What if this foundational assumption, taken for granted by those schooled in Cold War gamesmanship is flawed?

What if nuclear weapons, irrespective of their numbers and all the detailed assessments that go into the Nuclear Posture Review provide little deterrence at a staggeringly high cost?

If that is the case, would nuclear powers still wish to hold on to a supply nuclear weapons for old times sake? Or build or acquire new nukes?

Would the carefully calculated numbers of nuclear weapons required for deterrence resemble Medieval theological discussions of the number of angels that can dance on the end of a pin at best, or at worst, how we might rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic just prior to the ship hitting the iceberg?

Updated discussion for Rethinking Nuclear Deterrence at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16490356/

Yes, it is time to work for abolition of nuclear weapons. As Joseph Rotblat once said, it is the only sane alternative for all humanity to keep us safe.

Thanks for the comment and the link to your paper, which is an impressive piece of reasoning, to say the least. Anyone who cites Italo Calvino in a footnote already has my attention. :=) You’ve touched on all the salient failures of deterrence doctrine except one: as I’ve pointed out, the whole notion of extended deterrence — the so-called nuclear umbrella that nuclear-weapon states offer to their non-nuclear friends and allies — not only attracts supporters for the doctrine as a whole, but is obstructing efforts to rid the world of these weapons. Some Japanese leaders, for example, are worrying publicly that if the US and Russia agree to strategic reductions down to, say, hundreds rather than thousands of warheads, Japan might feel compelled to acquire its own nuclear arsenal. The neo-conservative fringe is taking this one step further and suggesting that serious disarmament measures — such as very substantial START reductions — could actually promote proliferation. It’s twisted logic, but it has an audience. If the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review emphasizes the role of extended deterrence (and deterrence in general) in order to protect its right flank, the goal of abolition could be set back for a very long time. To the extent that your paper and others like it can counter the false claims on which deterrence doctrine is based, it will make a very important contribution to the debate. Many thanks.

John

Fair enough, and thanks for being civil about it. I write different pieces with different audiences in mind, and this time I was trying to give voice to the collective nausea abolitionists feel when these very dangerous and (from our perspective) disingenuous ideas start to surface again. I also tend to react with outrage and sarcasm when people who have convinced themselves that nuclear weapons provide security call those of us who want to get rid of them naive. In my view, the truly naive position is to assert that nuclear weapons can be used as strategic tools to achieve national goals, that such a policy can be maintained over the long term as long as the weapons are only in the hands of “responsible” owners, and that ownership by “irresponsible” people can be prevented, by force if necessary. Even putting aside the problems with the definition of “responsible,” a single mistake or miscalculation would result in the deaths of millions of people outright, and would likely escalate into the deaths of tens or even hundreds of millions before the situation could be brought back under control, if it could. To turn a phrase from an old Clint Eastwood movie (and to tread out onto thin ice with you again), I’m not feeling that lucky.

I’ll continue to voice my opinions on this blog, knowing that I won’t always make the kind of connection that I want with everyone. Sorry I didn’t connect with you. Like I indicated in the piece, I make an effort not to misrepresent opposing arguments even when I don’t respect them (and when they are offered honestly and constructively I do respect them). But I don’t want to offend anyone who is really trying to sort through these complex and difficult issues, either. So thanks for the feedback. I’ll keep it in mind. And if it turns out that my writing just isn’t your cup of tea, I hope you’ll find other contributors to this blog who’ll do a better job of helping you make up your own mind.

John