Even during the cold war, however, I was aware of a strong ethical objection to the idea of weaponless deterrence especially for someone like myself, whose opposition to the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances was absolute. I opposed a second strike as much as I opposed a first strike. Indeed, I opposed any nuclear strike whatsoever first, second, third or thirty-third. I was sharply, even painfully, reminded of this objection when Joseph Rotblat told me he opposed the idea of virtual arsenals, and Harald M ller referred to this idea as a symptom of a sickness of the mind induced by nuclear arms. Faust s dilemma, it has sometimes seemed to me, was pleasant and easy by comparison.
Deterrence is an abstract doctrine, yet it risks the most drastic conceivable material consequences.
It s a product of pure thought whose centerpiece, nuclear annihilation, is commonly called unthinkable. Seen in one light, it s a doctrine of limitless intricacy, shot through with conundrum and paradox. If you touch me, I ll knock you flat. It s a system of terror that purports to hold terror at bay. Naturally, we d like to escape it to go beyond deterrence yet as soon as we try to do so, it seems to overtake us again.