Tuesday, February 9, 2016

#Nuclear #President (Clinton?) (Cruz?) (Sanders?) (Trump?)

It has seemed to me that people are oblivious to the question that matters most in the 2016 presidential election: what happens if    (fill in the blank)    is in final control of the massive US nuclear arsenal??

I experimented with a Twitter poll yesterday. The small sampling yielded interesting results:


"Which candidate would you be LEAST scared
to see holding the nuclear controls?"
(Participate in current poll here.)


So now I want to give a larger number of people a shot at answering the question. The poll asking "Which candidate would you be LEAST scared to see holding the nuclear controls?" will run for one week. Please participate in the poll, and share the poll with others so they can weigh in, too.

Please use these hashtags for this issue: #nuclear #president.


Related posts

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )










The clock is ticking. If Barack Obama is going to make a difference in stopping the threat that nuclear weapons pose to the world, there is one (and only one) thing to do.

(See Putin and Obama: #talk)