On Peace

A Time article suggests that a Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry, but anyone advocating the mass-murder of hundreds of thousands should be sacked. Go to Japan, be exposed to some gruesome imagery of the aftermath of a nuclear bomb and see if you feel the same afterwards.

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is plainly ridiculous. On the same grounds as him, I should win an Olympic gold medal by announcing that I plan to run 100m in 9 seconds flat.

Suggesting that nuclear weapons deserves an award, however, is atrocious. First off, the author's argument is purely hypothetical, based on "what could have happened" if the nuclear weapons weren't developed. Introducing such hypotheses is dangerous and logically fallacious. It is easy to undermine such arguments by hypothesizing something else. Would the world be more peaceful if Hitler had successfully developed nuclear weapons before the United States?

The author contends that nuclear weapons are responsible for the end of murder on a grand scale. He suggests that on average, 3 million people were killed per year in the 30 years leading to 1945. Now, exactly how many of those people were killed in armed conflict between 1919 and 1938? I'm willing to bet it wasn't many.

Ideologically speaking, if you're involved in an arms race because you fear the Soviets will attack, that is not peace. If I hold a gun up to your head and you hold one up to mine, we are not at peace. This is merely an equilibrium.

So what should be done? The answer is simple. Get rid of the arbitrary award known as the Nobel Peace Prize.