I think everybody who studies this seriously knows that deterrence, by itself, is not the only game in town for nuclear non-use. But it is also very hard to prove a null result.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
In short: I find the "deterrence doesn't exist/doesn't work" arguments to mostly be poorly argued. I would certainly argue that theories of deterrence are not *adequate* by themselves for preventing war. And certainly nukes don't give states as much leeway as they might seem.
I do not know what Barash's "end game" is but the two big critics of deterrence are the disarmament people (who believe if deterrence doesn't exist, nukes lose their purpose), and the preemptive strike people (if deterrence doesn't work, then we might as well use them).
-
-
I don't have a problem with the former group, but I think if arguments against deterrence embolden the latter group we are in for trouble. At the moment I think the latter is more likely than the former for the short term.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.