iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 17/08/2026

Three times this month, US officials said they need new nuclear weapons that a normal person would use—"that are cost-benefit rational to a normal person", "that common sense indicates you could actually use." Not sure which president they're referring to, but they doth protest a bit much.

031

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 07/08/2026

The magazine excised this argument, but I have thought about it often since the piece was published.

"We are a country that desperately wants to believe that it is, as President Biden says, “the leading force for good in the world.” We are also a country that is gradually falling to fascism, which thrives on a myth of national infallibility, triumphal militarism, and the glorification of violence. We cannot reverse fascism with a single statement that we were wrong, but we cannot do it without admitting to ourselves that we can be wrong."

110

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 22/11/2025

The rule is: do not collaborate with fascists. There's actually no exception if you're a democratic socialist, you got to call him a fascist to his face, or you've got a killer smile.

110

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 28/10/2025

5. My takeaways: • US officials consider conventional deterrence of nuclear use to be a valuable option. • There is no consensus about how conventional (or nuclear!) deterrence could work. • The US and allies should stop denigrating its credibility and start enhancing it.

1101

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 28/10/2025

4. The results get a bit wild and offer an unusually detailed look at how US officials understand the value of nuclear weapons and the operation of deterrence. In this specific (easy) scenario, 17 of 20 former officials recommended a conventional response and 11 favored conventional deterrence.

150

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 28/10/2025

3. To understand the potential and risks, the article surveys recent technical developments and then presents the results of twenty “tabletop interviews” with former senior US civilian and military officials who might plausibly have been consulted on how to deter a North Korean attack.

140

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 28/10/2025

1. Crises, acquisitions, and policy all suggest that conventional weapons are taking on a larger role deterring nuclear use. My new article in @intsecurity.bsky.social examines why US officials would consider conventional options when they have nuclear options available and how they might use them.

1204

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 28/07/2025

You've got to be pretty egregious if your use of the "nuclear modernization budget" as a slush fund made it to the front page of the New York Times.

100

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 15/02/2025

It's an important point. America is not a trustworthy ally. There is nothing the left can say to allies to reassure them. They can commiserate and fantasize, but the only thing that will reassure the world is to defeat fascism at home. (by @vermontgmg.bsky.social via @davidryanmiller.com)

070

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 03/01/2025

Great moments in America as a force for good in the world.

100

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 19/12/2024

Exponential arsenals happen because, left to their own devices, warheads will naturally divide into multiple warheads, i.e. proliferate. This is how you get arms races.

340

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 18/12/2024

Yes, 2022 language almost identical.

030

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 11/12/2024

The proposal slices responsibility along the wrong axis. What we need is an ASD Strategic Deterrence, who can coordinate nuclear and nonnuclear capabilities to improve plans and reduce risk. Instead, the proposal will further isolate nuclear planning. More weapons, less policy.

120

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 05/12/2024

But the document also has subtle ambiguities on critical points. Did the president direct that US forces need to "deter" multiple adversaries simultaneously but not limit damage or restore deterrence? Will plans contain more nonnuclear options than before?

"Directing that the United States be able to deter Russia, the PRC, and the DPRK simultaneously in peacetime, crisis, and conflict"

110

Adam Mount @ajmount.com · 05/12/2024

In several ways, the document goes out of its way to avoid placing constraints on Trump's ability to build out the arsenal and to order its use. That's frustrating, given the very real and widespread fear about illegal use in 2020.

"Among other examples, the Guidance reaffirms that the President remains the sole authority to direct U.S. nuclear employment..."

110