The Cold War ended 20 years ago, but I still wonder: is nuclear war still a danger to mankind? How likely is it that we'll experience a nuclear war in, say, the next 20 years? I mean, it seems like there are a lot of situations that can quickly get out of hand and lead to one. 1.) A war in Iran 2.) Georgia joins NATO then gets invaded by Russia, thus drawing the rest of NATO into the conflict, which then escalates 3.) A war with China 4.) India-Pakistan 5.) An end-times fundamentalist like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin gets his/her hands on a nuclear arsenal. Am I just being paranoid or are these valid concerns?
Be very afraid. There are far more lunatics with their fingers on a button than there ever were in the US/USSR face-off. More rogue missiles, more unaccounted-for uranium, more conflicts, more factions, more fear, more every-damn-thing. Especially more complexity and interconnected networks.
We have nuclear missiles, that states we are willing and ready to use them. I say anyone who harbors nuclear material is an enemy of the human population.
Only a world government with power over all countries could get rid of all the missiles. Does anybody see that happening soon?
Another thing that could set off a nuclear war: an accident. You know, someone in a command center thinks he sees an incoming nuclear missile on the radar screen, where it's really just a flock of geese. The point is, I've just been freaking out a lot about this recently.
Why? It's one of those things you have absolutely no control over. No feeling you could possibly have is going to change anything. Personally I can think of a lot of ways to die that might be worse than going out in a flash of nuclear glory. But as a living being it's really your duty to suffer until you die and you should also fight to prolong your suffering as long as possible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You see where I'm going with this don't you?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If a nuke were to be detonated it won't be by those nations that have businesses with each other for they wouldn't be able to trade with each other any longer. If a nuke were to be used it won't be on a world wide stage but only by a country that gets upset about another country like Israel and Iran so it wouldn't go much farther than those two countries and wherever the nukes were sent to. We see that even in cities where nukes were exploded that people survived and the cities were rebuilt with no after effects of lingering radiation.
One-world government with power over nations, does not compute. I see it happening now, but under a kingship. Remember this, a king can not be named by a man who knows not what it takes to be king. A king is born with the king-qualities; compassion, wisdom, honor, etc.
And do you know anybody with those qualities that wants that job?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nuclear war was not a danger to mankind during the Cold War. That little chess game with the Russkies, during which the Middle East was our chessboard and the folks who had the bad luck to live there were our pawns, proved that nuclear deterrence works. Nobody wants to fire the first nuclear missile because he knows as an absolute certainty that while the enemy is waiting for it to hit its target and trying desperately to scramble its fleet of anti-missile missiles, that enemy will also launch its own nuclear arsenal against him. This is M.A.D., nuclear-assured destruction. Only a madman would push the first button. And considering that we've had several world leaders over the decades who were one taco short of a combination plate, apparently even a garden-variety madman isn't mad enough. India and Pakistan both have nukes, and they have fought (what now, three?) wars against each other, yet neither side has ever escalated to the nuclear level. That said, the only risk worth considering is a non-state actor getting its hands on nuclear weapons. Non-state actors by definition have no state to attack, so it would be difficult for the victim nation to strike back. Obviously today this means Al Qaeda. They were safely ensconced in Afghanistan where they couldn't do much harm to anyone who was not nearby (killing 3,000 Americans in one decade does not qualify as "much harm" because during those same ten years the exact same number of us were killed by peanut allergies), but one of those guys I mentioned who didn't have the right number of tacos got the bright idea to chase them into Pakistan. Which has nuclear weapons, which does not like us very much, and which has a government that's barely functional and could easily let a nuke or two fall into the wrong hands. So what do we do if Al Qaeda launches a Pakistani nuke at us? Incinerate Pakistan? Pointless and rather unfair. I don't know what the answer is. We'll probably have another national leader with a missing taco who will decide that the solution is to punish Angola or Uruguay. Just as the last one decided to punish Iraq and Afghanistan for something the Saudis did. Zero. Not "approximately zero." Zero. Some wack job, such as Osama's successor, might manage to get his hands on one nuclear weapon and set it off in a population center. But as I pointed out, there's no effective way to launch a nuclear retaliation against a non-state actor. We truly would have to suck it up, beef up the Homeland Gestapo's budget to make us all feel safer, and start that war against Angola and Uruguay. If Iran manages to create its own nuclear arsenal then it will be in the same position that the rest of the world's nuclear powers are in: nobody will dare attack them because if they do they will be reduced to cinders within few hours. If Israel preemptively attacks Iran before they have nukes it might lead to a regional war in the Middle East, but it will not be a nuclear war. Israel will not nuke Tehran, the capital of a country without nuclear weapons. The few friends it still has will abandon it immediately for committing such an atrocity, and its economy will collapse. Again, somebody has to push the big red button first. Who's going to do that? Russia gets more than their share of crazy leaders, but they're not that crazy. Besides, who's actually going to approve Georgia's application to join NATO, knowing that it's always on the verge of being attacked by Russia? Not all of NATO's member nations are led by idiots! You haven't been reading your memos. The next war will be cyber, not nuclear. Experts say (and nobody denies) that China has already penetrated the firewalls of every American corporation and the government's security isn't very much stronger than corporate security. With programmers like that they don't need an army! That's already happened three times and nobody pushed the Big Red Button. * Yawn * Hmm. I suppose that is the most realistic of all your scenarios. But have you noticed that end-times fundamentalists never seem to get close to the White House? I am certain that more people voted against McCain because Palin scared them out of their minds than voted for him for having a female on the ticket. I think you need to step back, take a deep breath, and intone PARADIGM SHIFT, PARADIGM SHIFT, PARADIGM SHIFT. This is not the Industrial Era anymore. We don't have a cool name for it yet, but it's the Post-Industrial Era, the Information Age, the Third Wave, the Electronic Era, the Computer Age, or something like that. It is already possible to do more damage cybernetically than with explosive weapons, even nuclear ones. And that has the advantage that when you win, all the enemy's stuff is still intact so you can take it over, and all their people are still alive so you can put them to work and sell them your products.
