Nuclear states justify their omnicide weapons on a defensive basis. This is what is called “deterrence” doctrine, Scottish CND said today.
But the fact is that these same nuclear states have started countless belligerent wars of aggression since 1945…
That is because nuclear weapons are not, in fact, defensive weapons. Indeed, they are utterly useless as such since their use would quite quickly result in the end of liveable life on earth (search “nuclear winter”).
In actuality, nuclear weapons are offensive weapons designed to intimidate and project power across the world, and all nuclear states understand them as such.
Case in point: why would Israel need to illegally bomb Iran for the sake of its ‘defence’ if it already possessed the ultimate “deterrent”?
And how have Israel’s nuclear weapons prevented Iran from launching countless ballistic missiles into its territory in retaliation?
“Deterrence” theory breaks down here. Nuclear weapons manifestly do not prevent conflict, even between nuclear states (India/Pakistan).
At the same time, the hypocrisy of “deterrence” doctrine is also telling.
Whilst Israel is permitted to possess nuclear weapons, other states in the region have been invaded on the (erroneous) basis that they are developing nukes and other WMDs.
That’s because the belligerent parties – namely the US, European states and Israel – KNOW that “deterrence” doctrine is not a defensive strategy but an aggressive posture of power-projection.
Israel is permitted this posture, whereas adversaries are not.
In short, nuclear weapons have little to do with “deterrence” or national defence. They are to do with membership of a club that can engage in geopolitical belligerence with impunity – an impunity that makes the world less safe, and nuclear conflict more likely.