Page 8

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 8
Description EDWIN B. FIRMAGE preemptive first strike in a time of grave crisis, while communications systems and missiles are intact. This pressure to preempt, to be first in time of crisis or even conventional war, I believe, is immediately the most serious problem we now face. Only if each side could respond with assurance whatever the other did, would the spectre of a first strike attack be exorcised. As long as each nuclear state insists upon developing and deploying whatever system its scientists can conceive, we will be threatened by the most unstable, volatile condition possible. If for one moment we could, by some magic psychology of the senses, experience the horror of nuclear war, our willingness to tolerate this continued madness would end instantly. We would sweep from office those people of little vision or compassion and move together into a better place. The third nuclear arms race is, over the long term, the most threatening of all. This is the horizontal arms race, or the process by which other non-nuclear states decide to acquire, by purchase or development, nuclear weapons. Several nations will most surely become possessors of nuclear weapons in this coming decade. And we will be most fortunate if terrorist groups or simple gangsters do not come to possess nuclear weapons, whatever the sophistication of the delivery systems. It is here, in the spread of nuclear weapons, where we could reach the point that no conceivable system of law and government could prevent the use of nuclear weapons, sooner or later, after their possession became so widespread that no system of inspection, accounting and control could work. Then use, over time, would indeed be inevitable. Talk of agency or choice would then become rhetorical drivel in a deterministic world. The way out of the quagmire, at least the beginning steps, is obvious. And we should not fail to take those steps which seem clearly right simply because we cannot work out every later step at the present time. To demand that kind of assurance is at once bad politics, the corruption of spirituality and faith, and simply impossible. To end the quantitative arms race we should simply stop. Call it moratorium if freezing has been coopted by opponents better led than dead. But stop by whatever word. Such quantitative limitations are largely verifiable by national technical means and the Soviets, recently, have shown surprising acceptance of provisions for on-site inspection in any event. Then cut existing arsenals by 50% and re-
Format application/pdf
Identifier 011-RNLT- firmageE_ Page 8.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 320392
Reference URL