Mutually Assured Destruction

Bernard Brodie's argument on how the atomic bomb does not in fact make war impossible is quite interesting. He argues that an atomic bomb can be used without fear, when there no is chance of retaliation. Thus the more people that have the bomb, the less chance of aggression. This argument is not the one generally accepted today, where nuclear proliferation is something to be feared. In today's world we do not fear nuclear attacks from states so much as rogue groups, and the more states that have these weapons the more likely it is that one of these groups could get control of them.

Brodie's argument also assumes that leaders are rational people, which is not the case. In a world where everyone has nuclear weapons, the use of them would result in a deadly retaliation. A rational person would not authorize the use of the weapons in this scenario, but history is full of irrational decisions being made. Evidence suggests that the Cuban Missile Crisis may have come close triggering a nuclear war, despite the certainty of retaliation. The best way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons may be to lower the probability of them being used by have less nations have possession of them.

The logic behind the "Star Wars" and anti-ballistic missile system is to counter the threat of nuclear attacks from rogue states or groups, which are the threat today. However, the complex logic of nuclear deterrence still exists today, and the United States cannot build a AMB system without upsetting the nuclear "balance of power." Such a system could always be potential extended and expanded to be able to prevent nuclear attack from states with large arsenals. This could in theory make nuclear attack possible without retaliation. This could potentially trigger another arms race. Of course this is all moot because the AMB technology is still far from being able to accomplish anything significant. The AMB system may be more of a waste of money than anything at this time.

It is chilling how the consequences of a nuclear war were so coldly analyzed, particularly arguments such as Herman Kahn's. Kahn argues that the state of the country after a nuclear attack is not determined by the amount of people who died, but rather whether the "survivors envy the dead." However, he goes on to argue that studies indicate that a nuclear attack would not preclude happy and normal lives for the survivors.