Underkill?

In constructing new verbal weapons systems, the disarmers have been more ingenious than the armament lobby. One of their most successful creations has been the concept of “Overkill.” I am not sure when it was first tested, but I well recall its early deployment in the columns of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the manifestos of the Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy. Over the years, as is usual with weapons systems, Overkill has been produced in a sequence of improved models. Most recently it has been incorporated in the verbal batteries brought into action to persuade us that acceptance of strategic nuclear inferiority, as provided by the SALT accords, is a good thing. In Mr. Nixon’s rhetoric, the operative meaning of Overkill has been relabeled “Sufficiency.”

The Overkill concept seems clear enough at first glance. There is no need to kill anybody more than once; if you’re dead, you’re dead. Right? Right. Brisk and businesslike. We now draw out the logic. Nuclear bombs are terrific killers. We have, ready to go, enough of them “to destroy the Soviet Union many times over,” “more than enough to wipe out all life on earth,” etc. This is sheer military-industrial madness. No rational purpose is served by this Overkill capability. It would in no way jeopardize our national security to reduce the number of our strategic weapons by a substantial percentage, as Senator McGovern proposes to do— you don’t need to kill anybody more than once. And a fortiori there is no point in playing “the numbers game” with Moscow. It makes no real difference if we have 50 per cent fewer land-based missiles and nuclear-armed submarines than the Soviet Union, and one-fifth the warhead megatonnage, as provided by the SALT accords that President Nixon has signed. We still have a Sufficiency. If you’re dead, you’re dead.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

In constructing new verbal weapons systems, the disarmers have been more ingenious than the armament lobby. One of their most successful creations has been the concept of “Overkill.” I am not sure when it was first tested, but I well recall its early deployment in the columns of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the manifestos of the Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy. Over the years, as is usual with weapons systems, Overkill has been produced in a sequence of improved models. Most recently it has been incorporated in the verbal batteries brought into action to persuade us that acceptance of strategic nuclear inferiority, as provided by the SALT accords, is a good thing. In Mr. Nixon’s rhetoric, the operative meaning of Overkill has been relabeled “Sufficiency.”

The Overkill concept seems clear enough at first glance. There is no need to kill anybody more than once; if you’re dead, you’re dead. Right? Right. Brisk and businesslike. We now draw out the logic. Nuclear bombs are terrific killers. We have, ready to go, enough of them “to destroy the Soviet Union many times over,” “more than enough to wipe out all life on earth,” etc. This is sheer military-industrial madness. No rational purpose is served by this Overkill capability. It would in no way jeopardize our national security to reduce the number of our strategic weapons by a substantial percentage, as Senator McGovern proposes to do— you don’t need to kill anybody more than once. And a fortiori there is no point in playing “the numbers game” with Moscow. It makes no real difference if we have 50 per cent fewer land-based missiles and nuclear-armed submarines than the Soviet Union, and one-fifth the warhead megatonnage, as provided by the SALT accords that President Nixon has signed. We still have a Sufficiency. If you’re dead, you’re dead.