DOC Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons by Ward Wilson in History

Review

7 of 15 people found the following review helpful. More Like the Five Strawmen of Nuclear WeaponsBy P. PerroneFrom all of the hype preceding its release and the comments on the back cover one would expect "something genuinely new" thinking about nucler weapons. Instead Mr. Wilson has developed 5 strawmen and called them myths. At the end of the book he has the similar solutions that the nuclear abolitionist utopians have for the immediate future: a full nuclear stop comprised of three parts -- (1) ensure no new countries acquire nuclear weapons; (2) nuclear armed nations must halt any work on new nuclear systems; and (3) spending on new nuclear weapons should be reduced to maintenance levels. Of course; how this gets accomplished is left to the reader's imagination or the hope that by demolishing these so-called "myths" world leaders will see the light and get on with it.It is easy to read and entertaining and in one sense this book is useful because it underlines the new line of argument; but in the end the myths are not myths; but strawman for a disarmament agenda.1 - The A-Bomb Caused the Japanese to Surrender after Hiroshima: As a West Point cadet during the '70s I analyzed the US decision to use the bomb against Japan and nowhere did I find that anyone believed that it by itself caused the Japanese surrender. It was an important factor (and the degree of importance varied); but along with Russian official entry into war against Japan (they had already attacked much earlier) and the weakening military situation Japan made their decision to stop fighting - albeit with a lot of internal dissention. So this is not news - or a myth.2 - The Addition of the H-Bomb to the Arsenals of the US and USSR was a Quantum Leap in the Nuclear Age: Mr. Ward makes a great case that strategic bombing against cities did little to nothing in causing an enemy to surrender and therefore the addition of the H-Bomb as a game changer was illusory. Again; I would concur with him; but he misses the point he himself lays out quite well - that to defeat a state you must defeat its armies. The Air Force (and later the Navy) loved the idea of strategic bombing - now with bigger weapons - but the Army had developed tactical nuclear weapons with varying degrees of utility to do exactly that - destroy the enemies' armies. Today the Russians understand this with their retention of thousands of so-called non-strategic weapons.3 - Nuclear Deterrence Works in a Crisis: Again; Mr. Ward is not plowing any new ground here. Dr. Keith Payne's book "The Great American Gamble: Deterrence Policy and Theory from the Cold War to the Twenty-First Century" [2008] outlines several cases where deterrence almost failed during the Cold War. However; he argued that the US took a large risk in not investing defensive measures such as missile defense and civil defense because it was believed to be destabilizing and cost prohibitive. Although he doesn't say it; I would bet that Mr. Ward would agree with that assessment on defensive measures.4 - Nuclear Weapons Keep Us Safe: Here the author attempts to counter the belief that nuclear weapons have kept the "long peace" of world war since their use. This is the most confusing chapter as he seems to argue against himself as to how nuclear weapons didn't keep the peace by offering some alternative reasons and then uses them to say why they could cause nuclear war in the future. I didn't buy his alternative reasons; but concur with him that a long peace will come to an end at some point in time and with it the use of nuclear weapons.5 - There Is No Alternative - or We Can't Disinvest Them: This portion of the book is more sophistry than anything else. He makes the case that technology is not disinvented but is replaced. True; but then he goes on to a mystical argument that because nuclear weapons proponents believe that nuclear weapons are magic they can't be controlled. The argument he doesn't consider is that nuclear weapons will be replaced -- by a more powerful or useful weapon.In the end; this is more a book about the nuclear abolitionist’s view of nuclear weapons as magic - not the proponents' view.I would concur with one of his conclusions that nuclear weapons be put on trial; but not in front of a kangaroo court. Military leaders and scientists should be encouraged to examine how they could use nuclear weapons (without recrimination which is the case now) - and not just the ones that exist today; but how they can be fashioned for the future. The examination of nuclear weapons should be done in a clear-eyed manner with idea that they are just another weapon. There may be very good military reasons to possess such weapons - like the destruction of another nation's military or use against terrorists. The nuclear weapons we have now were built for the Cold War; but low-yield; precision-guided nuclear weapons could be designed to go after deeply buried; hard targets where adversaries store their WMD or where terrorists hide (e.g.; Tora Bora).And along with putting nuclear weapons on trial; arms control myths should also be put on trial - that they keep the peace (see Kellogg-Briand) or that somehow a weapon can be outlawed out of existence.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Very good; but could have been a bit betterBy Mr BronsonAn excellent read. I did find it a bit anecdotal at times; and it's a shame to see that the author regurgitates the repeat-a-lie-a-thousand-times-and-it-becomes-truth "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" trope without questioning it. As a nuclear activist; as it were; he should know better than to be repeating canards that feed into a drumbeat for future wars of aggression. I also wish he would have made the book about a third longer; it felt too short; and for such a huge topic as nuclear weapons; he should have fleshed out his arguments with additions details. But overall; he presents a very compelling case.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Good; accessible source on the Japanese WW2 surrenderBy Christopher Paul WinterIf you want to know more about what brought the Japanese to surrender in World War II; this is a good book to read. It treats the subject in a scholarly way but remains accessible; not overwhelming the reader with details. However; even here the scholarship is uneven; with some important points (like the destruction of 68 Japanese cities by conventional bombs) unsourced.The author's main contentions are that nuclear weapons contribute nothing to deterrence and have no military utility. In fact; at one point he describes them as having no real strength at all. (Page 115: "Is it sensible to rely on a tremendously destructive; delicately balanced; hair-trigger system whose strength may be nothing more than perception?") But this is clumsy writing rather than a misunderstanding; I think. He makes a decent case that they are not a reliable deterrent; but this is not the same as proving they make no contribution to deterrence at all.I give the author credit for debunking what he calls the apocalypse myth; which is the fear that the immense; unprecedented power of nuclear weapons makes them somehow uncontrollable. They are; as he points out; implements we created and which we can destroy if we choose. His mistake is comparing them to a common hammer lying on a workbench; or to the old bicycles with a huge front wheel. These flawed analogies do not help in understanding the problem of nuclear weapons. They are not like a hammer; which anyone can buy at the local hardware store and thereafter use freely. Nor will they fade away like the unwieldy bicycle; abandoned because it was more trouble than it was worth.Mr. Wilson's heart is in the right place; he wants to deliver us from the abject fear of a nuclear apocalypse. Alas; his noble effort fails because it goes too far in minimizing the real power and the possible uses of nuclear weapons. The book is worth reading; definitely. But realize that it misses part of the picture.