ABSTRACT
Forty-two years after two nuclear devices exploded on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scholars still largely disagree on the practical meaning of a nuclear revolution. According to the apocalyptics, there are at least some basic features of nuclear weapons on which defense experts and international relations theorists should agree. An apparent consensus with regard to the changes that have been brought about by nuclear weapons hides the important differences of opinion on the precise operational meaning of the elements that make up this consensus. In contrast to the apocalyptic assumption that the existence of nuclear weapons necessarily entails a fundamental change in the nature of defense policy, the conventionalists over the years have spoken out against the thesis of a nuclear revolution. The planning for Nuclear war, however, conveys messages and intentions about how the state intends to ensure adequate deterrence, and as a result fuels a ‘security dilemma’ of gigantic proportions and enormous danger.
