One-Third Less Insanity
Published in Die Tageszeitung
(Germany) on 25 March 2010
by Eric Chauvistré (link to original)
(Germany) on 25 March 2010
by Eric Chauvistré (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by June Polewko.
It’s not a step toward nuclear disarmament.
Barack Obama began talking about a nuclear weapons-free world while he was still campaigning for president. As commander in chief, he again reiterated his plea for nuclear disarmament in a speech delivered in Prague.
And now it appears a first step in that direction has been taken. If the agreement just concluded between the United States and Russia actually takes effect, there will be a few hundred fewer nuclear weapons in those nations’ arsenals. Each side intends to reduce the number of weapons targeted at the other by about one-third.
No one regrets that development; anyone who wants to celebrate it a little may do so. But even if these weapons are not only taken offline but actually destroyed, even if the nuclear stockpile in Europe is withdrawn, it still won’t amount to a first step in complete nuclear disarmament.
That’s because simple, linear logic doesn’t apply where nuclear weapons are concerned. Numerical reduction doesn’t necessarily mean reduced danger. The atomic bomb is the only weapon capable of unleashing immeasurable destruction in an instant. And above all, it’s the only weapon against which there’s no effective defense; an effective defense against atomic weapons demands absolute reliability, and that makes them absolutely unique.
Thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads comes from the virtual reality world of nuclear war tacticians. It has little to do with the real world. Seen that way, this proposed reduction amounts to nothing more than one-third less insanity.
Barack Obama began talking about a nuclear weapons-free world while he was still campaigning for president. As commander in chief, he again reiterated his plea for nuclear disarmament in a speech delivered in Prague.
And now it appears a first step in that direction has been taken. If the agreement just concluded between the United States and Russia actually takes effect, there will be a few hundred fewer nuclear weapons in those nations’ arsenals. Each side intends to reduce the number of weapons targeted at the other by about one-third.
No one regrets that development; anyone who wants to celebrate it a little may do so. But even if these weapons are not only taken offline but actually destroyed, even if the nuclear stockpile in Europe is withdrawn, it still won’t amount to a first step in complete nuclear disarmament.
That’s because simple, linear logic doesn’t apply where nuclear weapons are concerned. Numerical reduction doesn’t necessarily mean reduced danger. The atomic bomb is the only weapon capable of unleashing immeasurable destruction in an instant. And above all, it’s the only weapon against which there’s no effective defense; an effective defense against atomic weapons demands absolute reliability, and that makes them absolutely unique.
Thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads comes from the virtual reality world of nuclear war tacticians. It has little to do with the real world. Seen that way, this proposed reduction amounts to nothing more than one-third less insanity.
Next article![]( "Why Does the U.S. Continue to Make Things Difficult for China?")
