Stuff I Wrote Elsewhere I: Big Think Nukes

Lots of accumulated blathering from me in this morning’s newspaper. First up, a fun thumbsucker on the Obama administration’s rhetoric regarding zero nuclear weapons (sub/ad req.) and what it might mean in practice:

Supporters of a world without nuclear weapons, who include prominent hawks like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, argue the world would be a less dangerous place.

Critics of the idea say the horrific nature of nuclear weapons prevents conflict between nations that possess them. “The likelihood of war goes up, not down” in a world without nuclear weapons, Robinson argued in an interview.

One Comment

  1. OK. If the US and Russia destroy all their nuclear weapons, who might be fighting in these new wars (France and England?). The war mongers are fighting now. The U.S. military’s complaint against nuclear weapons is that they are not really weapons at all since they can’t be used. Nuclear weapons are thus a complete waste of money.

    Similarly, about two years ago, Tom Friedman wrote about the undeterrables–people who will fight until they die in spite of the weapons that the other side has. He said that at least one side of most current wars are fought by the undeterrables. Nuclear weapons have no effect on such folk.

    So, it seems that nuclear weapons are not deterring any wars at the moment and that lack of nuclear weapons will not start any new wars.

Comments are closed.