ABSTRACT
Two basic arguments are being made for abolition: that nuclear weapons, on balance, do not add to our security, but detract from it (the strategic argument); and that they are barbaric relics that have no proper place in military armories (the moral argument). Most emphasis has been placed upon the first of these arguments. What is involved is a rather complicated assessment of relative risks. Probably the most common objection to abolition is the possibility of "breakout". But this objection is easily rebutted upon even cursory examination. Accompanying an abolition convention, the use or possession of nuclear weapons and materials must be made an international crime punishable as a crime against humanity. As an immediate next step toward abolition, a treaty prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons would be a very good idea. Such a treaty would be (a) easier to adopt than a ban on possession, and (b) a natural psychological bridge to complete abolition.
