EE190: Nuclear Weapons, Risk and HopeProf. Martin E. HellmanHandout #2, January 12, 2010Is there hope of reducing the risk?If my preliminary analysis is correct and the risk posed by nuclear weapons is at least a thousand times greater than living near a nuclear power reactor, that leads to another critical question: Is there any hope of reducing the risk to an acceptable level? Are human beings capable of such radical change?If you have the time to do the following exercise, I’ll be very interested in hearing what you find out: Ask other students if they think nuclear weapons pose an acceptable or unacceptable risk. If unacceptable, do they think anything can be done to remedy that situation? What barriers do they see to change? What changes do they think might be possible? What barriers do they see to people (themselves including) getting involved? At our January 26th class meetings, I’ll allow some time to hear what you found.Was there hope of abolishing slavery?Not so long ago, most people thought ending slavery was beyond human capability. The following are excerpts from arguments along those lines made in 1856 by Charles Jared Ingersoll, a prominent Philadelphia civic figure, Congressional representative, and author. Without inquiring whether it [slavery] be evil, as most insist, or good, as some contend, unquestionably it is a vast, stupendous, and vital American reality. ... there should and must be considerate and patriotic Americans … willing to accept historical, political, and philosophical ascertainment that, whether slavery be evil or not, modern external abolition is a much greater evil. Vouched by irrefutable English and American authority, negro slavery in America may be so vindicated that no American need shrink from its communion. Its abrupt, forcible, or extrinsic removal would be a tremendous catastrophe. Dismembering the United States and destroying the American republic would tend not to abolish, but perpetuate slavery. … every lover of his country should desire to vindicate its institutions, of which this is one, from foreign detraction … by overruling Providence men have been slaves of masters in all ages and in every country. … slavery and its products advance continental prosperity, maintain the grandeur of confederated United States, cheaply vouchsafe almost permanent peace, and develop a benign experiment of tranquil republican government. If you change the issue being debated from slavery to nuclear deterrence (and modernize the language), how close does it come to some current-day arguments in favor of maintaining our current nuclear posture? Below, I’ve repeated some of the above arguments concerning slavery along with similar arguments made in recent years concerning nuclear weapons. Where possible, the latter are quotes from others. In others, EE 190, Prof. Hellman, January 12, 2010, Page 1 of 10I have had to compose them myself. Comments and criticism are welcome, and if any of you can find newsworthy quotes to substitute for my composed ones, please let me know. That would enhance the presentation.Without inquiring whether it [slavery] be evil, as most insist, or good, as some contend, unquestionably it is a vast, stupendous, and vital American reality. Whether nuclear weapons are evil, as some insist, or keepers of the peace, as others contend, they are vital to America’s security.There should and must be considerate and patriotic Americans … willing to accept historical, political, and philosophical ascertainment that, whether slavery be evil or not, modern external abolition is a much greater evil. Vouched by irrefutable English and American authority, negro slavery in America may be so vindicated that no American need shrink from its communion. The large number of our allies who seek shelter under our nuclear umbrella proves that we have nothing to apologize for. On the contrary, the free world owes us a debt of gratitude for shouldering the burden of protecting it from hostile forces.[Slavery’s] abrupt, forcible, or extrinsic removal would be a tremendous catastrophe. Dismembering the United States and destroying the American republic would tend not to abolish, but perpetuate slavery.the goal, even the aspirational goal, of eliminating all nuclear weapons is counterproductive. … it risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute, through deterrence, to U.S. security and international stability. The above is a quote from a November 2007 OpEd entitled “The Nuclear Disarmament Fantasy,” by Harold Brown and John Deutch that criticized the first OpEd by Shultz, Perry Kissinger, Nunn as unrealistic, wishful thinking. Brown was Carter’s Secretary of Defense, and Deutch was Clinton’s Director of Central Intelligence, so both served in Democratic administrations.A world without nukes would be even more dangerous than a world with them. The above is a quote from a July 2009 newspaper interview with James Schlesinger, who served as Secretary of Defense under Nixon and Ford, Secretary of Energy under Carter, and Director of Central Intelligence under Nixon.The total elimination of nuclear weapons would make war more likely.every lover of his country should desire to vindicate its institutions, of which this is one, from foreign detractionIt is easy for nations that do not shoulder the burden of protecting the free world to criticize our nuclear arsenal, but patriotic Americans will recognize it as the bulwark that EE 190, Prof. Hellman, January 12, 2010, Page 2 of 10protects those detractors as well as us from the forces of evil which, unfortunately, still exist in this imperfect world.men have been slaves of masters in all ages and in every country War has been an intrinsic part of human civilization in all corners of the world and throughout history. As uncivilized as nuclear deterrence may seem to some, it is far preferable to the periodic wars which afflicted Europe and the United States prior to the nuclear age and which are now a relic of the past.slavery and its products advance continental prosperity, maintain the grandeur of confederated United States, cheaply vouchsafe almost permanent peace, and develop a benign experiment of tranquil republican government.Nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 65 years, and at a cost that is a small fraction of either a third world war or conventional armaments that might hope to achieve the same goal. Foolishly abolishing them would expose us to