The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear destruction: inevitable or avertable? > Comments

Nuclear destruction: inevitable or avertable? : Comments

By Tim Wright, published 28/3/2006

As the Doomsday clock ticks, we stand not at an impasse but at a juncture. You decide: is nuclear war inevitable or avertable?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Good article, good question.
As someone who was either a child during the worst of the Cold War or not yet born, I cannot truly say whether there is a greater or lesser 'feeling' of impending nuclear war compared to the past.

However, one could argue that the pissing contest between the US & USSR is a safer scenario than large number of states with nukes with a far more complex matrix of agendas & pressures.
India & Pakistan came to a standoff only a few years ago (stopping my planned holidays to the area) Israel, who as mentioned, never signed a non-proliferation treaty uses the 'do they/don't they?' uncertainty to its advantage. Considering its use of traditional forces, there is no reason to believe it would not use nukes if pressed. North Korea is not exactly stable and would definitely use the threat of nuclear arms as a bargaining chip. Of course there are other states, and there will be more.
It is also arguable that the end of the cold war, and the US's subsequent belligerence is actually increasing & speeding up the proliferations of nuclear weapons. If a state was being seriously threatened, the leaders have the responsibility of creating the best defense possible. Nuclear weapons have proved to be the ultimate 'leveller'. Iran is a perfect case in point. The US is in a rush to stop the development of nukes in Iran, as once they are built, much of the US's strong-arming ability is negated.

Overall, there will be both good and extremely bad with proliferation. The 'norm' would probably be a global nuclear standoff where the peace is kept simply because there is always the 'nuclear option' to erase any agressor. Of course, with more players, there are more chances for one to 'blink' and the results will be catastrophic.

PS. Of course, all of this is at a state v state level. None of this will stop the Rwandan-style bloodshed that is too much a part of this world.

=my2c
Posted by BAC, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 10:34:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although I agree with the sentiments of this article, Tim has made numerous factual errors which will inevitably be exploited by the proponents of nuclear energy.

In the climate of green-house gases and global warming, many are proposing the use of nuclear energy as the solution to our environmental woes. Under no circumstances should we accept that nuclear energy as a "short-term" solution. Storage of High Level Waste is unsafe at best, and no civilisation has lasted long enough to ensure that the 200,000+ years required for Actinide Immobilisation and neutron criticality event risks to subside, has ever existed. Rome only lasted a few hundred years.

The British did not detonate 21 devices in Australia. The figure is 12 and full details can be found at http://users.bigpond.net.au/anva/UKtest.htm . Tim may be getting confused with further Hydrogen Bomb tests that the British did in Christmas Islands in the Pacific (not to be confused with the Australian territory in the Indian Ocean).

Further to this, over 600 "minor trials", what are now called "dirty bombs" were detonated. These were subcritical tests that spread plutonium and enriched uranium over limited areas.

The bombs dropped on Japan, unlike those of Maralinga/Monte Bello/Emu, did not cause a great legacy of plutonium and uranium contamination. Fat Man and Little Boy were detonated at high altitude of some 550-600 metres. The fireball never touching the ground caused little ionising radiation contamination. Most of the problems, still detectable today, are from a process call "Neutron Activation". Nevertheless, these bombs were small compared to the more advanced hydrogen bombs of today, which are in the order of 300-4000 times more powerful.

