Who, exactly, will ban the bomb?

Craig, Campbell ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4872-2403 2024. Who, exactly, will ban the bomb? Journal of Strategic Studies 47 (4) , pp. 574-582. 10.1080/01402390.2024.2339867

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Ward Wilson worries, as everyone alive should worry, that the existence of nuclear weaponry, combined with the absence of any authority to prevent its use, portends an eventual nuclear war that could kill off much, or even all, of humanity. Such a war could be deliberately initiated, or it could happen as a result of accident or inadvertence. Wilson argues, and I agree, that this possibility demands urgent political action. His solution, as the title of the book makes evident, is a world disarmed of nuclear weapons. Wilson makes a number of arguments in the book, but his case for disarmament really boils down to two key assertions. The first is to refute the idea that nuclear deterrence works. This is a crucial point, because a central claim made by opponents of disarmament is that states will not give up the bomb because it provides them the security that comes with deterrence. If this can be refuted, then it becomes possible to argue that nuclear weapons are effectively useless. The second assertion is that disarmament – the permanent elimination of all nuclear weapons and the means to produce them – is possible, and can come about by mass political action. In the rest of this essay, I will show that he does not make his case on either assertion, and conclude with a brief discussion of contemporary disarmament politics.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Cardiff Law & Politics
Publisher:	Taylor and Francis Group
ISSN:	0140-2390
Last Modified:	04 Dec 2024 10:25
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/173716

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item