Katha Pollitt and Andrew Sullivan
Katha,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponActually, of course, the only nuclear bombs ever dropped were dropped when one country had a monopoly on them; and the closest we've come to nuclear fallout since was during the nuclear duopoly. The more we've had, in other words, the less danger there has been. As long as nuclear armament occurs stably, I see no danger to worry. In fact, I think, the deterrence effect of nukes could well lead some countries to reduce their conventional weapons because aggression becomes so much more costly. Besides, I don't believe that the Indian Government, which is more sophisticated than your "Hindu fanatics" remark might imply, has acquired nuclear capacity to bomb Pakistan. I think it's acquired nuclear capacity to deter Pakistan. That's a critical difference. And once the technology exists to make these weapons, it is better to make them and have deterrence than to have the mere capacity to make them, and live with the doubt of whether your enemy might be able to assemble them more quickly than you can. The latter is a recipe for instability and war. The former is a recipe for the status quo.
I remember a long time ago at Oxford attending a lecture by the great English historian, AJP Taylor, who argued relentlessly for unilateral disarmament, because every weapon that had thus far been invented had always been used; and the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons were so dire that it was only logical to give them up immediately. That was 1982, I think. He was wrong. Rearmament forced the end of the Cold War. The point is that you can't look at weapons without looking at the political context; and the political context of nuclear weapons will always be that the costs of launching them always surpass any possible gain as long as the enemy has them as well. That's why we should thank the Lord for nuclear technology; and its pacifying effect on the world.
There's always the accident problem, of course. But this may well be exaggerated. Even in the chaos of the new Russia, we haven't come close, so far as we know, to accidental meltdown. As to your Bosnia example, if Sarajevo had had nukes, do you think a quarter of a million Bosnians would have been slaughtered by bullets and shells and pick-axes? I doubt it.
So I'm reassured by India's resolution. And look forward to Pakistan's response. The Kashmiris will sleep more soundly as a result.
best
Andrew
After Fort Hood, There's No Excuse for the Ban on Women in Combat
What Does "Stable Condition" Mean? Absolutely Nothing.
Jim Carrey's Admirably Restrained Scrooge
The Great New Single That's a Little Bit Whitney Houston and a Little Bit Rusted Root
Joe Biden Explains His Gaffe-Evasion Strategy
The Box: A Creepy, Confusing Thriller From the Guy Who Brought You Donnie Darko
