nuclear-news

Nuclear weapons not an economic security option

in reality nuclear weapons supplemented conventional weapons and the United States developed enormous arsenals of both, wiping out any potential savings envisioned by those who championed a large and robust nuclear arsenal.

Are Nuclear Weapons Really More Bang for the Buck?, THE HUFFINGTON POST, by Russ Wellen, 22 July 2010, “……….Conventional thinking holds that nuclear weapons are cheaper than non-nuclear weapons. In other words, they ostensibly represent a means for a state with limited conventional forces to level the playing field with states that boast larger conventional forces or even nuclear weapons. . The editor of the Nonproliferation Review and perhaps the world’s leading nuclear weapons auditor, Stephen Schwartz, wrote at Nuclear Threat Initiative:

The belief underpinning the rapid increase in nuclear weapons during the 1950s was summed up in the phrase, “a bigger bang for a buck.” According to this widely accepted idea, nuclear weapons were more cost effective than conventional ones because pound for pound they could deliver more “killing power.” The thinking was that nuclear weapons would replace conventional weapons, saving large amounts of money and deterring war. But in reality nuclear weapons supplemented conventional weapons and the United States developed enormous arsenals of both, wiping out any potential savings envisioned by those who championed a large and robust nuclear arsenal.

Russ Wellen: Are Nuclear Weapons Really More Bang for the Buck?

July 23, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear weapons