sacerdotal cover' taking the form of a distinctively ecumenical mushroom cloud? Clearly, there's a role for the Planetary Prince of Peace, yet.

Quoted or linked post

Nick Routledge@nick_routledge · 9 Sept 2024

@KitKlarenberg That could be accused of being a quaint assessment. Today's recipe? Take the root pathology of a form of diabolical infantilism affording the world no realistic *waking*, that is, *exit* strategy, other than nuclear annihilation. Then, whoopee, algorithmically supercharge it.

1/2 "Even in neutral scenarios without initially provided conflicts, Big Tech's AI models chose violence and escalated to nuclear strikes in simulated wargames. All models show signs of sudden and hard-to-predict escalations.”
Image description

Original X alt text

1/2 "Even in neutral scenarios without initially provided conflicts, Big Tech's AI models chose violence and escalated to nuclear strikes in simulated wargames. All models show signs of sudden and hard-to-predict escalations.”

Military veteran Lawrence Wilkerson has testified how, while chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell 2002 - 2005, he participated in a large number of war games exercises pitting the Empire against China, in defence of Taiwan. Every scenario ended in nuclear war, typically within a matter of days. One might expect this would discourage any and all prospect of US bellicosity against Beijing. Fast forward to today though, and Washington’s military chiefs openly discuss all-out conflict with China with alarming regularity. God help us all.
Image description

Original X alt text

Military veteran Lawrence Wilkerson has testified how, while chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell 2002 - 2005, he participated in a large number of war games exercises pitting the Empire against China, in defence of Taiwan. Every scenario ended in nuclear war, typically within a matter of days. One might expect this would discourage any and all prospect of US bellicosity against Beijing. Fast forward to today though, and Washington’s military chiefs openly discuss all-out conflict with China with alarming regularity. God help us all.

Cartoon of superpowers at an AI Summit insisting that AI poses a potentially catastrophic risk to humankind while behind the scenes each avers, "And I cannot wait to develop it first."
Image description

Original X alt text

Cartoon of superpowers at an AI Summit insisting that AI poses a potentially catastrophic risk to humankind while behind the scenes each avers, "And I cannot wait to develop it first."

View this post’s context →

Context in the archive

Quoted by@RobertEllsberg That strikes me as a dangerously partial reading—underestimating just how intricately fragile the current nuclear landscape has become, shaped by converging forces far beyond—and far more perilous than—anything traditional deterrence logic can account for. And yet—there is God.