NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT DETER CONVENTIONAL WAR
Douglas Roche, 1996, former Member of Parliament (1972-1984); and was Canada's Ambassador for Disarmament to the U.N (1984-1989); and Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Committee at the Forty - Third General Assembly in 1988; and presently visiting professor@ the University of Alberta. THE ULTIMATE EVIIL-THE FIGHT TO BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS // GJL
It is untenable for the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council to maintain nuclear weapons, even at reduced levels, while proscribing their acquisition by all other countries. Even a permanent condition of minimum deterrence is not desirable because, sooner or later, other states will seek the power and status conferred by nuclear weapons. Why should nuclear weapons be necessary for American security, but not for the security of Israel, or India, or Pakistan? Indeed, the smaller states might argue that they have a greater need for the equalizing power of nuclear warheads. The argument that nuclear weapons should be retained because they deter conventional wars is false. Conventional wars persist, despite the possession of nuclear weapons by nuclear states involved in them. And, if they really did deter conventional war, it would only act as an incentive for virtually every country to acquire its own nuclear weapons. Proliferation would run amuck.