The Rise of Nuclear Alarmism

How we learned to start worrying and fear the bomb -- and why we don’t have to.

BY JOHN MUELLER | OCTOBER 23, 2009

At the dawn of what came to be dubbed our "nuclear era," strategist Bernard Brodie, in a book dramatically titled The Absolute Weapon, laid out two facts about the new bomb: "It exists" and "its destructive power is fantastically great." Brodie certainly got his facts right. But his implication -- that the bomb would prove to be fantastically important -- has scarcely been borne out over the ensuing decades.

In fact, the bomb's impact on substantive historical developments has been minimal: Things would likely have turned out much the same if it had never been developed. The only real effect of nuclear weapons is humanity's unhealthy obsession with them, a preoccupation that has inspired some seriously bad policy decisions. With a declarative certainty he never would have used in discussing physics, Albert Einstein once proclaimed that nuclear weapons "have changed everything except our way of thinking." But instead it seems that the weapons actually changed little except our way of thinking -- as well as of declaiming, gesticulating, deploying military forces, and spending lots of money.

Nuclear weapons are, of course, routinely given credit for preventing or deterring a major war, especially during the Cold War. However, it is increasingly clear that the Soviet Union never had the slightest interest in engaging in any kind of conflict that would remotely resemble World War II, whether nuclear or not. Its agenda mainly stressed revolution, class rebellion, and civil war, conflict areas in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant.

Nor have possessors of the weapons ever really been able to find much military use for them in actual armed conflicts. They were of no help to the United States in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq; to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; to France in Algeria; to Britain in the Falklands; to Israel in Lebanon and Gaza; or to China in dealing with its once-impudent neighbor Vietnam.

In fact, a major reason so few technologically capable countries have actually sought to build the weapons, contrary to decades of hand-wringing prognostication, is that most have found them, on examination, to be a substantial and even ridiculous misdirection of funds, effort, and scientific talent.

But though they may have failed to alter substantive history, nuclear weapons have had a great impact on our collective subconscious. As historian Spencer Weart notes, "You say 'nuclear bomb' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world." In service of that perspective, Earth has been routinely depopulated by nuclear bombs on film and videotape, twice in 1959 alone.

Flickr user Michael Heilemann

 SUBJECTS: NUKES, SECURITY
 

John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, is the author of the recently published Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda, from which this article is adapted.

BILL PERNEY

11:58 PM ET

October 23, 2009

Nuclear threat.

I must disagree with the author. I've gone from nuclear alarmism to nuclear fatalism. It would seem to be a statistical certainty that one or more U.S. cities will be "nuked" within five years. It is amazing it hasn't happened already. The level of religious and cultural hatred of the U.S. by the jihadis is unimaginable to those who have not met with them. The jihadis have the wealth to acquire nuclear devices that could be shipped to the U.S. very easily and then detonate in a key port city or interior container destination.

It is only a matter of time. Should Pakistan effectively fall under jihadi control, look for nukes to go off within six months or less.

 

LOUPGAROUS

1:27 PM ET

October 27, 2009

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

One point on which I agree with Mueller and Perney (above) is the wild over-estimate of the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used by those who advocate for precipitous and immediate nuclear disarmament.

In particular, the abuse of statistics to "prove" that nuclear weapons will be used if acquired by thus and so, or if not immediately relinquished by everyone else, would be laughable if it weren't such a powerful tool in the hands of sincere but mistaken public speakers such as Al Gore and the current President, or activists such as Hellman (quoted down-thread by Chris_T).

I've worked with statisticians and written statistical reporting programs, and I, like Mr. Perney above, would LOVE to see the data and statistical analysis on which these solemn pronouncements are based. I suspect that the word "statistics" is used in terrorem, in hopes that no one ever demands to see the numbers underlying the welter of panicked bleating about nuclear disarmament.

Show us the numbers, folks!

 

CHRIS_T

12:16 PM ET

October 24, 2009

A Facile, Fatuous, and False argument.

Just because a nuclear accident has not happened until now does not mean it cannot happen.

The author's idea is provocative but fatuous and facile.

See:
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf

http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring.pdf

The author needs to study statistics. That this can get published exposes the weakness of our educational system in math and sciences.

Until 1986 we thought the space-shuttle program kept astronauts safe, too.

Read Martin Hellman: "In the same way that life-insurance companies utilize statistical analysis to produce cold blooded projections of fatality rates for individuals, statistics tells us that, to be 95% confident of our statements, we cannot project the last 64 years of nuclear non-use more than 31 years into the future. Even if one drops the required confidence level to 50%, that only increases the time horizon from 31 to 44 years. And, with the fate of the earth at stake, a higher confidence level would seem appropriate. If we want to be 99% confident about our statements, the 64 years of non-use that we have experienced cannot be used to justify a time horizon of even 14 years. Statistics does not rule out that we might survive significantly longer than these time horizons, but it does say that the data thus far cannot be used to justify such hopes with any degree of confidence."

Until they explode in a city close to you, nuclear weapons are indeed nothing to worry about.

A Facile. Fatuous. and False argument is given here.

I hope the authors earns a lot of royalties from his dumb book.

Sigh.

 

LOUPGAROUS

1:02 PM ET

October 27, 2009

Are you a statistician?

What, pray tell, are the data you are using to support your statements? Which statistical tests have you applied to them to arrive at your conclusions?

As someone who has worked in statistical programming, I can tell someone who's quoting someone else (Hellman in your case) without having any background in the field of statistics when I read their statements.

So please, if you're going to quote Hellman, be so kind to produce the statistical basis Hellman cites to support his statements. I'd be very, very interested to read any factual basis for his provocative statements on the likelihood of use or non-use of nuclear weapons.

There are other flaws with Mr. Mueller's thinking - a real neglect of history, for one thing - but I want to see the numbers Hellman used to arrive at his conclusions before I blindly accept them as you seem to have.

 

LUVMY91STANG

5:09 PM ET

October 24, 2009

Hmmm

It's amazing. This article proves that increasing an individuals educational level doesn't necessarily result in an increasing ability to think.

 

PHILLIPB

6:03 AM ET

October 25, 2009

Iran

Iran gaining nuclear capabilites only destabilizes the ENTIRE Middle East and poses a threat to the US and its allies. What do you think the Saudi reaction will be to a denuclearized Iran?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Totx7J1nf8U

 

CHRIS_T

2:35 PM ET

October 25, 2009

Israel started the Nuclear

Israel started the Nuclear Arms Race in the middle east.

Iran is following the lead (probably, but not certainly).

 

CHRIS_T

6:06 PM ET

October 25, 2009

The problem is Israel

Here is a CBS 60 minutes segment on how the Israeli "Defense" Forces behave:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

Of course, the Goldstone report also implicates the IDF as war criminals.

Our support of Israel encourages them not to compromise with their neighbors.

I never understood what we get back for our support of Israel besides terrorism?

Israel has flouted more than 70 UN resolutions -- it is a pariah state. Here is a _partial_ list of the UN resolutions Israel has scoffed at:

UN resolution No. 237 -- 14 June 1967 Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

No. 242 -- 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

No. 248 -- 24 Mar 1968 Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)

No. 250 27 Apr 1968 Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.

251 2 May 1968 Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.

252 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem.

259 27 Sept 1968 Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).

267 3 Jul 1969 Reaffirms the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect

271 15 Sep 1969 Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.
298 25 Sep 1971 Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel … are totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures….

338 22 Oct 1973 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts....

339 23 Oct 1973 Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N. observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.

381 30 Nov 1975 Expresses concern over the continued state of tension in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.

425 19 Mar 978 Calls for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).

446 22 Mar 1979 Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

452 20 Jul 1979 Calls upon the government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 1 Mar 1980 Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

468 8 May 1980 Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders.

469 20 May 1980 Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968). Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.

471 5 June 1980 Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

476 30 June 1980 Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.

478 20 Aug 1980 Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.

484 19 Dec 1980 Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.

508 5 June 1982 Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)

509 6 June 1982 Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).

512 19 June 1982 Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict.

513 4 Jul 1982 Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.

515 29 Jul 1982 Demands that the government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population.

516 1 Aug 1982 Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut.

517 4 Aug 1982 Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and around Beirut.

