Most of the commentary on nuclear weapons takes the view that they are dangerous and that reducing their number will create a safer world. By extension, a "zero-nuke" world, one with no nuclear weapons, would be even safer yet and, therefore, is a goal to work toward. The logic is straightforward. Nuclear weapons have horrific destructive power. Even a relative handful could cause devastating casualties and damage to large countries and virtually wipe out many smaller ones. Because weapons that do not exist cannot hurt you, it would seem that if nuclear arms cuts are considered progress, then having no such weapons would be the ultimate success.

Alternatively, it may be that nuclear weapons may actually provide safety by making war between nuclear-armed countries too terrible to fight. Taking this view, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill observed early in the atomic age, "It may be that we shall by a process of sublime irony" come to a point "where safety will be the sturdy child of terror and survival the twin brother of annihilation" (Nogee & Spanier, 1988:5). Arguably Sir Winston's point was well taken; during the cold war, despite its intense hostility, the United States and the Soviet Union avoided war and its risk of nuclear counterstrikes and mutual destruction. That was the view of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who told Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 that, "A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us."¹

Some analysts make much the same point in the post–cold war world. For example, one top U.S. government nuclear weapons expert argues that "the world, in fact, would become more dangerous, not less dangerous, were U.S. nuclear weapons to be absent. The most important role for our nuclear weapons is to serve as a 'sobering force,' one that can cap the level of destruction of military conflicts and thus force all sides to come to their senses."²

Not all top U.S. officials agree with this view. For instance, a number of former high-ranking U.S. military officers were among the 57 retired generals and admirals from countries with nuclear weapons who published a 1996 manifesto declaring that nuclear weapons are "of sharply reduced utility" in the post–cold war world, calling for "substantially reducing their numbers," and proclaiming that "the ultimate objective . . . should be the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from all nations" (Schultz & Isenberg, 1997:87).

What Do You Think?
Do you favor a zero-nuke world? Assume this could be achieved by a treaty in which all the countries with nuclear weapons agreed to turn them over to the International Atomic Energy Agency for immediate destruction, in which all non-nuclear countries agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, and in which all countries agreed to unlimited and unscheduled IAEA inspections to verify treaty compliance. Do not debate the possibility of cheating. For our scenario here, the treaty is foolproof, and the issue is whether the world would be safer with zero nuclear weapons or if Churchill was right when he warned, "Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more sure than sure, that other means of preserving the peace are in your hands."³