As in the cold war, any state that resorts to nuclear, or other WMD does so knowing the risk that retaliation will certainly result in their complete and total destruction. The principle of MAD still holds strong.
Posted by Narcissist, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 11:17:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that we are closer to nuclear war today than we have been for 60 years. The dropping of the bombs on Japan, which saved the lives of the prisoners of war and millions of other soldiers and civilians on both sides, because it allowed Japan to surrender (for the first time in its history) without excessive loss of face, ushered in the nuclear era in which we still live. It should be remembered that even after Nagasaki, the Japanese cabinet was equally divided on surrender, and it was decided to surrender by Hirohito's casting vote. That is why I think it was right that he was not tried as a war criminal. Throughout the cold war east and west had one basic thing in common that was so fundamental no-one realised it - neither side wanted to die. This led to nuclear stalemate and the eventual peaceful end to the cold war. So not only did the bomb end ww2, it preserved the peace for 45 years. The problem with North Korea today is not critical, because they don't want to die either. However with Iran and other countries in the Middle East, they say they are quite happy to die. The crisis could come later this year if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities. If Iran were to reply with an attack on Israel using WMD, there could be a full nuclear response on Iran by the US. President Bush may well give Iran a nuclear warning soon, along the lines of the one given to the USSR by Kennedy. All this will depend on how things play out when Iran is referred to the Security Council. It could be an interesting year.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 11:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether we hear about it or not, we will always be on the cusp.

They will never use it, it is a mine is bigger than yours mentality, and it is used as a tool to get respect and feel powerful, just like a gun is on a person.

If it happens we are all gone, but if it has not happenned by now one could assume there is less chance of it happennig in the future, as day by day the world gets smaller, information is shared and people interact with eachother on a world scale far more than in cold war days, and the world is getting more sympathetic with less Themos every day.

The nuclear age has matured, it will always be there, but if a terrorist gets hold of one and uses it, we may end up in a holy war.
Posted by Realist, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 12:44:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim might want to take a look at a column posted on OLO some time ago – here’s the link.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3567

I think we are now safe from the kind of nuclear holocaust that threatened us during the Cold war. However, I think that the risk that small numbers of these weapons might be used has increased since the fall of the Berlin Wall. States like India, Pakistan, China – and a future Iran if the mad mullahs there have their way – need no longer fear triggering a global catastrophe if they use these weapons.

There is also the risk that terrorists might gain access to nuclear weapons. I don’t think they have as yet (Al Qaeda would certainly have used one if they had one to use) but the security of the still large global arsenal is certainly an issue. We also need to consider the risk of an adverse regime change in nuclear-armed states. What if Pakistan’s Musharaff were overthrown by lunatic fundamentalists? The regime would then have control of a developed nuclear weapons arsenal, complete with means of delivery. Doesn’t bear thinking about.

It would be best if there were no nukes at all, but this is fantasyland stuff. There is no way, as history shows, to suppress scientific discoveries once made – and certainly the physics and technology of nukes. You can learn from the Net almost everything you need to know to build a basic fission bomb. The difficulties are in obtaining the fissile material (U-235 at 95% purity or Plutonium-239 at similar purity levels) and in the extremely precise engineering and technology required to build a workable and deliverable bomb. But the essential knowledge is there. However, it takes the resources of a state to construct one and it’s not something that’s easy to conceal.

We have to learn to live with these weapons. Some fool may well use one or two them one day, and that will be an atrocious thing. But we are no longer at risk of blowing up the world.
Posted by Mhoram, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 7:59:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i believe the threat is still there and real. The United States of America possess enough nuclear weapons to bomb the whole world 3x over. ( may not be accurate but you get the picture)
The Russians also posseess ample supply of nuclear weapons obtained from its previous owner Soviet Union.
Russia is in a state of chaos. Corruption is so obvious in parts of that goverment, just 1 high ranking russian official slipped in by terrorist organization can be enough to launch a nuclear missle from russia to USA, and after that the USA will retaliate with nuclearm missles firing back! then after that Countries like Europe will join the fray, and then mabye CHina taking the chance of USA looking the other way will attempt to take over asia, possibly with nuclear weapons!
Its castrophic! Chaotic! but its real and looming closer..
Posted by Artermis, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 9:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Possibly the biggest nuclear danger in the world today is Israel having a nuclear arsenal and Iran not. One wonders why little Israel was ever allowed to go miiitarily nuclear really upsetting the Middle East power-balance.

