The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence

Independent scholar Ward Wilson took the 2008 Doreen and Jim McElvany Nonproliferation Challenge Essay Contest grand prize of $10,000 with his
impressive and detailed critique of the nature and effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.
Wilson, who wrote a provocative article on a similar theme in International Security last
year, is well on his way to deconstructing the most fundamental beliefs about nuclear
weapons. But whereas many who oppose nuclear weapons take a stand on moral, ethical,
or even economic grounds, Wilson takes a more practical approach, arguing through
careful research that nuclear weapons do not possess certain essential qualities claimed by
their advocates*qualities that have fostered a mythology about nuclear weapons that
few have questioned. Sixty-three years after the first and only use of nuclear weapons in
war, it is not too soon to question the assumptions underpinning the desire to acquire or
retain the original weapon of mass destruction.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• MIIS
• CNS
• Wilson
• McElvany
• nonproliferation
• nuclear
• weapon
• deterrence
• disarmament

[Woopee]

Missile defence systems are always three steps behind latest nuclear weapons technology.

And how do you shoot down a nuclear bomb that comes shipped in a container?

[Galanty]

@TheAcehd

I would like to play you in chess someday. You don't seem to think more than 1 or 2 moves ahead of your game. You take out Iran or any other fanatical group or religious zealout and you have given so many others countries and fanatics go into action.

[soccom8341576]

Missile defense systems, diplomacy, alliance and a vocal population is the best defense against nuclear missiles.

Nuclear weapons can be used to be a tool of diplomacy, however irrational it seems now. It had been useful for a situation in which the US did not want Soviet intervention. The US immediately raised the alert and the Soviets decided it was better to negotiate.

Still, it is better for all people of this world that nuclear weapons are kept small in size and quantity.

Peace!

[Treblaine]

No missile defence system is 100% successful because as advanced a missile defence system gets the offensive missile system only has to get a little more sophisticated or expansive to overcome it.

Even a 90% success rate of a defence system is catastrophic when dealing with nuclear warheads.

And who said Israel had nukes as defence FROM nukes? If they even have them they are for defence from conventional invasion.

Missiles are not the only delivery method of nukes.

[soccom8341576]

yes, and maybe start World war 3 in the region. The other big countries will then quickly object to the massive US and NATO troops buildup outside their borders.

Allies go off to help allies, just like in the other two World wars, and that leads to a massive war where civilians are believed to be legitimate targets.

[soccom8341576]

No, but mass hysteria from both sides at the time seems to have justified stockpiling nuclear weapons.

That was the time when there were no truly reliable missile defense.

As for the millions of protesters, it is obvious that those elections or the internet are not enough to strengthen their resolve to force answers. There is a lot civilians can do without destroying anything, but since they are scared of being shot, little was accomplished and the government knew it wasn't sustained anyway.

[soccom8341576]

Some people choose to ignore that nuclear weapons used in strategic deterrence, will hardly prevent defeat and never win the war.

Could be a sore-loser weapon of revenge.

Nevertheless, I believe that small countries that can be destroyed with a few nuclear weapons, such as Israel, should not develop nuclear weapons.

Rather, it is far more efficient to have defense technologies that destroy nuclear weapons before it is in range to cause destruction.

[soccom8341576]

Nukes are good only as propaganda to scare the civilians of the other country into stopping their own government from launching the missiles.

Works both ways.

It would have been fine for both sides to sign a treaty to have the same number of missiles and to delete a number of missiles so that it is only a tactical use.

Diplomacy and economy is more important. Just look at the nuclear missiles and that is not enough.

[Treblaine]

The fundamental point of this is nukes are only good at killing civilians and not only is that PROVEN to be an useless way of winning wars but it goes completely against the way we as a society want to go about winning wars.

Take the millions of protesters in Iran fighting a losing battle against their now obvious dictatorship.

Is it right to threaten their lives while their dictators are mostly safe from a nuclear attack?

Nukes are anachronistic obsolete weapons from a time of Total war.