Page 7

Update item information
Title Ends and means in conflict
Subject Nuclear warfare--Moral and ethical aspects; War--Moral and ethical aspects; War--Religious aspects; War and emergency powers--United States; Ends and means
Description The 49th Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator Firmage, Edwin Brown
Publisher Division of Continuing Education, University of Utah
Date 1987-10-15
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1147
Source U263 .F57 1987
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Ends and means in conflict," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6x34vfm
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-31
ID 320434
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 7
Description ENDS AND MEANS IN CONFLICT 7 We face three nuclear arms races, not one, each more deadly than the last. First, what is commonly meant by the nuclear arms race, we are simply building more and more nuclear weapons in a world able to kill itself scores of times over if no such weapons were ever again built and deployed. In a sense, this is the least important arms race. Obviously, after we kill everyone once, all else in a narrow view is redundant. Stupid, yes surely; and evil in intent and effect as resources are used and malevolence is present. But we can be killed only once. Yet other problems exist here. These redundant weapons are largely deployed, not stored in a building somewhere. People handle them and train with them and would surely use them in a major war. So the threshold of nuclear winter, or end of life on earth, is approached as the total effect of weaponry used affects the entire globe and not only our part of the planet. And the chances of war by mistake, miscalculation or insanity are increased as the numbers of those handling such weapons increases. Even so, this quantitative arms race is least threatening and most easily dealt with, if we have the will and the leadership, neither of which is evident. The second nuclear arms race, and immediately the most threatening, is the qualitative arms race. Here we attempt to build better weapons, not simply more. We try technologically to leap over our opponent's system of defense by a scientific breakthrough that will render his weapons not able to counter our own. For example, we put multiple warheads on one rocket, thereby enabling us to penetrate any anti-missile defense simply by drenching it with destruction. Or we use the same system, if the warheads can be targeted with sufficient accuracy (another technological breakthrough), to attack the opponent's weapons systems in a ferocious first strike which would, theoretically, at once disarm and destroy him. This would have the theoretical effect, coupled with an antiballistic weapons system, should we decide to use this seemingly defensive system offensively, of allowing us to strike the enemy with relative impunity, since we could by striking first destroy a large part of his missiles and then destroy the remaining missiles with our anti-missile defense. The qualitative or technological arms race is by far the most immediately threatening in that it undermines the credibility of the deterrent capacity of each side. Neither side is assured that the other won't strike first. Consequently, each must seriously consider a
Format application/pdf
Identifier 010-RNLT- firmageE_ Page 7.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Ends and means in conflict by Edwin B. Firmage.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320391
Reference URL