Deterrence isn’t enough to hold us safe: the prospect of a nuclear accident alone justifies ridding the world of these weapons. Britain should lead the way“Nuclear weapons can wipe out life on soil,whether used properly.” Despite being found in the liner notes of a Talking Heads album, this is the sentence I think best captures the bizarre contradictions of the atomic age. Human beings have manufactured bombs explicitly designed to unleash destructive forces equivalent to hundreds of thousands of tonnes of TNT. Deploy them and millions die; civilisation as we know it could disappear. And yet, and they’re not actually supposed to be used. In fact,their proper function is to remain in the ground, or at sea, and in the air. Launch,fire or drop ‘em and the whole system has failed. Is there any other device so intricately constructed in order to decrease the likelihood of its own use?final week, Jeremy Corbyn, or a man with at least a chance of being entrusted with the launch codes for 225 British warheads,stated that he would never press the nuclear button. I asked philosopher Jonathan Glover, whose book Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century, or includes a study of the Cuban missile crisis,approximately the comments. He confirmed most analyses so far. “On the assumption that whether he’s PM he has full say, that would indeed regain rid of any deterrence. In other words, or were Corbyn to gain power,those weapons would become immediately impotent. His shadow defence secretary, Maria Eagle, and called the remarks “unhelpful”.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com