The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight ["Doomsday Clock"]. I think they're right. The world is a much more dangerous place now that the nation with the most weapons of mass destruction is threatening to use them.
12 comments :
America has alwaysd threatened to use its nukes. I met a guy who worked in Johnson's administration as a military advisor - David Hackworth - who told me that he became an antinuclear campaigner when he heard Johnson say of North Vietnam, sometime around 1968, "Let's nuke the bastards. I don't want to go down in history as the first American President to lose a war." Apparently being remembered as a genocidal maniac was no problem.
The real trigger for the use of nukes in wars will be the perceived (i.e., political) need by the American military to make rapid advances in local battles through the use of "tactical" nukes (i.e., those developed for use on battlefields to kill armies). These will be deployed, I reckon, in central Asia, possibly in Iran if they are stupid enough to go there, starting a Pakistan-India war, and thence to China and/or Israel. That whole region is balanced on a round rock - one push and they all go.
I'm afraid there are multiple reasons to move the clock forward...
The breakup of the USSR in the previous decade potentially throwing thousands of nukes up to the highest bidder. And it only takes one.
The advance of technology means it's easier than ever for a terrorist to create his own nuclear bomb. At the rate that technology is advancing, nuclear detonators will be available from Costco in the near future (kidding, but you get the point).
The United Nations is doing no such thing. We're more divided than ever. Nuclear proliferation is out of control...today North Korea, tomorrow Iran, and so on.
The only solution I can think of is to drastially reform the United Nations, so that we can better deal with these realities. Like this:
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
I'm afraid I can't even think of another solution to this problem.
gary
Midnight on the Doomsday clock signifies the end of civilization. The detonation of a single nuclear device by terrorists is not going to bring down civilization.
That's not intended to minimize the loss of life that such an eplosion would cause. You just need to put things in perspective. The terrorist danger pales in comparison to an all-out nuclear war triggered by the bombing of Iranian cities or launch sites in Northern Korea near the Russian and Chinese borders.
You said: "The detonation of a single nuclear device by terrorists is not going to bring down civilization."
Suppose a nuclear device goes off in NYC. The president determines that it was purchased from the North Koreans (a mistake - it is eventually learned that the nuke came from a former USSR satellite). So he uses nuclear weapons to take out North Korean underground research and logistic facilities. An estimated 1500 die in the first hours. North Korea manages to get off a single nuclear missile into South Korea, specifically Seoul, killing 5 million people (that's a five with six zeros) China takes this as a grave provocation against their national interests and orders Taiwan to be taken to prevent further US hostilities (essentially their Cuba). We decide to defend Taiwan...don't forget...the US is not in a good mood having lost NYC. Afther that things take a turn for the worse.
So are you willing to say that the above scenario (and any other variants) could never happen?
gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
The world is a much more dangerous place now that the nation with the most weapons of mass destruction is threatening to use them.
Should we assume from the wording here that you don't care about the prospect of a nation with fewer nukes threatening to use them? Funny, I thought the motto of the antinuke movement was "one nuke is too many!"
The detonation of a single nuclear device by terrorists is not going to bring down civilization.
A much simpler scenario than gary's: terrorists use a single nuke to close down a certain port in the continental United States, one whose terrible vulnerability was recently demonstrated for all the world to see. The resulting economic collapse of the US is soon followed by economic collapse everywhere else. There isn't another civilized nation on Earth that doesn't depend on the US for a major chunk of its economy.
wolfwalker, are you implying that the destruction of New York City would bring about a Doomsday senario leading to the end of civilization as we know it?
That's an interesting hypothesis. I'm sure most New Yorkers would agree with you but I've heard contrary opinions. Some even think that eliminating New York City might be good for civilization! :-)
Seriously, the only way that a terrorists could cause the end of civilization is if we play into their hands by overreacting and starting a nuclear war. I used to think we were way too smart to fall into such a suicidal trap.
Now I'm not so sure, and neither are the Atomic Scientists. It's not the just the threat of terrorists getting nuclear weapons that's moved the clock.
I didn't specify New York, did I, Larry?
I gave you enough information to figure out which city I was talking about. It's a major US port whose vulnerability was recently demonstrated for all the world to see. Not "tested," not "examined," but demonstrated in a way that made national and international news for weeks (although few of the news reporters understood the implications of their own stories). If the terrorists aren't already working on a way to attack it, they're not nearly as smart as I thought they were -- and I didn't think they were especially smart to start with.
If you can identify it from that, and realize the consequences of it being destroyed, you'll understand why the prospect of an attack there scares the hell out of me, and should scare the hell out of you. If you can't ... you'll demonstrate you haven't enough understanding of the situation to be making such blithe pronouncements on it.
Larry, you said: "The detonation of a single nuclear device by terrorists is not going to bring down civilization."
Are you holding by this statement?
gary
On January 17, 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. It is now 5 minutes to midnight. The BAS Board of Directors, in consultation with the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates, explained in a statement:
"We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed U.S. emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth."
The scientists' first recommendation for turning back the clock is:
"Reducing the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries"
In a January 14th Wall Street Journal op-ed, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn placed the same recommendation at the top of their agenda:
"Changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and thereby reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon."
Nuclear Alerts Must End Now!
At this moment, the United States and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons on war-ready, hair-trigger alert. With 26,000 weapons between them, each state is within minutes of launching irretrievable attacks that would destroy civilization itself.
Please write your Member of Congress today to demand an end to nuclear alerts. Let's get more Members of Congress to cosponsor Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's resolution, H. RES. 68, which "urges the President, in the interests of protecting and advancing human, national, and global security, to ... cooperate with the Russian Federation to remove from deployment nuclear weapons that presently are operational and ready to be launched on short notice."
Take Action: http://www.capwiz.com/congressorg/sbx/f/?aid=9272161&r=1
wolfwalker asks,
I didn't specify New York, did I, Larry?
No, you didn't. You were going out of your way to be cryptic and obtuse for some reason known only to you.
If you can identify it from that, and realize the consequences of it being destroyed, you'll understand why the prospect of an attack there scares the hell out of me, and should scare the hell out of you. If you can't ... you'll demonstrate you haven't enough understanding of the situation to be making such blithe pronouncements on it.
I don't pay as much attention to what goes on in America as you obviously do. I can't think of any recent news about American ports that scared the hell out of me. Does this really mean that I don't understand the situation? Perhaps the fact that you are so scared indicates that it's you who doesn't understand the situation?
Larry, I found wolfwalker's post to be somewhat puzzling as well. So you weren't the only one.
So what happened to our conversation?
gary
I think Gary was referring to New Orleans and the aftermath of Katrina. Whether he is correct that nuking NO would have the economic fallout he describes, I wouldn't know. However, a nuke in a shipping container, somewhere, remains my most-likely nightmare for a terrorist attack.
Post a Comment