in the media

Rebutting the Standard Arguments against Disarmament

Those opposed to ridding the world of nuclear weapons have a tendency of setting up and knocking down the same old straw men, argue George Perkovich and James. M Acton. If disarmament advocates want to improve the debate, they need to stress that the US would not disarm unilaterally or leave its allies in the lurch.

by George Perkovich and James M. Acton

published by

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

on July 16, 2009

Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Rebutting the Standard Arguments against DisarmameIn any debate, there is a tendency to set up and knock down straw men. The emerging debate about whether the United States should work toward abolishing nuclear weapons is no different.

Certainly, there is much room for serious disagreement about whether a nuclear-weapon-free world is achievable or even worthwhile. In fact, such discussion is welcomed. Unfortunately, opponents of abolishing nuclear weapons tend to make their case by rebutting a selection of five weak arguments that the growing bipartisan movement of nuclear zero supporters led by realists such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Perry and Sam Nunn rarely use. In the interest of improving the quality of the debate in future, here's how disarmament proponents should respond to the "fatuous five":

Read the full article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.