albionmoonlight
02-12-2003, 09:52 AM
It occurred to me this morning that, based on all of the crazy stuff going on, I will probably see a nuclear weapon used by one country against another country for the first time in my life. Then I began to wonder about what that use would mean.
I remember reading an excerpt from an article once about how the sharp distinction we make between nuclear and "conventional" weapons (the word "conventional" itself betrays how we feel about nuclear weapons) is actually something that was very consciously designed by nuclear weapon opponents after WWII. I think I remember that there were at least some people after WWII who wanted us to consider nuclear weapons as just a bigger arrow in the quiver--not different in type from other weapons, just different in size.
I am 26 years old, and I certainly grew up believing that nuclear weapons are wrong in a way beyond almost any other act of war. I also grew up believing that the use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of the world. Now, it occurs to me that if N. Korea nukes S. Korea or we nuke Iraq, or India nukes Pakistan, etc. the world will go on. It will be changed, but it will go on.
So my questions for those that study this kind of stuff--what is the history behind our perception of nuclear weapons as non-conventional? Do you agree with it? How do nuclear weapons rate on the scale of historical weapons advancements? Do you think that they will ever be used again?
I remember reading an excerpt from an article once about how the sharp distinction we make between nuclear and "conventional" weapons (the word "conventional" itself betrays how we feel about nuclear weapons) is actually something that was very consciously designed by nuclear weapon opponents after WWII. I think I remember that there were at least some people after WWII who wanted us to consider nuclear weapons as just a bigger arrow in the quiver--not different in type from other weapons, just different in size.
I am 26 years old, and I certainly grew up believing that nuclear weapons are wrong in a way beyond almost any other act of war. I also grew up believing that the use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of the world. Now, it occurs to me that if N. Korea nukes S. Korea or we nuke Iraq, or India nukes Pakistan, etc. the world will go on. It will be changed, but it will go on.
So my questions for those that study this kind of stuff--what is the history behind our perception of nuclear weapons as non-conventional? Do you agree with it? How do nuclear weapons rate on the scale of historical weapons advancements? Do you think that they will ever be used again?