Nuclear Deterrent
by Benjamin ShenderThe United States justifies possessing sufficient nuclear arms to obliterate all multi-cellular life on Earth several times as a deterrent. We have these weapons so that no one else would dare use them. Which is an interesting battle plan really:
North Korea: I use my +2 nuclear armament to destroy all of your allies in South Asia.
United States: I destroy the rest of the world.
All in a day’s work…or probably a lot less…say…two hours?
The fun thing about nuclear weapons is that they are utterly useless as weapons of war. They make explosions that are simply too big for reasonable tactical warfare. “You blew up a tank? I irradiate a mountain range.” Ultimately nuclear arms do not make sense in conventional warfare. It would be tantamount to attacking a single ant with a machine gun, keeping in mind that a machine gun was designed to take out cavalry. They can only be reasonably applied to civilian targets, specifically cities. When civilization began making war we developed weapons to more effectively kill individuals. Then we developed weapons to kill more people at once. Then weapons to tear down a city’s defenses. And now weapons that are simply targeted at the city itself. These weapons can only be used for two things: (1) destroying your enemy to the last cell and (2) scaring your enemy into thinking you will destroy them to the last cell, thereby making them capitulate to your demands.
This would seem to indicate that either the United States intends genocide, or it is simply the most dangerous terrorist nation on the planet. Considering the United States considers its nuclear arms a âdeterrent,â? it would seem at least the official policy is one of fear. The United States is then the most successful terrorist regime on Earth, we now hold the world hostage. Buy McDonald’s! Give us oil! Make us shoes! Make us food! Buy our food! Or else….
Well, if terrorism is the strategy of using force or the threat of force to coerce others to fulfilling your political demands, then the United States is undeniably guilty of terrorism.
Unless by “terrorism” we also mean, “unless we do it, then it’s OK.” Then, it’s just the monopoly of force again and the usual double-standard we’re used to in civilized thinking about violence.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 November 2005 @ 3:55 PM
Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union many of us eagerly awaited the so-called “Peace Dividend”.
I can’t believe our naivety today.
Has the US reduced its nuclear arsenal at all since becoming the sole Super Duper Power? I’m under the impression that it hasn’t. But then I haven’t really been tracking this.
Does anyone know?
I think that the US military spending accounts for about 50% of total global military spending.
How can anyone justify this without invoking the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned us against?
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 4:14 PM
Warheads Aren’t Forever
A government program for improving the reliability of America’s nuclear stockpile is being transformed into an initiative to churn out a new generation of nuclear weapons. And nobody is even bothering to ask why they’re necessary.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 November 2005 @ 5:03 PM
Yes, the United States is the greatest terrorist nation that has ever existed or will ever exist in the world. Consider that long before the radical Muslims began targeting innocent civilians the United States has already perfected the tools of mass killing using conventional weapons (the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden) and nuclear weapons (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). There were single days during World War II in which the United States killed 100,000 civilians, more than Muslim terrorism has killed throughout its history from the 1970’s until today.
The United States makes no secret of its possession of nuclear weapons, nor of the deadly potential contained in each of its nuclear subs. Should the President choose to do so, the United States is prepared to kill millions of humans in a matter of minutes.
The citizens of the United States who righteously oppose terrorism ought to demand that our government destroy all of our own nuclear weapons and request that all other nations follow our example.
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Comment by David Mathews — 1 November 2005 @ 5:31 PM
The United States isn’t the problem. The problem is that every other country on earth wants to be the United States.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 November 2005 @ 5:36 PM
“The United States isn’t the problem. The problem is that every other country on earth wants to be the United States.”
Wrong on both points.
Most countries do not want to be the USA with the exception of a few two-bit dictators.
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 6:00 PM
There are addition tactical uses for nuclear weapons other than leveling cities. For instance, in Afghanistan, there was much discussion about using nuclear warheads in cave destroying operations. Nuclear weapons have the advantage of sucking the oxygen out of caves inside of a very large radius. Because of political reasons, the US used “Daisy Cutters”, conventional warheads that were within a few orders of magnitude of nuclear destructive power.
Moreover, if the India-Pakistan conflict were to escalate into all out war, nuclear weapons would almost certainly be used to take out large masses of troops.
Comment by Justin Case — 1 November 2005 @ 6:00 PM
Most countries–indeed all other countries–are not dominated by an Industrial-Military Complex like we are. Yes, they spend on defense but that’s a far cry from building up and maintaing an arsenal that can blow up the entire planet 1000 times.
Which other country has military bases of varying sizes in over 120 countries?
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 6:05 PM
Oops. Make that “Military-Industrial Complex”. Multitasking is not my forte.
I should know that ny now.
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 6:07 PM
Culturally, no. I meant in terms of wealth and power. It was a tongue-in-cheek way to say that the problems we face aren’t because of the most complex society, but because of the overall positive feedback loop of intensifying complexity. Or, put another way (just as cheekily), “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
Sure they’re conventional. Those were the weapons with which we irradiated most of Afghanistan’s population. Just because it’s rude to bring up doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 November 2005 @ 6:08 PM
“Those were the weapons with which we irradiated most of Afghanistan’s population.”
Most?
Re-check your sources.
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 6:11 PM
“The citizens of the United States who righteously oppose terrorism ought to demand that our government destroy all of our own nuclear weapons and request that all other nations follow our example.”
Jesus will walk the earth again before that happens.
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 6:18 PM
Yes…because destroying a cave system that took millions of years to form is much more conventional than two guys, two knives, one outcome.
As for using them against masses of troops…and troop followers…and the surrounding countryside…and any nearby town, village, or city. No use of nuclear weapons can escape killing a large number of civilians. The radius is simply too large. The Taliban weren’t the only ones in those caves. We just don’t talk about everyone else who used them.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 1 November 2005 @ 6:19 PM
I’m not even certain if we used Daisy Cutters in Afghanistan. Their use was eagerly awaited by the chickenhawks, but I can’t recall them ever celebrating the use of one.
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 6:22 PM
My bad.
Daisy Cutters were used in Afghanistan.
http://www.nd.edu/~techrev/Archive/Spring2002/a8.html
or so this page says.
Comment by Peter — 1 November 2005 @ 6:32 PM
The total number of warheads worldwide peaked in the mid eighties at ~80,000 (Russia: 45,000 U.S: 32,000)
Today, the count is:
Russia: 16,000
U.S.: 10,350
China: 400
France: 350
U.K.: 200
Israel: 200
Pakistan: 24-48
India: 30-35
North Korea: 6-8(?)
——
TOTAL: ~27,560
Obscene, no doubt, but a reduction of nearly 70%.
From National Geographic article “Living with the Bomb” (Aug ‘05 - whole article not available on line, check your local library)
Comment by JCamasto — 1 November 2005 @ 7:31 PM
That count is not offical and assumed. You can tell that because Israel does not claim to be a nuclear power. Israel is believed to be a nuclear power, but the presence of actual nuclear weapons is unconfirmed, let alone a count.
Nuclear Disarmerment treaties have also fallen by the wayside, thanks to our new leadership. Also we’re making more now…also thanks to our new leadership. I don’t have a link (I read it in hard copy several years ago), but there was at least on research project in the US dealing with mini-nukes. This was in the Washington Post, I’ve heard nothing else about it.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 1 November 2005 @ 8:02 PM
Hey –
Yeah — the so-called ‘Bunker Busters’. Apparently they don’t work — but they keep pumping money into development. The last I heard was about when you did, Ben.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 1 November 2005 @ 8:23 PM
Rarely is anything [i]official[/i], Ben. Please don’t over react to my choice of the word “count”. National Geographic titles that list as: “Estimated Number of Warheads, 2004″. So we’re looking at estimates of serviceable warheads, from 80,000 down to 27,000. Whether Israel has declared weapons or not - doesn’t even exceed the margin of error in evaluting arenals 1,000 times greater in quantity.
To further quote the article:
Comment by JCamasto — 1 November 2005 @ 9:07 PM
To my knowledge, the cave system isn’t destroyed– that would permanently conceal valuable records that were hidden in the caves. What happens is the oxygen is sucked out of the cave to fuel the explosion, suffocating the victims and preserving paper and electronic records. In other words, your precious cave system is preserved.
In situations where you have massive amounts of troops (e.g. the India-Pakistan border) the camps are extremely large and built away from large civilian concentrations that a nuclear strike to a camp would not kill an inordinate number of civilians.
The Taliban were not living in the natural cave system itself. Rather, the Taliban were (and are) living in artificial caves built to act as bunkers.
Comment by Justin Case — 1 November 2005 @ 9:44 PM
Some time when you’re bored, read the actual text of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To sum up, it says that other nations aren’t allowed to acquire nuclear weapons…AS LONG AS those who already have them continue to make steady progress towards complete nuclear disarmament.
So next time you hear the US say “Iran: you can’t have nukes,” think about how well we’re meeting our side of the treaty and getting rid of all of our nukes in an expeditious manner…
Comment by Jeff Vail — 2 November 2005 @ 12:57 AM
Just joking about all that, I dont think that all countries wish to be like the USA, only some power corrupted ones.
Comment by lematt — 25 March 2006 @ 8:13 PM