|
Ten
Myths About Nuclear Weapons
By
David
Krieger
President, Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation &
TFF
associate
and
Angela
McCracken
July 27, 2003
1. Nuclear weapons
were needed to defeat Japan in World War
II.
It is widely believed, particularly in the United
States, that the use of nuclear weapons against the
Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary
to defeat Japan in World War II. This is not, however,
the opinion of the leading US military figures in the
war, including General Dwight Eisenhower, General Omar
Bradley, General Hap Arnold and Admiral William Leahy.
General Eisenhower, for example, who was the Supreme
Allied Commander Europe during World War II and later US
president, wrote, „I had been conscious of a feeling
of depression and so I voiced [to Secretary of War
Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that
dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and
secondly because I thought that our country should avoid
shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a
measure to save American lives. It was my belief that
Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to
surrender with a minimum loss of "face‚" Not only
was the use of nuclear force unnecessary, its destructive
force was excessive, resulting in 220,000 deaths by the
end of 1945.
2. Nuclear weapons
prevented a war between the United States and the Soviet
Union.
Many people believe that the nuclear standoff during
the Cold War prevented the two superpowers from going to
war with each other, for fear of mutually assured
destruction. While it is true that the superpowers did
not engage in nuclear warfare during the Cold War, there
were many confrontations between them that came
uncomfortably close to nuclear war, the most prominent
being the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. There were also many
deadly conflicts and "proxy" wars carried out by the
superpowers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The
Vietnam War, which took several million Vietnamese lives
and the lives of more than 58,000 Americans, is a
prominent example. These wars made the supposed nuclear
peace very bloody and deadly. Lurking in the background
was the constant danger of a nuclear exchange. The Cold
War was an exceedingly dangerous time with a massive
nuclear arms race, and the human race was extremely
fortunate to have survived it without suffering a nuclear
war.
3. Nuclear threats
have gone away since the end of the Cold
War.
In light of the Cold War's end, many people believed
that nuclear threats had gone away. While the nature of
nuclear threats has changed since the end of the Cold
War, these threats are far from having disappeared or
even significantly diminished. During the Cold War, the
greatest threat was that of a massive nuclear exchange
between the United States and Soviet Union. In the
aftermath of the Cold War, a variety of new nuclear
threats have emerged. Among these are the following
dangers:
- Increased possibilities of nuclear weapons falling
into the hands of terrorists who would not hesitate to
use them;
- Nuclear war between India and Pakistan;
- Policies of the US government to make nuclear
weapons smaller and more usable;
- Use of nuclear weapons by accident, particularly by
Russia, which has a substantially weakened early warning
system; and
- Spread of nuclear weapons to other states, such as
North Korea, that may perceive them to be an "equalizer"
against a more powerful state.
4. The United
States needs nuclear weapons for its national
security.
There is a widespread belief in the United States that
nuclear weapons are necessary for the US to defend
against aggressor states. US national security, however,
would be far improved if the US took a leadership role in
seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the
world. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could
actually destroy the United States, and their existence
and proliferation threaten US security. Continued
high-alert deployment of nuclear weapons and research on
smaller and more usable nuclear weapons by the US,
combined with a more aggressive foreign policy, makes
many weaker nations feel threatened. Weaker states may
think of nuclear weapons as an equalizer, giving them the
ability to effectively neutralize the forces of a
threatening nuclear weapons state. Thus, as in the case
of North Korea, the US threat may be instigating nuclear
weapons proliferation. Continued reliance on nuclear
weapons by the United States is setting the wrong example
for the world, and is further endangering the country
rather than protecting it. The United States has strong
conventional military forces and would be far more secure
in a world in which no country had nuclear arms.
5. Nuclear weapons
make a country safer.
It is a common belief that nuclear weapons protect a
country by deterring potential aggressors from attacking.
By threatening massive retaliation, the argument goes,
nuclear weapons prevent an attacker from starting a war.
To the contrary, nuclear weapons are actually undermining
the safety of the countries that possess them by
providing a false sense of security. While deterrence can
provide some psychological sense of security, there are
no guarantees that the threat of retaliation will succeed
in preventing an attack. There are many ways in which
deterrence could fail, including misunderstandings,
faulty communications, irrational leaders,
miscalculations and accidents. In addition, the
possession of nuclear weapons enhances the risks of
terrorism, proliferation and ultimately nuclear
annihilation.
