The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence

Did nuclear deterrence "keep us safe" for sixty years during the Cold War? Does it, in other words, work? For those who already have nuclear weapons, does nuclear deterrence justify their keeping them?

Nuclear deterrence is based on the assumption that in moments of extreme national crisis attacks against cities (or the threat of attacks against cities) will matter. Much of our thinking about this question, however, ignores the available evidence and recent reinterpretations of important cases.

New Jersey-based independent scholar Ward Wilson, winner of the 2008 Doreen and Jim McElvany Nonproliferation Challenge, will offer a critique of nuclear deterrence and a detailed discussion of the historical evidence that contradicts the concept.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Nuclear
• Weapoons
• Deterrence
• Myth
• Hiroshima

[tikvata1000]

@Swiftab1e The point in that if the soviets anex European territories,those territories, as well as a large portion of the comitern will end up obliterated.Therefore the soviets are not going to anex NATO members , because they have no gain in that.And if the soviets don't invade NATO members the probably of an all out conflict can be said to disappear.

[kbs1138]

@aaronsdavis who knows, we used up all the U-235 on the Hiroshima. The bomb on Nagasaki was a more efficient plutonium implosion bomb like Trinity, but we were less sure of the tech (why Uranium gun bomb was used first). One test, 2 dropped. That was our entire arsenal at the time. It would have taken time to build more and during those extra months to the next one, or the one after that, the Japanese could certainly have adapted. By that time, Russia would be in Hokkaido.

[kbs1138]

@aaronsdavis no it's not that simple. If you had to defend against robbers invading your home, which would you rather have? A shotgun or a case of dynamite? His argument is that for an army, nuclear weapons have much the same problems as biological and chemical weapons. They are too indiscriminate. Radiation can destroy your troops as well. So if you aren't going to use them in battle, what's left is civilian destruction, hence his discussion about destruction of cities.

[Swiftab1e]

@llwk62

Its not all about defence. For example a US military officer said if Europe was ever invaded by the Soviets then at least nuclear weapons would cause the destruction of both sides which is preferable to some people then being annxed. At least the defenders would die knowing that the aggressor was destroyed along with them.

[llwk62]

Deterrence and Fear doesn't give you a victory/checkmate condition.

So how would any form of deterrence add to defense against foreign aggression?

[aaronsdavis]

Say the soviets werent threatening to invade Japan in 1945, and the US kept making and dropping nukes on cities, bases etc indefinitly. Would they still be so disdainful of A-bombs? By the 10th, 11th, 12th bomb?

[aaronsdavis]

His whole argument is based on the wrong focus. Nukes deter not because people are affraid that their cities are at risk, but because nukes are the most destructive weapons of all. If the other guy has one, you should or you are in greater danger of destruction...its that simple.

[knackerFacker]

He is missing the point (imo).

Historic record on destroying cities count the dead-tolls in thousands.

In a nuclear war, we are talking about the MAD principle and the extinction of us as a species that makes ALL the difference.

On Hiroshima......maybe it was the Soviets, maybe not, but the firecrackers they used then are a far cry from the megaton monsters that exists today.

[youngThrashbarg]

Still the nuclear deterrence clearly works for the smaller countries. They couldn't dream of winning a conventional war against a superpower, but with a few nukes the price of attacking will be too high for a superpower.

[maccy77]

Doing an essay on this...who is anamie? The guy who said that 'the firebombings seemed no more menacing than the firebombings that Japan had already experienced'? Was he a military leader? All that comes up is some cartoon when I type it in...Also it may have been on a par with the others but all it took was a couple of planes rather than 500 to cause equal devastation...Not that I condone it...