Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 546
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 546 January 2007
The "deterrent"
Why do international treaties and negotiations about nuclear weapons never use the term "nuclear deterrent"?
The answer surely must be that the term is not valid, accurate or honest. It was first employed by supporters of the building of nuclear weapons to pre-empt discussion of the morality, legality and relevance of their prized, if diabolical inventions. By use it became a term accepted without thought and continues to bedevil all discussion of the use or utility of such inhuman manufactures.
The sole use of atomic weapon to date, viz., the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was evidently no deterrent. From that time the ownership and then development of American nuclear weapons did not deter the Russians or then the British, French, Chinese and other state from acquiring the weapons.
The U.S. possession of the weapons did not deter the north Koreans from invading the south nor later deter the Chinese from coming to their rescue. Nor the North Vietnamese from invading the south and attacking American troops. British nuclear weapons failed to deter an Argentine dictator from invading the Falkland Islands. In short, these weapons have not deterred non-nuclear powers from waging wars.
The supposition that nuclear weapons have been a deterrent to global war is impossible to prove. It may be there has been a deterrent effect, but on the other hand, without doubt the possession of these weapons has increased mutual fear, perhaps to the point of making other wars more likely. Furthermore, the risks of total global disaster as a result of "brinkmanship" have been shown several times and that the nuclear arms-race had been universally recognized as MAD or "mutually assured destruction" is an indication of the reality.
The upshot is that to use the term "deterrent" as an abbreviation for nuclear weapons is an aid to shoddy thinking about one of the most important issues of our time. It assists supporters and opponents of those weapons alike to avoid differentiating between valid and invalid points of agreement and dissension. It should never be used in an official document, because it is a loaded term, originally designed to put opponents of such weapons on the defensive and now used to impede clear thinking on the questions.
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|