Violently enforcing certain particularly important principles on non-signatories is entirely within the norm
True as stated, though I’m not aware of examples of this being enforced on non-signatories which are nuclear powers. This is just quantitatively riskier, not a notable change in norms.
And I agree this seems clearly non-outrageous if we replace AGI training datacenter with something like “wet lab credibly planning on developing a virus that would kill literally every human if it escaped where this wet lab isn’t planning on taking any serious precautions against a lab leak”.
This is just quantitatively riskier, not a notable escalation.
I think this is actually a fairly extreme escalation compared to how states deal with threats, and whether or not you think this is a good policy, it is a very, very important escalation step, and that this is evidence for it being a very extreme escalation:
True as stated, though I’m not aware of examples of this being enforced on non-signatories which are nuclear powers.
Hm, a disagreement I have is that the norms around escalating to nuclear war are way, way stronger than basically any other norm in international relations, and there’s a reason basically all states do their actions through proxies/covert wars, because the taboo on nuclear war is way stronger than a lot of other norms in the international setting.
I agree that it is norms violating for a country to respond to a conventional strike on their datacenter with a nuclear response. This is different from the statement that the conventional strike from the other country is norms violating.
I don’t think conventional strikes on military assets of nuclear power are that norms violating. In fact, recently, a huge number of missiles were launched at a nuclear power. (Iran launched them at Israel which is widely believed to have nukes.)
(I believe the US has never directly launched a strike on a nuclear power within their territory. However, it has indirectly assisted with such strikes in the Russia Ukraine war and participated in proxy wars.)
True as stated, though I’m not aware of examples of this being enforced on non-signatories which are nuclear powers. This is just quantitatively riskier, not a notable change in norms.
And I agree this seems clearly non-outrageous if we replace AGI training datacenter with something like “wet lab credibly planning on developing a virus that would kill literally every human if it escaped where this wet lab isn’t planning on taking any serious precautions against a lab leak”.
I think this is a disagreement I have:
I think this is actually a fairly extreme escalation compared to how states deal with threats, and whether or not you think this is a good policy, it is a very, very important escalation step, and that this is evidence for it being a very extreme escalation:
Sorry, I actually meant “not a notable change in norms”. I agree that it is quantiatively much costlier from the perspective of the US.
Hm, a disagreement I have is that the norms around escalating to nuclear war are way, way stronger than basically any other norm in international relations, and there’s a reason basically all states do their actions through proxies/covert wars, because the taboo on nuclear war is way stronger than a lot of other norms in the international setting.
I agree that it is norms violating for a country to respond to a conventional strike on their datacenter with a nuclear response. This is different from the statement that the conventional strike from the other country is norms violating.
I don’t think conventional strikes on military assets of nuclear power are that norms violating. In fact, recently, a huge number of missiles were launched at a nuclear power. (Iran launched them at Israel which is widely believed to have nukes.)
(I believe the US has never directly launched a strike on a nuclear power within their territory. However, it has indirectly assisted with such strikes in the Russia Ukraine war and participated in proxy wars.)
Yes, I was solely referring to nuclear strikes.