Have you ever been confronted with someone trying to decide (or trying to make you decide) that question? I see it frequently on the internet and I'm always struck by the mindset that sees a distinction between 1 and 2 as being a point of significance. Does
anything justify trying to minimize the real importance of the other?
"Nuclear Disorder: Surveying Atomic Threats"
Journal Article, Foreign Affairs, volume 89, issue 1, pages 74-85
January/February 2010
Author: Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School
Summary:
- Could the current global nuclear order be as fragile today as the financial order was two years ago when conventional wisdom declared it sound, stable, and resilient?
...
- In President Obama's words, "The next twelve months could be pivotal in determining whether the nonproliferation regime will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve."(1st & 3rd of 4 bullet points in summary - K)
<snip>
In 2004, the secretary-general of the UN created a panel to review future threats to international peace and security. It identified nuclear Armageddon as the prime threat, warning, "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the nonproliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation. " Developments since 2004 have only magnified the risks of an irreversible cascade.
<snip>
Henry Kissinger has noted that the defining challenge for statesmen is to recognize "a change in the international environment so likely to undermine a nation's security that it must be resisted no matter what form the threat takes or how ostensibly legitimate it appears. " The collapse of the existing nuclear order would constitute just such a change -- and the consequences would make nuclear terrorism and nuclear war so imminent that prudent statesmen must do everything feasible to prevent it....
How can it matter to any issue which of two acknowledged Armegeddons is "a greater threat"? If AGW is a "greater threat" does it mean we should worry less about nuclear weapons? If nuclear war is a "greater threat" does it mean we do not try as hard to reduce GHG emissions? In both cases the answer is "of course not".
http://live.belfercenter.org/publication/19819/nuclear_disorder.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F144%2Fhenry_leeDirect to PDF of full article behind graph here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdfYou can view the html abstract here:
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c