518 12 Aug 1982 Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut

520 17 Sep 1982 Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.

521 19 Sep 1982 Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)

573 4 Oct 1985 Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters in Hammam Al-Shut)

592 8 Dec 1986 Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.

605 22 Dec 1987 Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

607 5 Jan 1988 Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.

608 14 Jan 1988 Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.

611 25 Apr 1988 Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization.)

636 6 Jul 1989 Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

641 30 Aug 1989 Deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

672 12 Oct 1990 Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

673 24 Oct 1990 Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990).

681 20 Dec 1990 Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967

694 24 May 1991 Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

726 6 Jan 1992 Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

799 18 Dec 1992 Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.

904 18 Mar 1994 Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.

1073 28 Sep 1996 Expresses its deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)

1322 7 Oct 2000 Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition.

 

LOUPGAROUS

1:35 PM ET

October 27, 2009

Iran has no history of conflict with Saudi Arabia? Do tell.

I guess those Iranian terrorists who tried to take Mecca over about thirty years ago were just tourists, huh?

The Shia-Sunni rift has resulted in massive bloodshed since ibn Wah'hab set up shop with the House of Saud (well, earlier than that, really) and shows no signs of being less acrimonious.

Iran has been energetic in pressing advanced weapons into the hands of the terrorist community all over the Middle East; to expect them to make an exception in the case of nuclear weapons is naive at best.

 

LOUPGAROUS

1:33 AM ET

October 26, 2009

Hindsight is sometimes 20/2000

Let's do a little math. The interval between World Wars One and Two was 21 years. In a 1999 essay, political activist Howard Morland mused about how history might have been different if Enrico Fermi had announced nuclear fission in 1934, when he first observed it without understanding it completely. That would have been five years before Otto Hahn published his findings, prompting Leo Szilard to write the "Einstein Letter" to FDR and eventually get the atomic bomb made in America, not Germany or Japan.

To quote Morland (famous for publishing classified information about how H-bombs are made in "The Progressive" magazine in the late 1970s):

"I have often wondered how the world would have dealt with that news in 1934. Would World War II have started earlier, or been prevented? Would it have been a two-sided nuclear war? Could a limited war have been fought under the constraints of nuclear deterrence? Would the decisive battles have been preemptive strikes on nuclear facilities? One thing is certain: a vigorous global discussion of fission technology and its military implications would have put every literate person on notice that the human condition had changed forever. No nation could have built a bomb in secret and surprised an unsuspecting world with it.

On August 9, 1945, President Truman offered the following prayer in his second public statement about the atomic bomb: "We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes." I find Truman's prayer rather insightful. To regard nuclear weapons as the product of divine revelation is a predictable American reaction, given our religiosity, but there is truth to the idea that transcends any particular religious doctrine."

It's easy to say that the nuclear weapon hasn't changed world history, because it first fell into the hands of a country which exercised relative discretion in its use. What if Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler had had the Bomb first? Would Hitler or Tojo have persisted in their expansionism if the price had clearly been mutual or planetary annihilation? Would their generals have left them alive to do so?

When Mr. Mueller said that the Soviet Union was uninterested in territorial expansion,
first, he ignored post-war European history up to about 1950, when they were in that business with a vengeance, imposing puppet regimes all over Eastern Europe and absorbing the Baltic States;
second, he confused an effect with a cause.

After 1950, when it became clear that the United States was prepared to invest the necessary money and lives to resist Soviet expansionism in Korea and elsewhere, AND to expand the US nuclear arsenal as widely as needed to make Soviet expansionism a self-punishing crime, is when the Soviets saw the unwisdom of continuing blindly with armed aggression and shifted their efforts into proxy warfare in third countries.

Nuclear weapons have on several occasions prevented large wars from breaking out because of the terrible consequences of their use.

In 1963, the conventional war that might have broken out over the Soviet Union's intrusion into the Cuba with missiles did not happen, and the loss of life from skirmishing in the weeks leading up to it was minimal (of course, miscalculation might have had a terrible outcome for humankind).

In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Hot Line and other measures were taken to allow the leaders of the US and USSR to consult BEFORE matters reached the terrible state of August 1914 and electronic messages hurled the world's armies into fateful, irreversible action. Many times after that, even when relations between the superpowers were acrimonious, self-interest compelled the nuclear powers to defuse crises that otherwise would have culminated in regional or world war.

