arisbe

Now I remember! This is one of the things I talked about the other night before the sherry fuzzed everything. I very much have to agree from all my reading that the decision was well-considered, and I really think, too, that a loss of historical perspective really distorts this old argument. I really think that it was further time and further development of nuclear weapons (after all, these bombs are now comparative pop-guns; useful as tactical weapons, but otherwise used to trigger a thermonuclear weapon) that brought us to the major realization behind this argument, which is that nuclear weapons are truly different in kind and not just degree.

At the time, this was the "superbomb," seen more, I think as a matter of degree. I think it was the luxury of peace and self-examination, as well as further understanding of what nuclear proliferation meant that began to force us to realize that perhaps there were intrinsic ethical problems in the very use, if not existence, of these weapons. But that seems much more a function of hindsight and further experience and reflection to me. Without that understanding, I really begin to suspect that the "Should we have?/Shouldn't we have?" argument begins to function as a bit of a red herring, leading us away from what the real understanding of the times were.

By the way, is it okay if I add your journal to my list?