The age of nuclear weapons has brought with it many paradoxes. One of the most perplexing of these is that, when asked individually, almost no one is in favor of the nuclear arms race, yet when acting collectively, humans continue to engage in it. A wide range of explanations for this perplexing state of affairs has been proposed. Some have claimed that we are being driven by a collective death wish, others view the nuclear arms race as just one more reflection of a deep-seated alienation that afflicts modern societies, and still others frame their explanation in terms of an "action-reaction" cycle grounded in game theory. As the authors from Ground Zero (1982) have noted, however, when all is said and done, "'the best and the brightest' minds in this country cannot agree on why there is an arms race" (p. 62).

Any attempt to identify the causes of the nuclear arms race will surely have to consider a wide range of phenomena. The issue I shall examine should therefore be viewed as being part of a larger picture. However, I think that this piece of the picture has remained largely unexamined even while playing a powerful role in shaping the current state of affairs. The piece of the picture that I have in mind is the organization of discourse in the nuclear arms debate.

Click here to order a copy from the author.