Israel is another case in which nuclear deterrence has proven not only useful, but indispensable to them. The Israeli nuclear deterrent has constrained its Arab neighbors from attempting to destroy the Jewish state directly after 1973.

As for the future, we may already have seen a case of regional nuclear umbrella-extension when the Saudis financed the Pakistani bomb; the rumored quid pro quo has been that Pakistan would either avenge attacks on Saudi Arabia with nuclear attacks or give the Saudis nuclear weapons of their own (one possible reason why the Saudis purchased nuclear-capable missiles from China years ago).

When the Iranians either acquire deployable nuclear weapons or announce weapons they have already built, a new nuclear terror era between Shia and Sunni Muslims may have begun. (I'd also like to rebut Mueller's contention that no armed conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia has occurred - the attempted seizure of the Holy Places of Islam by terrorists was instigated by Iran.)

Asia is also on the verge of nuclearizing. Despite the limited yield of North Korea's first nuclear weapon, they have crossed a threshold simply by detonating a nuclear device at all... it may well be that their demonstrator weapon was purposefully small to leave fissile material for their deployable arsenal. In any case, China also poses a nuclear threat to the ASEAN countries and other nations in Asia which they would probably like to counter if possible.

If the new government of Japan loosens its military ties to the United States - and the Obama Administration's resolve to reduce its nuclear arsenal would leave Japan with a smaller nuclear umbrella under which to nestle - this would give them the requisite overriding national security hazard to cite when withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and acquiring their own nuclear arsenals.

Mueller's contention that past experience proves that nuclear weapons will not have an effect on future relations between nations, or history in general, is not supported by the facts.

During the Cold War, nuclear tension existed largely between two military blocs. Now, a multiplicity of nuclear tripwires are in existence or in the offing - India vs Pakistan, US vs Russia, China vs the US (and/or Japan), Iran versus Saudi Arabia (and/or the Gulf Emirates), Russia versus whichever former Soviet republics may acquire nuclear weapons in the future, North vs South Korea, Israel vs nuclear Muslim states... even Greece vs Turkey at some point in the indefinite future.

And the fiscal threshold for membership in the nuclear club is lowering all the time. Modern electronics, robotics, computing power and computer-aided electronics have all made it cheaper than it ever has been to make a nuclear weapon. Plutonium costs much, much more to keep guarded securely over its very long lifetime than it does to make - a fact which probably will work in favor of nuclear proliferation as time goes on.

Finally, under Vladimir Putin, the Russians have reverted to the era of nuclear warfighting - asserting the right to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively in conflicts where they "see their national security threatened," without stating where that threshold may lie. If we choose to honor our committments to defend the Ukraine, Poland or the Czech Republic from invasion by Russia, will that cause the Russians to use nuclear weapons?

The Russians, in other words, have re-invented nuclear brinksmanship. Mr. Mueller's article has been overtaken by current events.

 

LOUPGAROUS

1:07 PM ET

October 27, 2009

Correction

Mr. Mueller never said that there was no animosity between Saudi Arabia and Iran. That was the work of another commenter in this thread. My mistake, for which I apologize.

 

LITTLEPRESCHOOL

7:24 AM ET

October 26, 2009

The world

is becoming a lot dangerous by the minute..we should do something about it already..

or else, in the end, we would be the one to get killed..

especially those who are not aware of this like the kids..
:Little Preschool

 

DES

12:12 PM ET

October 26, 2009

no nuclear weapons sholud have been made in the first place

had no nuclear weapons made, that means no talks of proliferation willbe going on today,
i think U.S shld disarm their nuclear weapons first and the whol eworld will follow suit.

 

LOUPGAROUS

11:28 PM ET

October 26, 2009

@DES - Nuclear weapons got us

@DES - Nuclear weapons got us out of the Pacific war with Japan a year and about 10,000,000 deaths and casualties earlier than we would have done otherwise. Four of my uncles were in the Pacific theater and might have died in the fighting for the Japanese Home Islands if nuclear weapons hadn't been made.