6. No leader would
be crazy enough to actually use nuclear
weapons.
Many people believe that the threat of using nuclear
weapons can go on indefinitely as a means of deterring
attacks because no leader would be crazy enough to
actually use them. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons have
been used, and it is likely that most, if not all,
leaders possessing these weapons would, under certain
conditions, actually use them. US leaders, considered by
many to be highly rational, are the only ones who have
ever actually used nuclear weapons in war, against
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Outside of these two bombings,
the leaders of nuclear weapons states have repeatedly
come close to using nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence
is based upon a believable threat of nuclear retaliation,
and the threat of nuclear weapons use has been constant
during the post World War II period. US policy currently
calls for the use of nuclear weapons in response to an
attack with chemical or biological weapons against the
US, its troops or allies. One of the premises of the US
argument for preventive war is that other leaders would
be willing to attack the United States with nuclear
weapons. Threats of nuclear attack by India and Pakistan
provide still another example of nuclear brinksmanship
that could turn into a nuclear war. Globally and
historically, leaders have done their best to prove that
they would use nuclear weapons. Assuming that they would
not do so is unwise.
7. Nuclear weapons
are a cost-effective method of national
defense.
Some have argued that nuclear weapons, with their high
yield of explosive power, offer the benefit of an
effective defense for minimum investment. This is one
reason behind ongoing research into lower-yield tactical
nuclear weapons, which would be perceived as more usable.
The cost of nuclear weapons research, development,
testing, deployment and maintenance, however, exceeded
$5.5 trillion by 1996, according to a study by the
Brookings Institution. With advances in nuclear
technology and power, the costs and consequences of a
nuclear war would be immeasurable.
8. Nuclear weapons
are well protected and there is little chance that
terrorists could get their hands on
one.
Many people believe that nuclear weapons are well
protected and that the likelihood of terrorists obtaining
these weapons is low. In the aftermath of the Cold War,
however, the ability of the Russians to protect their
nuclear forces has declined precipitously. In addition, a
coup in a country with nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan,
could lead to a government coming to power that was
willing to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. In
general, the more nuclear weapons there are in the world
and the more nuclear weapons proliferate to additional
countries, the greater the possibility that nuclear
weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists. The best
remedy for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of
terrorists is to drastically reduce their numbers and
institute strict international inspections and controls
on all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear
materials in all countries, until these weapons and the
materials for making them can be eliminated.
9. The United
States is working to fulfill its nuclear disarmament
obligations.
Most US citizens believe that the United States is
working to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations.
In fact, the United States has failed to fulfill its
obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, requiring good faith efforts to
achieve nuclear disarmament, for more than 30 years. The
United States has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty and has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. The 2003 Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty (SORT) with Russia takes strategic nuclear weapons
off active deployment, but has no provisions for
verification or systematic reductions and it fails to
adhere to the principle of irreversibility agreed to at
the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The
treaty seeks maximum flexibility for rearmament rather
than irreversible reductions in nuclear arms. Nuclear
weapons taken off active deployment will be put in
storage where they will actually become more vulnerable
in both the US and Russia to theft by terrorists. In the
year 2012, the treaty will end, unless extended.
10. Nuclear weapons
are needed to combat threats from terrorists and "rogue
states."
It has been argued that nuclear weapons are needed to
protect against terrorists and "rogue states." Yet
nuclear weapons, whether used for deterrence or as
offensive weaponry, are not effective for this purpose.
The threat of nuclear force cannot act as a deterrent
against terrorists because they do not have a territory
to retaliate against. Thus, terrorists would not be
prevented from attacking a country for fear of nuclear
retaliation. Nuclear weapons also cannot be relied on as
a deterrent against "rogue states" because their
responses to a nuclear threat may be irrational and
deterrence relies on rationality. If the leaders of a
rogue state do not use the same calculus regarding their
losses from retaliation, deterrence can easily fail. As
offensive weaponry, nuclear force only promises
tremendous destruction to troops, civilians and the
environment. It might work to annihilate a rogue state,
but the amount of force entailed in using nuclear
weaponry is indiscriminate, disproportionate and highly
immoral. It would not be useful against terrorists
because strategists could not be certain of locating an
appropriate target for retaliation.
David Krieger is
president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and TFF
Associate.
Angela McCracken is the
2003 Ruth Floyd intern in human rights and international
law at the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation
©
TFF & the author 2003
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|