No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Civil Defense—the New Debate
The Background Music
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 September 2018
Extract
The trial balloons recently sent up about protecting our population in the event of nuclear war focus on the staged evacuation of cities— not, as in the early Sixties, on bomb shelters. The aim today is more on countering nuclear threats, less on protecting people or defending the nation. A capability to maneuver people (like troops) is needed to give the president an option to yielding to nuclear blackmail.
This is what is called crisis management, and it has a “logic” of its own. For example, the U.S. would have to be able to move people out of cities, or protect them there, in vastly greater numbers than Russia needs to do simply to make things even. We have far more of our population in far more and far more populous metropolitan areas than has Russia. The president, if he is sensible, is more likely to yield to power-moves under cover of nuclear threats than is Russia. He must blink first. Under such conditions, who now has the more credible deterrent?
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 1979
References
L.C. McHugh, S.J., "Ethics at the Shelter Doorway," America (September 30, 1961); Paul Ramsey, "Shelter Morality," Presbyterian Life (November 15,1961), with correspondence, January 1, 1962. Father McHugh concentrated more exclusively on the micro-problem than 1—if anyone wants to know.
* It is rather late, if not too late, to cite in support of options to our confirmed MAD policy the following experts who are no way contaminated by theological political reasoning: Arthur Lee Burns (Adelphi Paper, No. 69, "Ethics and Deterrence: A Nuclear Balance Without Hostage Cities?" [London: Institute for Strategic Studies, July, 1970]); Donald G. Brennan of the Hudson Institute, who first coined the MAD acronym (New York Times, Op. Ed. page [May 24 and 25,1971]); and Bruce M. Russett ("Short of Nuclear Madness," Worldview [April, 1972]). In this and other articles Russett advocated a counlercombatant deterrent. The Russians are adequately deterred by a credible threat that the U.S. can and will wipe out their army on the Chinese border; there is no need to aim at their civilian population. For the record I may add that in earlier writings on the morality of warfare and of deterrence my expression "counter/brce" took its meaning from its opposite, "counterpeop/c." I never meant to say the U.S. should develop the overwhelming power to destroy Russia's missile forces with impunity. Russett's expression "countercowAafant" exactly expresses my meaning—including their military forces, of course.