Steven, the missing links in your article is religion especially as it concerns Israel.

People who embrace all the premises or religion are no longer rational. They have brought unreality into their minds and believe strongly such things as: God loves them, he has nominated them as his children, that he will sweep some of them up in the Rapture which needs an enormous, fiery holocaust to precipitate it, that they will live forever, etc.

All religions are based upon the same nonsense, so given that much of the world is under the influence of one religion or another, it means that most of the world's people are irrational and so are many of their leaders.

Currently, Israel is the nation threatening to nuke Iran. If they do, the retaliation by Iran will be such that nukes will be used by Israel. So the escalation will extend to other nations.

Israel is the nation that claims such an attack will be blessed by God. Many of the Rabbis support this craziness. The Israelis are trying to get the U.S. to back them and/or join in the attack.

What chance has the world got of avoiding nuclear war? And Israel will be the touchstone that will turn our beautiful planet into a replica of the moon!

Unfortunately, there is no god to call upon to save us from ourselves!

A good, if very sobering, article. Steven’s argument that nuclear war could arise by accident rings horribly true.

SPQR, surely the logic in the article works against your premise – it is people’s reluctance to “pull the trigger” that has saved us from war already. Anyway, western countries have shown themselves all too willing to “pull the trigger” when the threat is real and serious (which a few thousand desperate asylum seekers are not).

David G, your overly simplistic argument does not do justice to the clarity and realism of the article. Governments will find all manner of rationales to engage popular support, including religion and political ideology, but they are mostly driven by the pursuit and maintenance of power. As the article argues, even “mad Mullahs” look to their own interests and safety – which may be a good thing for all of us.

@Rhian,

<< Anyway, western countries have shown themselves all too willing to “pull the trigger” when the threat is real and serious (which a few thousand desperate asylum seekers are not)>>

Well, look at it this way:

If we were to place the nuclear weapons on our ships. There is every likelihood that when the time came to *pull the trigger*, our HMAS nuclear weapons carrier would be, deployed 23kms off the coast of Java, playing the role of HMAS taxi service rescuing “asylum seekers".

While if we placed them on our planes. There is every likelihood that when the time came to *pull the trigger* they’d be on surveillance duties over the Java Sea looking for missing “asylum seekers’ boats.

In either case,they'd be, smack bang in the middle of those “ 200 airbursts” and fallout cloud!

Rhian, I don't think you understand the danger that religious fanatics pose, especially when they are armed with lots of nukes and believe that their god is supporting their imperialism.

Be very afraid!

Brian Holden, mac, SPQR, Tobamas, Rhian

I felt depressed for days after finishing this article. I don’t see any way out. I almost wish the "blame it all on Israel" crowd were right because then the problem would be containable.

To understand the magnitude of the issues ask yourselves this question:

What kind of guarantees could you offer Pakistan that would induce them to abandon their nukes?

Pakistan developed its nukes because it has a powerful, hostile neighbour called India. Never mind the rights and wrongs of the situation. That is the perspective from Pakistan. Were India and Pakistan to dismantle their nukes Pakistan would feel vulnerable to Indian bullying. Remember it was Indian intervention that led to the breakup of Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh.

For that matter how could you assure the Pakistanis that the Indians weren't cheating? India is a vast country. Realistically no watertight inspection regime is possible.

India in turn will never abandon its nukes while it has China as a neighbour. Just like Pakistan it feels the need for an equaliser.

Iran did not embark on nuclear development because of Israel. Its fear was a nuclear armed strategic rival to the south in the form of Pakistan and Saddam Hussein to the west. Saddam, as we discovered in 1991, was still very much in the nuke business.

The Saudis could not have made it plainer that if Iran goes nuclear so will they. They will, as is de rigeur, use Israeli nukes as a reason and the usual crowd will bash Israel for Saudi nukes. But the Saudis were unconcerned by Israeli nukes for decades. Unlike the Israel bashers they understand that Israel will only use its nukes in self-defence.

With so many nuclear armed nations so close to each other war by accident seems inevitable. An Israeli or Iranian or Saudi Lieutenant-Colonel Petrov will not have the luxury of waiting a few minutes to see how the situation develops. The response will have to be immediate and automatic.

It's a Greek tragedy.

In 1999 Australia invaded the Indonesian territory of East Timor. At least that's how many Indonesians see it. "Christian crusaders" occupied a part of Dar-ul-Islam.

Right now most Indonesians don't really care. A few whack jobs aside Indonesia has not been infected by the virus of Islamic fundamentalism though there are ominous signs it is moving in that direction.

The reality is that Australia's giant neighbour, ten times Australia's population, is growing in power and influence. Like all economically powerful states it will acquire potent military.

Australians really do seem blind to the reality that in the future it is Indonesia, not Australia, that will be calling the shots in this region.

Australia does have one advantage over Israel. It does not have a land border with any hostile nation. The tyranny of distance may be an economic disadvantage but it is geostrategic gold. The only country on Earth that has the logistic capability of invading Australia, the USA, is also the country's greatest ally.

But, in future, shipping to and from Australia may have to pass through waters patrolled by a powerful Indonesian navy. Aircraft will come here through skies in which the Indonesia airforce is strategically dominant.

Hopefully Indonesia will evolve into a peaceful, prosperous democracy. In that case Australia's relations with Indonesia could be like the present-day relations with, say, Denmark and Germany or Canada and the US. In both cases the smaller country today does not fear invasion from its more powerful neighbour.

But if Indonesia does show signs of developing into a Jihadi state I think Australia will go for the nuclear ace in the hole. And the RAN will be used for purposes other than ferrying asylum seekers.

There is also the possibility that Indonesia, for reasons of its own such as national prestige, decides to go nuclear regardless of what Australia does. What then?

Australia is not immune.

The Indonesians seem under no illusion as to why Australian governments cultivate the relationship with the US. It's the fear that, officially, dare not speak its name.