Letter: Nuclear sanity
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The new German government's desire for Nato to adopt a no nuclear first use (NFU) policy ("German nuclear proposal gets short shrift from US", 25 November) appears to be based more on resurrecting yesterday's slogans than a rational analysis of today's strategic environment.
True, the possible need to resort to nuclear weapons to prevent a Soviet/Russian conventional victory in Europe no longer makes sense, if it ever did. And it is precisely because Nato now enjoys massive superiority in non- nuclear forces that Russia has reversed its previous NFU policy.
So, first question, what do we gain from extending an assurance to a country that will not reciprocate?
And why should Nato entirely rule out the threat of nuclear retaliation if a non-nuclear aggressor is considering subjecting us to germ warfare, especially if by so doing we increase the likelihood of him using biological weapons? Does anyone really believe that if a dictator armed with anthrax threatened London a nuclear NFU policy would mean anything or contribute to our security?
The nuclear weapon states have already pledged themselves never to use their nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, so long as these states are in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty and are not attacking us in collaboration with a nuclear-armed foe. That still stands, but would hardly still apply if such states had just used chemical and biological weapons.
It is difficult, therefore, to see what a NFU policy would achieve in practical terms, other than to give unwanted encouragement to those contemplating the use of disease and poison to achieve their military ambitions.
Dr STEPHEN PULLINGER
Department of Peace Studies
University of Bradford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments