Mueller on our nuclear obsession: an argument taken too far
Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 10:41PM BOOKSHELF: "Why Worry? (Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism From Hiroshim to Al-Qaeda by John Mueller), by Gabriel Schoenfeld, Wall Street Journal, 30 October 2009.
I like Mueller's stuff a lot, as a rule. He debunks fear-mongering better than just about any IR prof.
And I totally agree with the basic premise that we obsess far too much over the "increasing" proliferation of nukes (which has been magically "increasing" my entire life and we're still under ten nuclear powers), and that there's nothing magical or ultra-profound over a nuke bomb versus the myriad of other ways we kill people in this world (so no, one suitcase terror bomb will NOT change everything).
But Mueller appears to go too far in this analysis, basically saying that nukes are good for nothing: played no role in Japan's surrender, weren't important in the Cold War superpower standoff, etc. In his zeal to toss out the bathwater, he's chucked the baby as well.
The best reason not to fear nukes is that they work: they keep great-power war at bay. The only trick we face is managing the ascension of rogue powers into great-power status on this singular basis.
I got into this biz about 20 years ago, and all I heard was Iraq, Iran and North Korea! Twenty years later all I hear about is Iran and North Korea!
That is some crazy-ass proliferation all right--completely out of control!
Reader Comments (1)
I'm old enough and have been in IR for long enough, (nerdy kid), to have worried a little bit about nukes as a kid, but then it just faded away as I slowly realized that while we had them , that did not automatically mean we'd use them.
As to the importance of the nukes vis a vis the Cold war, well I'm a traditionalist, at least enough of one to recognize that having a arsenal capable of destroying the world a few times over pitiably rough some men to their senses.