| O’Neill 95 (Robert O’Neill, PhD, “Britain and the Future of Nuclear Weapons”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 71, No. 4)
As mentioned above, nuclear weapons are still seen by the British, French and US governments as playing a useful role in deterring possible use of Russian systems against the West. The converse also applies, of course. Given the uncertainties which exist regarding the political evolution of Russia, many argue that it would be unwise for the West to reduce reliance on its nuclear defences before the Russians formally agree to be bound to a process of planned reductions. Russia might revive some of its former conventional military might and threaten NATO powers, states under NATO protection or important Western interests in the Middle East and East Asia. A related problem is the possibility that Russia might fragment, leaving a nuclear arsenal, large or small, in the hands of a desperate faction which would not hesitate to blackmail other powers, by threat of using nuclear weapons, to come to their aid. Yet surely a Russia without nuclear weapons, even at the price of Western nuclear disarmament, will be much easier to live with, and, if necessary, to compete with militarily, given the change in the conventional force balance and the West's capabilities to rearm with even better conventional weapons.
We’d destroy them in a conventional war.
Share with your friends: |
