A solution in search of a problem to fix

ARTICLE: "The Illogic of Zero," by Bruno Tertrais, The Washington Quarterly, April 2010.

Very solidly argued piece, as Judah noted in his own post.

The start:

The intellectual and political movement in favor
of abolition suffers from unconvincing rationales, inherent contradictions, and
unrealistic expectations. A nuclear-weapons-free world is an illogical goal.

Already I'm hooked.

First mistake: thinking we must abolish them to legitimize non-proliferation. My point: no wannabe great power seeks nukes to hold off an American nuclear attack but an American conventional one.

Second: the "immorality" argument. I'll take all the immorality you can dish out so long as the moratorium on great-power war continues--and so will the 80-or-so-million dead from world wars I and II.

Next is the fallacy of thinking super conventional weapons can replace nukes. My fear: going down this route only reduces the barrier-to-entry into the marketplace of great-power war. Plus, this strategic stupidity requires the world to agree with you. The author here notes also the dearth of chem and bio attacks since 1945 and fears the inevitable rearming that come, seeing it as far more destabilizing. I agree.

The dumbest logic: we must rid the world of nukes to prevent accidental use or--GODFORBID!--the terrorists get one and use it. So let me get this: we should put the worldwide moratorium on great-power war at risk because of terrorists? Talk about the tactical tail wagging the strategic dog.

Rest of the piece amplifies such logic.

Worth reading.

Me? I attribute this nonsense to a lot of near-the-end-of-their-lieves Cold Warriors trying to clear their consciences before they go. I believe they should be summarily ignored.

[thanks to Judah Grunstein at WPR]