Nuclear War Scenarios
Recently I have had some discussions with a few souls whom I deem intellectuals about nuclear weapons in the world today. I do not wish to name names, but those, if they read this, know who they are. An interesting point was raised. I do not know if I thought of it, but out of a lack of a recollection who actually raised the point I do not take credit. The idea was raised about what do we do once a country has developed nuclear weapons? In truth, we cannot do anything. The US has not hitherto had a conflict with a nuclear state, and as with Pakistan, China and North Korea, while they were highly discouraged from creating WMDs, Nuclear Weapons, et cetera, once they had them, the USA has not really done anything about it. For the record the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has had no effect on the world. But what if one of these countries, North Korea, went to war with another, say the US of A, for I am a citizen of the latter.
It is obvious that the USA would not nuke North Korea, under any circumstances, for North Korea, if it still existed, would probably nuke the USA right back, thus resulting in a good chance for total annihilation of the human race, and maybe the Earth. So North Korea, if it is to be assumed that Kim Jong-Il is indeed insane (as I believe, but I have heard many a person who vehemently disagrees with me and say that Kim Jong-Il knows exactly what he is doing) then he would obviously bomb the USA again. However, the US would probably nuke Pyongyang and Kim Jong-Il in the process; but if he were to survive, a nuclear retaliation would be very probably. However, what if he didn’t bomb us back? That would mean that the human race would still exist (or what was left of it) and the USA would have gotten away with another nuclear attack.
This presents a startling scenario. Any country that uses nukes first may have the luxury of not being nuked back, in order to save the human race. So that would give the power into the country which has the fortitude to attack first. What a scary thought that is. One country gets to nuke the other, and then there aren’t any more nuclear attacks for a generation or so, as the scenario goes (this is similar to game theory, I am told). The scenario is startling.
These hypothetical situations present a few striking notions. First of all, a country with nukes can do essentially whatever it wants to do; human right violations, drug trade, even nuke another country! However, no one knows who will be the next idiot (actually I am painfully undecided about what I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to pull the trigger on a WMD. Could it be Kim Jong-Il? Maybe it will be whoever the leader of Pakistan is in the next few years? Maybe China will go for it. Or could it be George W. Bush? Maybe even Ehud Olmert. The fact is no one has any clue who will be the unfortunate leader who goes down in history as dropping the third nuclear/atomic bomb in history. Regardless, countries with WMDs are afforded a luxury those without them are not, and they instill the fear in other countries that those with nukes do not.
For the record I have not raised any new/unique points, but I wanted to present the hypothetical situations in this way, as I am sure others have. Thank you.
It is obvious that the USA would not nuke North Korea, under any circumstances, for North Korea, if it still existed, would probably nuke the USA right back, thus resulting in a good chance for total annihilation of the human race, and maybe the Earth. So North Korea, if it is to be assumed that Kim Jong-Il is indeed insane (as I believe, but I have heard many a person who vehemently disagrees with me and say that Kim Jong-Il knows exactly what he is doing) then he would obviously bomb the USA again. However, the US would probably nuke Pyongyang and Kim Jong-Il in the process; but if he were to survive, a nuclear retaliation would be very probably. However, what if he didn’t bomb us back? That would mean that the human race would still exist (or what was left of it) and the USA would have gotten away with another nuclear attack.
This presents a startling scenario. Any country that uses nukes first may have the luxury of not being nuked back, in order to save the human race. So that would give the power into the country which has the fortitude to attack first. What a scary thought that is. One country gets to nuke the other, and then there aren’t any more nuclear attacks for a generation or so, as the scenario goes (this is similar to game theory, I am told). The scenario is startling.
These hypothetical situations present a few striking notions. First of all, a country with nukes can do essentially whatever it wants to do; human right violations, drug trade, even nuke another country! However, no one knows who will be the next idiot (actually I am painfully undecided about what I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to pull the trigger on a WMD. Could it be Kim Jong-Il? Maybe it will be whoever the leader of Pakistan is in the next few years? Maybe China will go for it. Or could it be George W. Bush? Maybe even Ehud Olmert. The fact is no one has any clue who will be the unfortunate leader who goes down in history as dropping the third nuclear/atomic bomb in history. Regardless, countries with WMDs are afforded a luxury those without them are not, and they instill the fear in other countries that those with nukes do not.
For the record I have not raised any new/unique points, but I wanted to present the hypothetical situations in this way, as I am sure others have. Thank you.
posted by Brian Hillman at 9:20 PM
7 Comments:
this is our future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e38JRLCc0qQ
For someone who makes the rather grand claim of being an intellectual and writer you might want to tighten up your use of punctuation. Seriously, man! You suck at writing!
Thought I'd butt in.
I'm curious who these nuclear "intelectuals" you speak of are. A Nuclear war between the US and North Korea would not be the end of the world, the end of the US, or even the end of North Korea.
Leaving the fact that North Korea only posesses enough nukes to "damage" maybe one of our cities (the one they tested was several times smaller than the bomb we used on Hiroshima and they've only had enough nuclear fuel to produce, at most, a half dozen of these devices). They don't even have missile's capable of reaching the US.
In addition, a small nuclear exchange such as one between the US and North Korea would do very little environmental harm. (keep in mind the US and Soviet Union tested thousands of Nuclear weapons over the past half century... we are all still here).
Even a large scale nuclear exchange between say... the former Soviet Union and the US would not be the end of the world, or even the end of the human race. Life in the US and Soviet Union would certainly be significantly degraded, but humans would continue to survive.
Your intellectuals must not be very intellectual when it comes to nuclear weapons. North Korea doesn't have workable nuclear weapons in any numbers nor any way to deliver them to the U.S. All they've managed thus far was a pathetic fizzle.
Your intellectuals must not be very intellectual when it comes to nuclear weapons. North Korea neither posseses them nor a way to deliver them against the U.S. So far this weak and impoverished nation has managed a fizzle of a pathetic fission bomb.
As an "intellectual" you might wish to educate yourself a bit: even an all-out nuclear war, with ALL nuclear weapons used, will not eradicate human race. It will reduce the population by at most 1/2. Limited or local nuclear war will have much smaller consequences.
PhD in physics.
Yeah, I agree with the other posters. Due to S.A.L.T., and other treaties there is no more M.A.D. I hope acronyms don't hurt your "intellectuals'" minds.
Post a Comment
<< Home