The question is, can Israel be power-balanced somehow, because if it is true that Iran ia well into developing atomic weaponry, and Israel does let go even one nuclear deep pemetration warhead on Iranian underground nuclear works, even not quite completed, the massive fallout added to that of the Israeli warhead could cause untold human destruction much wider than Iran itself?

There is another danger that both Russia and China might be prepared to sell or give atomic warheads to Iran, using Bismarck's principle of power-matching between Israel and Iran, similar to the quest for peace in the late 19th century. We might guess that better relations between India and Pakistan might have been achieved this way. For example, pressure from the UN could no doubt have stopped either one going nuclear, but maybe it was better to let their powers be matched, with watchful glances from UN powers, of course.

Israel's atomic capabilities, though possibly keeping some sort of peace in the Middle-East, must also still be fuelling much of the Islamic hatred and terrorism still threatening our existence today.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:18:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that not only America but the UK and of course our little Johnny apparently believe in the rule of force, a top dog replacing UN functions, except for housekeeping, I would rate the probability as increasing.
The Americans have been upgrading the stockpile not only to better weapons but to ones which can be used on the battlefield. Deeply penetrating, busting bunkers (and perhaps less ionising radiation for the field of battle ? ) or small enough to be locally superior but not having much radiation, air blasts?
Given this dog eat dog chase for supremacy the inevitable is likely in the shorter term, certain in the longer. This of course is the rationale for the apparent hypocrisy of the US on the stance taken by Iran though holding their tongue on Israel, as does the UK one of the suppliers of atomic know how to Israel. (is not Israel in violation of the UN?) The nuclear shield and deep funk holes in the US will of course aid domination. The rattle can be used without necessarily wide spread destruction or perhaps just a demonstration on some unloved site.
Does Australia have plans for a nuclear shield? Do we already have deep well stocked funk holes-for those that matter at least?
Posted by untutored mind, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 9:14:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is truly a sad situation, and, although the pressing matter of fanatical Iran wanting the pinnacle of western military technology (which is hypocritical to the core, people who claim to hate us but want all our gadgets and toys) will no doubt come to a head this year, I believe it will only get worse.

I think it's disgusting that the western world haven't united to threaten Russia about selling nuclear technology (which they also stole from the U.S just after WWII). Truly, everything can be blamed on them, as it is they who helped the Chinese develop them, and it just goes on.

The west needs to unite on this issue, threatening all out invasion, even the dropping of nuclear weapons on nations that try to procur them, especially Islamic nations.

I have no problem, as although technically it is hypocritical to take this position, when one looks at the context of Muslims with nuclear weapons - given how unstable their governments are, it's unnacceptable.

I honestly think the west should tell Pakistan to give them up or be attacked, and, as for Iran, they should be bombed as well. What decent people they are, I mean, not only would Iran not even have electricity if not for the west, but they have built their plants in built up areas with civilian populations.

This will make Israel or the U.S look bad when they attack them, just as the rabid Chomsky said that the US bombs schools. Well, yes, but if that's where the weapons are, those civilian deaths are on the enemy's hands not ours.

Muslims simply aren't ready for them, and if that sounds bad, so be it. Their cultures are largely barbaric, their customs cruel, their politics fragmented, violent, and intensely racist & tribalistic
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 12:22:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I grew up in Europe about 4 hours drive by tank from the Iron Curtain. Despite marching against cruise missiles and neutron bombs we didn't expect to get old. Incredible was the relief when we saw people on the wall in 1989. The real fear had been a technical glitch in automatic launch systems. We didn't really expect any of the leaders to order a pre emptive strike.

Things have changed since. More countries have bombs, but all of these have fewer bombs. As with all technology it cannot be uninvented and eventually it will spread throughout the world. In the cold war dropping one bomb would result in launching all bombs. I don't think that is still the case. If Tel Aviv and Tehran are nuked would that cause the US, USSR, Brits or French to use their nukes? I don't think so. If NY is nuked by terrorists and the US retalliates would that cause everyone else to join in a nuclear frenzy? I doubt it.

