Do nuclear arsenals make us safer?

[Victoria Penna]

If the United States and Russia completely eliminated their nuclear arsenals, some believe that a nuclear attack by another country would be far more likely. Does our nuclear stockpile make us safer than not having them at all, given that there is no victory in a nuclear war? Also, what would Beyond War's suggested reaction be if the US was attacked by nuclear weapons?

[Leonora]

Good questions! First, you know Beyond War, the organization, doesn't take official positions on such a situation. BW is focused on prevention, bringing to bear every creative approach possible. Once a nuclear war has begun, the world's worst nightmare will have happened. But, I can offer you my own personal opinions. You are right, some people do think nuclear arsenals are protective. I think they may instead be provocative, increasing fear and stress, resulting in trigger-happiness. So, if countries began to not have them, I think that would decrease those conditions and cool down everyone. I also think eliminating arsenals should be undertaken collaboratively, with all countries in on the negotiations.
If the US were attacked by nuclear weapons? A counterattack would not help the situation. We would just have to go into emergency response and try to help anyone left alive. Think prevention!

[William L Hallmark]

Your question poses a nuclear free US and Russia presumably leaving the rest of the world in its current state. I do not think that is a feasible solution to the current problem. But for the reasons which follow, I think we must find a feasible solution. I think it likely that this solution would require all nations abandoning the use of nuclear weapons. The usual concern in that scenario is "but what if someone cheats." I will try to address that issue in my answer. But let me begin with what I see as the necessity that we eliminate nuclear weapons.

I believe the world currently is at great risk of suffering a serious nuclear event and that most likely this event will occur in a way that will make it impossible for us to know how to retaliate (i.e. we won't know who initiated the attack). No matter where this attack occurred, it would cause great damage to all of us. So what can we do. We can wish that nuclear weapons did not exist and continue our present course, or we can begin developing and executing a path to a nuclear free world.

For many years we have lived with the illusion that the major powers can maintain their own nuclear stockpiles while insisting that the non-nuclear powers remain non-nuclear. But now we are confronted with the reality that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and we can expect more and more nations to acquire the bomb as India, Pakistan and North Korea have demonstrated. In a sense, our own policy has driven this outcome. We simply do not treat non-nuclear powers with the same respect we afford nuclear powers, and from that the non-nuclear powers learn that if they want a real seat at the table they must have some nuclear capacity. But the more nations that acquire this capacity, the greater the risk that through error or devious plan, a nuclear event will be triggered.

So we as a world community must begin working together to eliminate all nuclear weapons. To understand we all must seek this outcome, we need only look at the history of the US effort to persuade India and Pakistan to abandon their nuclear programs. India replied that they could not drop their nuclear program even if Pakistan did because their enemy China had nuclear weapons. They proposed we persuade China to agree to abandon its weapons. But of course we knew China would not abandon its weapons unless Russia did the same and Russia would not unless the US did the same. Since it was clearly "impossible" for the US and Russia to give up their weapons, the negotiations went no further. Only if we had recognized it was possible, could we have continued to negotiate. Now we must recognize that reality and begin the process of eliminating all nuclear weapons.

The usual objection to this proposal is that even if all such weapons were eliminated, the knowledge of how to build one would remain and someone would cheat and then hold the world hostage. Jonathan Schell refers to this scenario as the "bomb-in-the-mind" and demonstrates that historically all nuclear weapons were built in response to this issue. The US built the A bomb out of fear that Germany might develop it. And Russia saw immediately that if the US had the bomb it must also have it, etc. etc. Schell makes an interesting response to this problem. First he notes that since Nagasaki no one has used a nuclear weapon because it would be suicidal to do so. Right now that is true because of the huge store pile of weapons that would be available to respond. But Schell suggests the deterrent to use would be similar in a non-nuclear world. If someone announced they had the bomb, everyone else would begin building bombs again. And if they did not announce it until they had built up an arsenal, first they would likely be discovered, and second, they still would be in a use it or lose it situation in that the world would join together to respond.

Schell suggests these realities would deter all but the insane from violating a world-wide nuclear free pact. And such a pact would necessarily include means for assuring compliance and control of fissile materials so that they would not fall into the hands of non-state criminals. On balance, it seems the real likelihood of a nuclear event lies in the realm of the nuclear armed world rather than in the realm of a nuclear free world.