If Poison Gas Can Go, Why Not Nukes?

Summary

James Carroll’s “If Poison Gas Can Go, Why Not Nukes?” is a rally for readers to support the elimination of nuclear weapons from acceptable military arsenal just like poison gas was banned. The author believes that just like chemical weapons were developed, used successfully in war and eventually abandoned so will nuclear weapons. Carroll believes that nuclear weapons are dangerous and can be used for enormous destruction.

The author builds his arguments from a historical perspective. At the beginning of the 20th century when scientists were experimenting with new weapon technology, “poisonous weapons” were developed (Carroll 1). The world reacted by outlawing these weapons through the Hague Convention in 1907. However, this did not stop countries from developing and using chemical weapons in war. Germany and Britain used asphyxiating gas in World War I. While there were less than 100,000 casualties fewer than the millions cause by conventional military weapons, the chemical weapons still cause great concern in Europe.

The author identifies a group of people he terms as “realists”. They represent strong opposition against the banning of effective military weapons. The realists were opposed to the abolition of the use of military weapons in the 1900s and are also against the abandonment of nuclear armament. The realists’ main argument is that nowhere in history have effective weapons been abandoned because the ultimate goal of armament is to have the most lethal weapons. Therefore disarmament of chemical or nuclear weapons is not realistic.

Carroll counters the realists’ position by stating that they once believed that chemicals weapons would not be banned but it came to pass. He believes that a similar ban will happen for nuclear weapons because people are afraid of their catastrophic consequences.