|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 20, 2003 :::
Colby Cosh writes about "weapons of mass destruction" as a catch-all.
We've got a lot of people awful worried that the "nuclear taboo" has fallen apart. But any society that has lived through the introduction of contraceptives should know that taboos don't survive the reason for having the taboos. Before Soviet Communism fell, it was taken for granted that the use of a nuclear weapon anywhere would be the occasion, in short order, for a full-out exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.; the taboo went hand in hand with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. That situation simply doesn't exist anymore. The survival of the species isn't at stake in any one leader or general's decisions, so of course the taboo has relaxed. Why is there indignation about this? Wasn't the enslavement of half of Europe an awfully large price to pay for having a "nuclear taboo"? Every time somebody expresses this coded nostalgia for a second superpower, it's a little "screw you, buddy" whispered in the ears of several million Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Romanians... and Russians themselves.
Since the Catholic Church tried to ban the crossbow, there have often been weapons considered somehow too evil for civilized warfare; they usually came into wide use before long.
Eep to that, but I do think we're kidding itself if we think we can contain nuclear weaponry forever. I hope the administration is considering how to handle a nuclear-infested world, because it's coming soon.
Cosh doesn't think chemical weapons belong in the same category as nuclear bombs and contagion. He's probably generally right. As with many taboos, it may just be too broad -- not all chemicals are the same. The US refused to sign the treaty to ban anti-personnel land-mines, on the grounds that with our "smart mines", complete with expiration date, would have to be eliminated, even though they are less dangerous than the alternatives they'd be replaced with. And yesterday, Instapundit pointed to this post indicating that we could save more lives if we hadn't signed a treaty barring chemical weapons.
::: posted by Steven at 1:28 PM
|
|
|
|
