Indefensible Weapons: The Political And Psychological Case Against Nuclearism/ Updated Edition

by Robert Jay Lifton, Richard A. Falk

Examining the premises of the arguments in favor of maintaining nuclear weapons capability, the authors argue that recovery after nuclear warfare is unlikely

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History

Paperback

First published November 28, 1982

About the author

Robert Jay Lifton was an American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of wars and political violence, and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory.

Reviews

[Jerry Wall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Arguments for the use of nuclear (world destroying ) weapons addressed and thought by authors to be indefensible.
Part 1: With nuclear weapons we know that we can destroy ourselves and our enemy as well as the civilized world. Man would go extinct. Poem about not worrying any more if it were dropped. By speaking of a limited nuclear strike we create the illusion of control. But weapon is too dangerous for
theorizing in that way. Limited war is a psychotic fantasy. If we convince ourselves that some could be saved in a nuclear exchange by special shelters and other precautions we forget that once such protected people come out the world would be so contaminated it would be only a delaying of the consequences.
All are vulnerable with use of nuclear weapons.

Part 3: religious solace sought to help with deciding on nuclear war. Religion becomes more and more inadequate as we considered the consequences of atom bombs. Man tries to withdraw from nature but it is pointless exercise as we are too dependant. Per Jesus we will be struck down by God ultimately so no need to preserve nature.
Part 4: with idea of second coming comes the idea of a symbolic immortality. thinking is foolishness
Part 5: Security can't be in arms, as they lead us to their use for violence and the enemy to violence in response.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's rare that I don't finish a book, even a very boring one, but I could only get through section 1. It's dated now, and even though this is still a deeply important and pressing issue, the writing somehow manages to be unexciting.

[Brian Oconnor · Rating 4 out of 5]

way to dated...read in 1985 or so.