He doesn't offer much support for his prescriptions.
Why is it bad to "try to keep things secret" but good to "spend a lot on proactive defense"?
How would that apply to hydrogen bombs? Should we open source the specific details on how to engineer a maximally efficient hydrogen bomb from the most accessible materials, and just spend a lot on hydrogen bomb defense? (Which is what exactly?)
When you omit support for conclusions, it implies you think the reasons are obvious. But it is not obvious that we should do away with efforts at secrecy around hydrogen bomb tech. Nor is it obvious we could defend ourselves from widely available thermonuclear bombs by being "proactive". It's a hand-wavey answer that appeals to the "information wants to be free" sentiment, but not actually well supported.
In the case of nukes, the key technology, gas centrifuges, was essentially invented by civilians and then made very public by being sold all over the world. The US tried to keep it a secret on its end but that achieved nothing but the stagnation of that particular technology in the US. "Proactive" international control is literally the only thing keeping every nation from getting nuclear arms.
Why is it bad to "try to keep things secret" but good to "spend a lot on proactive defense"?
How would that apply to hydrogen bombs? Should we open source the specific details on how to engineer a maximally efficient hydrogen bomb from the most accessible materials, and just spend a lot on hydrogen bomb defense? (Which is what exactly?)
When you omit support for conclusions, it implies you think the reasons are obvious. But it is not obvious that we should do away with efforts at secrecy around hydrogen bomb tech. Nor is it obvious we could defend ourselves from widely available thermonuclear bombs by being "proactive". It's a hand-wavey answer that appeals to the "information wants to be free" sentiment, but not actually well supported.