|
these are all self-evident problems that say almost nothing about the assertions concerning mad earlier.
the problems of verification are mostly political. at this point, the same problem you raise about russia could be raised about the united states or israel...the political question is resolvable once it is decided that these weapons are not worth having. and i do not think that they are worth having in principle: but you have to recognize that circulation of technologies, materials and designs through the magickal market (for example) places limits on what disarmament can functionally mean--but reducing the number of nuclear weapons to the greatest possible extent seems a good idea. i don't see the objection to it on principle, and think that these "realistic" assessments confuse a political situation with a natural situation.
closest analogy so far--international agreements to ban the use of shit like mustard gas after world war 1.
does that mean that such items are not produced? hell no--the cold war was a great time for the migration of the worst possible types of thinking about weapons systems. has gas been used since world war 1? in isolated cases, yes--but the key is in isolated cases. so it's possible for the international community to simply decide that there's no ethical or political justification for NOT dismantling nuclear weapons to the greatest possible extent and doing it.
the counter argument seems to me to amount to a reading of the word "disarmament" so that it can only be operative if it's total.
i don't see that as a particularly compelling interpretation.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|