Are we too scared of nuclear war?

[Billy Cox]

It was not so long ago that we assumed that use of nuclear weapons would lead to the immediate destruction of nearly every living thing on Earth.

Question: Is that still a reality?

Let's take an extreme and very unlikely example. Let's say that Pakistan launches a nuclear strike on Mumbai India and kills several million people. While the attack and probable retaliation would lead to unprecedented death and destruction, I cannot imagine how that would cascade into anything beyond a huge bloodletting in South Asia.

[Jim Franklin]

The volcanic ash from Krakatoa lasted several years and from Mt. St. Helens several months. The radiation dust from a dirty bomb could last quite awhile. The long term after effects are why they are called dirty. In defense of our freedom and nation we had better have the will to use extreme methods or we will capitulate to a threat. Do the red, white and blue colors run and hide? When the going gets tough the tough get going and defeatists roll over and belly up.

[Bruce Carriker]

Billy,

If Pakistan and India want to lob nukes at each other, it's probably what you say...an South Asian bloodbath, but not much else. But, how widespread does a nuclear conflict become if it occurs in the Middle East, or the Korean Peninsula?

What if Iran nukes Israel, and Israel responds in kind (Israel's nuclear capability is the worst kept secret in the world, I think)? Or what if North Korea nukes Seoul, and we nuke Pyongyang back (since we've agreed to play big brother to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan for the last 50+ years)? Or what if Pyongyang went crazy (don't put anything past Kim Jong Il) and nuked China? I'll bet a mushroom cloud over Beijing would have worldwide consequences.

But here's the bigger problem...non-proliferation treaty or no. Once North Korea has a nuclear weapon that is successfully married to a delivery system, no one is safe and everybody's going to want one.

In "high tech" countries, that means little more than going out and doing it. Certainly Canada, Japan, South Korea, and most of Western Europe could all be nuclear capable within a couple of years, tops. Even if they gave back ALL the missiles, how many of the former Soviet states have citizens who worked in the USSR's nuclear program? It might take them a little longer, but I'm guessing within 5-10 years, Belarus and Ukraine could certainly be nuclear capable; as could Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Argentina and South Africa.

As I said in a different post, the genie's out of the bottle. The genie was actually out of the bottle in 1945. What's amazing is that we kept the cork in the bottle this long. Even if we destroyed every nuclear warhead in existence, it's only a matter of months or years before some country makes a new weapon. Once that happens, we're headed right down the same road. We can't unlearn the things we know.

Isn't it ironic that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on armaments, and yet a little country with a population not much greater than the New York metro area, has us this worried? Who's to say? Maybe more and bigger bullets isn't the answer, after all.

[Billy Cox]

Billy,

If Pakistan and India want to lob nukes at each other, it's probably what you say...an South Asian bloodbath, but not much else. But, how widespread does a nuclear conflict become if it occurs in the Middle East, or the Korean Peninsula?

What if Iran nukes Israel, and Israel responds in kind (Israel's nuclear capability is the worst kept secret in the world, I think)? Or what if North Korea nukes Seoul, and we nuke Pyongyang back (since we've agreed to play big brother to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan for the last 50+ years)? Or what if Pyongyang went crazy (don't put anything past Kim Jong Il) and nuked China? I'll bet a mushroom cloud over Beijing would have worldwide consequences.

But here's the bigger problem...non-proliferation treaty or no. Once North Korea has a nuclear weapon that is successfully married to a delivery system, no one is safe and everybody's going to want one.

In "high tech" countries, that means little more than going out and doing it. Certainly Canada, Japan, South Korea, and most of Western Europe could all be nuclear capable within a couple of years, tops. Even if they gave back ALL the missiles, how many of the former Soviet states have citizens who worked in the USSR's nuclear program? It might take them a little longer, but I'm guessing within 5-10 years, Belarus and Ukraine could certainly be nuclear capable; as could Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Argentina and South Africa.

As I said in a different post, the genie's out of the bottle. The genie was actually out of the bottle in 1945. What's amazing is that we kept the cork in the bottle this long. Even if we destroyed every nuclear warhead in existence, it's only a matter of months or years before some country makes a new weapon. Once that happens, we're headed right down the same road. We can't unlearn the things we know.

Isn't it ironic that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on armaments, and yet a little country with a population not much greater than the New York metro area, has us this worried? Who's to say? Maybe more and bigger bullets isn't the answer, after all.

Yes the genie is out of the bottle, but the genie is not nuclear weapons but is rather the physics that made such weapons possible. If the USA had not built and used the first nuclear weapons, some other nation certainly would have.

Perhaps we should accept that a nuclear attack somewhere in the world is inevitable. What is not inevitable is that it would lead to every nuclear nation firing all of their weapons.

Iran attacking Israel is very unlikely. Such an action would be indefensible even for the other Arab states. What would be more troublesome would be an Israeli nuclear attack on any Arab state. Unless something significant changes in the Middle East, a nuclear attack there is very unlikely.

[Glenn Harris]

Part of it is that we have been programmed to believe that a Nuclear strike should only be used as a last resort. (Kind of the if I'm going down, you're going with me, mentality) I would like to think that that is still the case. I get real concerned when people start acting like a nuclear strike is a reasonable alternative and when they start using words like acceptable loss, battlefield nuc and limited exchange. As we found out from Chernobyl, radiation doesn't honor national boundaries or borders and there is no such thing as controlling the genie and Chernobyl is childs play compared to a high yeild detonation of a nuclear bomb. It's not a genie in a bottle, it's pandora's box. We let it out once and if anyone ever lets it out again the world will be much the worse for it. I'm reminded of a news conference that Mayor Guiliani gave after 9-11 and the question was posed to him, "how many casualties are there?" The answer he gave was fitting then and it's fitting now. "More than we can bear"

Am I worried, no, am I concerned, yes.

edited to include:

for clarification, my response is not as much directed towards the possibility of a rogue nation, like North Korea or Iran detonating a "dirty" bomb as it is towards a true nuclear power ever considering it an appropriate retaliatory response, or worse yet, a pre-emptive one.

[Ian Gentles]

Nuclear weapons are here to stay face it. We cant get rid of em now, as if we did others would use then against us. Am i scared of em? You bet! But i would be scared of em more if west got rid of its deterant!

[Rick Morton]

Iran attacking Israel is very unlikely. Such an action would be indefensible even for the other Arab states. What would be more troublesome would be an Israeli nuclear attack on any Arab state. Unless something significant changes in the Middle East, a nuclear attack there is very unlikely.

Something to think about I believe the Iranians are Persians they hate the Arab Nations and the Arabs have no love lost for the Iranians.They feel they are the true leaders of Islam and the Arabs are weak and have walk away from the faith. I know I know not all Iranians feel this way. But right now those Iranians are not running the show. And I don't think the Iranians running the show will go to Saudi Arabia and ask for there blessings if they decide to nuke Israel.