Call for Elimination

According to a 1983 World Health Organization study, a full-scale nuclear war would kill a billion people outright. A second billion would die later because of the blast, fire, and radiation. Recent studies are even more pessimistic. Understandably, then, a cry has arisen for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Not all calls for their elimination are on purely humanitarian grounds, however. Some argue that nuclear weapons simply have little or no value in actual warfare. Because of their awesome destructive power, only the most extreme provocation could ever justify their use. Thus, the United States did not use them in Korea or Viet Nam, the British did not use them in the Falklands, nor did the Soviets use them in Afghanistan. Says former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: “Nuclear weapons serve no military purpose whatsoever. They are totally useless​—except only to deter one’s opponent from using them.”

Similarly, nuclear weapons are not of much use as a diplomatic stick for threatening or influencing other nations. The superpowers are mutually vulnerable. And as for nonnuclear powers, they are often emboldened to stand up to the superpowers with little fear of nuclear retaliation.

Finally, there is the cost. According to a study published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, during the years 1945-85 the United States alone produced about 60,000 nuclear warheads.a The cost? Almost $82,000,000,000​—a lot of money for something they hope never to use.