The world has survived many individual bomb tests. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years on are thriving cities and not desolate wastelands. Yes the risk of limited nuclear war has gone up but the risk of all out nuclear war making the world uninhabitable has gone down.
Posted by gusi, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:56:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just read an article from Google called "The Nine Paths of Global Citizenship" edited by Doug McGill. Though it does give impressions concerning the Paths to Reason, Faith, Democracy. Humanity, Ecology, Free Trade, Feminism, Corporatism, and Perennialism, it seems Reason and Faith are the pair to which the rest are linked.

It is so interesting that McGill chooses Socrates as the patron saint of reason, and Albert Schweitzer the Patron Saint of Faith.

But the chosen pair are so far apart in history that Socrates should be the choice. Why, because though he never ever wrote a word, his talks or teachings came from deep within, as quoted by Plutarch. And so fitting regarding our political and globally social problems of today, because Socrates talked about one world, as we might talk about globalisation and one system of democratic thought.

It is also critical that among his Socratic reasoners, McGill chooses Immanuel Kant, who in opposition to his later German contemporary, Wilhem Hegel, chose peaceful negotiation as a social cleanser while Hegel chose war as the cleanser of the soul.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 30 March 2006 1:18:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part Two
As the above Socratic theorem leans much towards democracy, it is so important that McGill chooses an American, Woodrow Wilson, said by some to be the original founder of the idea of the League of Nations. However, McGill who groups Socratic reasoners together when he brings in Woodrow Wilson as the founder of the League of Nations, fails to mention Immanuel Kant, who was grouped earlier among McGill's Socratic reasoners.

Indeed, . Immanuel Kant is so important historically, being well known as the one so disgusted with Napoleon breaking the Enlightenment code of Liberty Equality and Fraternity, that he wrote a thesis on a Perpetual Peace achieved through a Federation of Nations, the idea from which both the League of Nations and the United Nations were devised according to most historians..

Further, in relation to the above, in his Path to Democracy, McGill quotes Jonathen Schell, who argues in his “Unconquerable World” that the string of non-violent revolutions that occurred in the late 20th century in the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, South Korea and other countries is evidence that America’s present very active military dominance as the way to democratise problem nations like Iraq, goes against the grain of the obvious successes of modern people power.

Finally, it also must be emphasised, that the strength of such people power, as proven, is not generally related to the ballot, but similar to the 1688 Glorious Revolution in Britain, which behind the scenes was strongly influenced by the English philosopher John Locke, still a very popular historical figure in the US of A.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 30 March 2006 2:47:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The biggest threat is China but only while the Communist regime is in power.
Get rid of the Chinese communist regime and the world will be a much better safer place.
Look at the history and play of Hitler's regime. The communist regime has played on the greed of western governments to abandon safety and ignore the facts.
Inviting China and other rogue states into the United Nation, the World Health org, The World trade org. Olympic Games is the same path Hitler took.

Communist regime is laughing at the greed and the stupidity of western Governments just like Hitler did.

We invite these Chinese delegates into our countries to discuss trade and invoke the communist regimes security packages on our democratic rights,freedom of assembly and speech so that the dignity of the Chinese delegates is not harmed by the likes of Falun Gong and the Tibetans . What does that say about the mental stability of our Governments?

Australia is going to sign a uranium deal with Chinese communist regime this week>>
Why do our governments keep ignoring the facts that the leaders of the Chinese communist regime are murderers, liars, torturers, which equals ANTI-HUMAN.

Does this also make our western governments anti human?? Against humanity?

The threat is real but it will come from China if we dont do something about this now and stop our stupid greedy Howard Government from throwing our future away
Posted by Jana Banana, Sunday, 2 April 2006 3:27:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy