initiation of a strategic exchange of nuclear weapons would be morally repugnant
Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Major General William F. Burns (Ret.): "It would be difficult to conceive of a situation today in which nuclear weapons would be a serious military or political option. From a military point of view, initiation of a strategic exchange would not only be overkill to the highest degree, but it would be morally repugnant. Use of a single nuclear weapon, on the other hand, could be theoretically possible if it were the only recourse to prevent a catastrophe, for example, the elimination of a launching site before an imminent attack. Such a scenario is highly problematic, as is a similar scenario in which a storage site is positively located.
The primary question, of course, is whether a nuclear weapon could accomplish such a mission without extreme collateral damage and whether an advanced non-nuclear weapon could achieve a similar end. Because the use of a nuclear weapon after a 60-year hiatus raises severe political, social, and moral questions, military leaders cannot assume that release of a nuclear weapon by the political leadership would be assured in any specific case. Thus, even if a nuclear weapon were able to achieve the desired outcome, development of a non-nuclear alternative would be a prudent course of action. Existence of such an alternative would make a decision to exercise a nuclear option even less likely.
It seems to me, therefore, that the United States can rely on nuclear weapons only as a deterrent to their use by others in the future. This is a formidable task in itself and requires continuous refurbishment to preserve the very highest standards of safety, security, and reliability in the current stockpile. At some time in the future, this could even require replacement of weapons to employ technological advances to achieve these goals. Increased reliability, safety, and security, of course, would mean that the nuclear arsenal itself, particularly weapons held in reserve, might be reduced."
The primary question, of course, is whether a nuclear weapon could accomplish such a mission without extreme collateral damage and whether an advanced non-nuclear weapon could achieve a similar end. Because the use of a nuclear weapon after a 60-year hiatus raises severe political, social, and moral questions, military leaders cannot assume that release of a nuclear weapon by the political leadership would be assured in any specific case. Thus, even if a nuclear weapon were able to achieve the desired outcome, development of a non-nuclear alternative would be a prudent course of action. Existence of such an alternative would make a decision to exercise a nuclear option even less likely.
It seems to me, therefore, that the United States can rely on nuclear weapons only as a deterrent to their use by others in the future. This is a formidable task in itself and requires continuous refurbishment to preserve the very highest standards of safety, security, and reliability in the current stockpile. At some time in the future, this could even require replacement of weapons to employ technological advances to achieve these goals. Increased reliability, safety, and security, of course, would mean that the nuclear arsenal itself, particularly weapons held in reserve, might be reduced."
posted by Greta Jane at Wednesday, July 06, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home