All right then, the danger is considerably greater from nuclear power-plants than from nuclear missiles. Even so, the number of lunatics seems to be increasing steadily, while the restraints on their power (both intra- and inter-national) seem to be decreasing and the intellectual and ethical sophistication of the 'advanced' peoples is keeping pace with the other two developments. Chances are, WWIII will take only about a week and the casualties will die, not in balls of fire, but quietly retching our guts out from a super-pandemic. Freak not... but i wouldn't replicate.
That all assumes that all actors involved are rational and that the source of the attack can be definitively traced (to allow retaliation). If you're a terrorist group with no territory to defend, and no clear train of evidence implicating you, where's the deterrence? Even then, we're talking about complex systems, and the possibility of an accident always remains. I'm sure you've heard of the multiple times that American and Russian nuclear missile officers nearly initiated full-scale nuclear exchanges in response to radar glitches and the like. Likewise we shouldn't over-estimate the rationality of the state leaders. While reason has, apparently, triumphed, that didn't happen without a lot of major clashes between different elements in the political systems that were more or less aggressive and irrational. It is certainly possible for such a process to eventually produce an irrational result, given enough time.
Uh... I would suggest that with a terrorist group, the real question is, where's the nuke? Terrorist groups don't have trillion-dollar budgets. They can't build scientific laboratories for experimenting with nuclear reactions. The only way they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon is to steal it from one of the handful of countries that have them. As I suggested earlier, they may be able to get their hands on one nuclear weapon. So their deterrence is: Once they've fired off that one weapon, they have no more. I was born in 1943. I've lived through the entire Nuclear Era. We had duck-and-cover drills in school. The fact that the USA and the USSR spent more than forty years threatening each other with Nuclear Armageddon, and it didn't happen, speaks for itself. China arguably had the most insane government on the planet for quite some time, and they didn't start a nuclear war either. Huh? We've had some incredible idiots in power, just here in the USA. Start the lineup with Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. If they didn't push the Big Red Button, who will? Obama acts like he's an automaton, and two people keep fighting over the controls. One day he's a big-shot traditional liberal, the next day he's cracking down on medical marijuana, which isn't even controversial anymore. Whoever is operating him could screw up. Yeah sure. Nobody can predict the future. But don't forget: cyberwarfare is already more devastating than explosives, even nuclear ones. In another ten years there will be no comparison. If you're really worried about your future and your children's future, stop fixating on nuclear weapons. Start lobbying your government to start protecting your banks, your ubiquitous process-control software, and your virtual economy, from state as well as non-state actors.
John Casti - X-Events predicts a future in which sheer complexity multiplies the probability and uncontainability of accidents. You seem to assume that there is a specific desired - and designed - end-game in international face-offs. But what if that's not what a fearful or angry or vengeful or spiteful or desperate or ambitious leader has in mind? Most recent wars didn't begin as a "We're gonna conquer yous!" proposition, but as skirmishes, tit-for-tat, punitive or 'police' actions, interventions or peace-making exercises. It's the escalation that's unpredictable. You can lobby, but it can't be done by legislators.
It's just that this fear has got me in a real...I don't know...funk? I'm just wondering what the point is of even trying to live or be happy if it can all be destroyed so easily. The situation that really scares me is a nuclear war starting because of some glitch on a radar screen. Every day, I look at the news to see how relations between the US and Russia or between the US and China or between India and Pakistan are because I'm worried that, sooner or later, they're going to deteriorate to the point where nuclear war becomes a real possibility. I'm especially worried about US-Russia relations given (1) the Iran situation, (2) the Syria situation, (3) the missile shield and (4) the recent US-Russia trade bill that the Congress is trying to pass. I suppose one good thing about this new fear is that it's instilled in me an absolute revulsion of nuclear weapons, as well as war and hatred in general. I have this new sense of clarity and conviction, which feels invigorating. I try not to use religious language too much, but nuclear weapons are just plain evil and must be abolished. As cheesy as it sounds, I feel inspired to work towards a world free of these horrible devices. But I'm still pretty scared.
Never mind the nukes, but have you heard of killer asteroids??? The Earth has been in danger forever while traveling through the Universe. We already got hit (where are my dinosaurs?) and we will get hit again. It is a when, not an if.... As a Republican Senator said about rape: When an unpleasant thing is inevitable, you might as well enjoy it. So take your meds, and enjoy your life. Or if you are religious, keep going to church...( well as an alternative solution, you can also start to dig your bunker, and load up on canned food and water)
If you've ever read "The next 100 years" by George Friedman, you'll probably feel a lot safer, especially if you reside in the US or Canada. If Iran (or any other Middle Eastern country, really) managed to nuke the USA, they wouldn't survive the counter attack. The US military is one of the most organized and powerful forces on the planet, and I would go so far as to postulate they may have anti-Nuclear capabilities. Russia would never go to war with NATO because the USA is a member and they don't have any strategically defendable locations for a war on land. It's debatable over whether or not NATO would even accept Georgia for the very unrest this might cause. China is too politically unstable to survive a war, but even if they weren't, they wouldn't need to use nuclear weapons because they can use their immense industrial production, man power, and finances to do more damage to the USA than an open nuclear war would (odd as that sounds) I'm not too familiar with the issues in India and Pakistan, but I kind of doubt it will ever be an issue, since they seem to be in the midst of their own "cold war", rather than open conflict. And number 5... well, I'm kind of worried about number 5... :bugeye:
