Nuclear War Options

I recently read an article by some high-ranking Russian nuclear strategists that assesses the state of nuclear weaponry in the US and Russia. I was horrified. No one expects to find this sort of paper full of humor and cheer, but it did give new definition to the sort of menace nuclear warfare continues to present.

Aside from my initial response to the article, and the contents themselves (which you can read in "Foreign Affairs" this month) I want to throw some ideas about nuclear weapons on the table for you to consider.

According to both US and Russian sources, no fewer than 300 targets would be on the first-strike list within each country. So it would not be "They nuked New York!" but instead nearly every city in the country would be simultaneously destroyed, and nearly all remaining areas fouled by toxic debris and extremely limited resources. That's more than just bad, it's a catastrophe we could barely imagine.

Yet this is precisely the sort of catastrophe which could happen, and which has been looming for decades. I think it is time for the entire threat to stop. It may be folly to create these devastating weapons, but it is pure insanity to trust their management to guys who were elected because of their superior TV commercials. Although it seems unlikely, the president of the US or Russia could choose to initiate such a strike, resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths. It seems equally unlikely that the public has given due consideration to the grave responsibility their elected officials retain.

Casualties of war are something of a grim but predictable feature of human existence. Wars happen, and people die. Sometimes, lots of people die and many innocents are among them. Nuclear weapons are not an innovation upon this scheme, they are a totally different game. With nuclear weapons, the whole world, or at least a whole nation, can be obliterated in a day. This was never the case before. As bloody as the past battles were, they had no chance to wipe out everyone and everything on the whim of a furious despot or a bullied president. Wars are often instigated on some false pretext, and the standard mode for nuclear attack is swift surprise from which there is no return or further diplomatic possibility. Do you really trust the president of this or any other country with such a responsibility?

A man who owns a gun, and has a concealed weapons permit, cannot own an automatic weapon. Not even one! It is deemed too dangerous to allow a private citizen to own such machinery, no matter what their level of integrity. With this logic in mind, and remember most countries do not allow for concealed firearm permits, one could compare nations to private citizens. No matter what sort of regulatory body observes national stockpiles, the sneak-attack method will not be hampered unless the nations have no access to the weapons. They simply cannot be trusted, and I am appalled that the other nations of the world have not attempted international litigation to prevent the "super powers" from possessing such instruments of death or the right to use them.

There are emerging threats from other nations who may wish to expand their nuclear arsenals, the supposed threat of terrorists, and other factors that might make total disarmament less likely. There is also the very real possibility that, even if launches were delayed into off-ready mode (they are currently poised to strike at a moment's notice), the government would keep a few ready to go just in case. Responding to attack by a terrorist does not require nuclear attack against his homeland. Destroying most of Afghanistan would not stop a suicide bomber in America, and might even encourage others to increase their efforts. Something might be found to deal with these and other lower level threats, but none of it requires thousands of missiles pointed and ready to fire between Russia and the USA.

The military has given us a credible reason to develop massive engineering and technology projects. That need not stop, and they can continue to build bombers they won't use just to give those guys jobs and maintain stock values. But the nuclear weapons have got to go: it is too much power, entrusted to too few people, and there is too much risk of immediate global destruction. If the bombs were simply destroyed - all of them - it would require too much work for them to be redeveloped without attracting the notice of an international oversight agency. They could be reserved for special needs (maybe UFO attacks, asteroids, anything), and there could be a credible deterrent preserved only or the sake of rogue nations and terrorist states, and these provisions are lamentable if necessary.

So, you wizards and witches, and whoever else might care to do so, what can be done to rid the world of the nuclear threat? What can you do?

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Oct 3 2010, 10:02 AM

Russia would hardly disarm and I don't trust them enough to hope the US disarms.

I'm more concerned about one of those little bipolar countries like North Korea building a nuke than the status quo changing. They'd have fewer qualms, not to mention rational thought processes, about dropping it.