And we are unilaterally disarming right now - we've taken the Peacekeeper ICBMs off-line already. Russia's answer - escalating production of the next-generation Topaz ICBM.

Unilateral disarmament won't work. It didn't work when we, the British and the Soviets agreed not to make biological weapons - we and the UK complied with the agreement, the Soviets built a billion-dollar chain of plants and research labs to make BW, and the Russians kept it in operation, shutting down the largest and most obviously offensive plants when two deputy directors of Russia's Biopreparat defected. The research labs are still in business.

In preschool language - if the good kids forget how to fight back, the schoolyard bully will still be in business.

 

TBASLIM

7:00 PM ET

October 27, 2009

Hindsight indeed

"In fact, the bomb's impact on substantive historical developments has been minimal: Things would likely have turned out much the same if it had never been developed."

Overall an interesting thesis by Muller, but this quote seems to ignore a lot of widely accepted history. I have not read the book, but have questions about his conclusion that there was minimal impact by the bomb on how the last 60 years have unfolded.

If anything, it seems that the post-WW2 world has been shaped in large part by the reality of nuclear weapons: both in the effort by nation-states to wield their power and avoid seeing them used in conflict, and by the effort to create an economically interdependent world that would not engage in a nuclear WW3.

Nukes affected the close of WW2 significantly, as others pointed out. How many more would have died and how long would the war have gone on without them? It's fair to think the overall outcome of an Allied victory would be the same, but at what additional cost? Does the cost and timeline of a prolonged WW2 count as a 'substantive historical development'?

More importantly, how can Muller discredit or ignore the influence that these weapons had on the post-war planners and thinkers that were shaping the 'new world' at the time? You had a group of world leaders who had just come out of an unknown, horrific, truly global conventional war, and were faced with the prospects of an even more horrific WW3 involving atomic weapons. The desire to build institutions and mechanisms to avoid such a calamity has shaped much of the post-war era. There are many historically significant questions to answer if nukes had not been invented:

- Would the Cold War have at some point turned 'hot' in a direct conflict between the US and USSR (vs the proxy wars they fought)? Think Cuban Missile Crisis or a number of other trigger moments where fear of nuclear war held back American leaders under tremendous pressure to act with force (to say nothing of Russian decision making). I think a non-nuclear WW3 between the US and USSR would have been a sizable historical development.

- Would economic globalization have evolved in the same fashion as it did? Many of the architects of the globalization movement had stated goals of creating a world less likely to war with itself. The fear of mushroom clouds destroying humanity likely helped form these opinions, which drove powerful decisions that have had huge historical implications and in part created our current, modern world.

Maybe Muller covers these questions in the book...I'll have to pick it up and find out.

 

MOHAIR.SAM

1:31 PM ET

October 29, 2009

Loupgarous and T_Balsim ...

Excellent reads, the comments from both of you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts -- I got even more from you both than I did from Mueller's article, which was definitely worth reading and considering.

 

THE CHAIRMAN

11:27 AM ET

October 31, 2009

The author is mistaken in my opinion

The post WW2 geopolitical environment shifted dramatically with the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Never again would super powers go head to head in a violent battle of philosophies. At least if they were holding proxy wars they would never be able to place their opponent in a situation where they had but one move. TO PUSH THE BUTTON! Conflicts since WW2 surrounded the periphery of nuclear powers but never within them.

Regimes when they are in power don't want to give that power up (human nature). Whether it be ideological or strategic (nuclear) power. It is important to appreciate that no nation with nukes has ever lost control over its people or land due to outside influence. Yes Russia rottened from the inside out. They had poor economics. It had nothing to do with missle gaps and the like.

Nuclear weapons provide SELF DETERMINATION to said regime that prevents other empires (super powers) from significantly influencing them. MAD ensures that while a nation would have like its opponents to lose their influence over their land a nation would never place its self in a position of annihilation to achieve that.....so far.

As far as the US is concerned it is fair to assume that if nukes were not possible to make. First the western hemisphere then the world would be under its firm control with no concern of annilation to inhibit its neo-colonialistic empirialism. the us would have routed all opposing ideologies and our forms of capitalism and democracy would have taken over the world. for better or worse.