Is it possible that someday, humanity will rid itself of nuclear weapons?

It is conceivable, of course. But don't hold your breath. 

“A world without nuclear weapons is totally possible,” says @Emma_Pike_, a nuclear disarmament consultant and activist. She shared her thoughts with Times Opinion on TikTok: https://t.co/BWGbpinIk7 pic.twitter.com/w60j9DaZPa

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) March 21, 2024

The New York Times is apparently holding its breath, though, spreading some of the most ignorant tripe I have seen published by the once-credible news source. 

At issue is a truly silly TikTok video published under the auspices of the Times' Opinion section, arguing that the prospect of a nuclear-free world is achievable in the short term. 

Why does she believe so?

Because there are thousands of people around the world working toward that goal. Scientists, artists, diplomats, and activists. They even got a bunch of countries who have precisely zero prospect of getting nuclear weapons to promise not to try. 

Well, I promise not to defeat Mike Tyson in the ring, too. You can rest assured that will never happen. Merely wanting something or recognizing it as desirable doesn't make it likely to occur. Getting people who will never have the opportunity to do something to promise they won't isn't much of an achievement, either. 

Nuclear weapons are toothpaste already out of the tube, and rational efforts should be made to prevent their use and reduce their value in conflict--such efforts have been successfully made for nearly 80 years. But in a world where countries like North Korea and Pakistan have nukes, the chance that they will disappear is essentially zero. 

It's not even clear that, in the short term, it would be desirable to eliminate them. The twentieth century saw two devastating world wars prior to the invention of nukes, and it seems likely that a third between the US and Soviet Union would have happened, but for nuclear weapons. Deterrence, so far, has worked better than arms control. 

It's irresponsible for a once-great newspaper to promote this nonsense, which only appeals to the very people who would never use these weapons in an aggressive manner. In the 1980s, we saw the same ridiculous push for what amounted to unilateral disarmament, which would have done nothing but empower the worst actors in the world. 

The truth is that weapons are morally neutral. They are tools that can be used for good or for the ill. 

In 1928 the Kellogg–Briand Pact of which the US is a signatory outlawed war. It literally outlawed war. And, for those of you who don't know it, technically, it is still in effect. It reads:

Article I

The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

Article II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

This is the law. How'd that work out?

Promoting silliness is dangerous, and distributing nonsense like this should be beneath the Times. Unfortunately, the current Times is what Andrew Klavan calls a "former newspaper."