Message boards : Cafe LHC : Discussion: risk of global nuclear war
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12698 - Posted: 10 Feb 2006, 10:41:57 UTC
Last modified: 10 Feb 2006, 10:52:50 UTC

In another thread I mentioned in passing the risk of globqal nuclear war, and Mike posted this:


I don't know anything about strangelets but i really doubt that global nuclear war is a serious concern at the time or even presently in the world. (at least the next twenty-five years, unless a global power spends a great portion of their wealth/prosperity on increasing their nuclear arsenal; which no one even seems to be interested in doing; no one seems to want to challenge the US nuclear might, since things are so stable (on a large scale), there is little reason to. I also think it's a waste of money and time; there is no reason to build a nuclear arsenal that would be a threat to the US/EU...

I wrote a long two page response about this question and decided not to post it (it wasnt relevant to the discussion). If anyone responds or is interested in what i have stated, (i doubt that will happen), i will post it...

All Im saying is: Don't lose any sleep over global nuclear war (I have a political science professor who does, and he is nuts; he admits that much...)


ACLUguy
AKA: Mike Molzahn


I am responding here as I share Mike's concern that the discussion would be off topic on the original thread, and because I do want to see his longer posting.

I don't share Mike's optimism. My feeling is that even though the odds of any given country starting a nuclear war are lower now, there are more countires that have the capability, and that means more political risks for a nutter to come to power in any one of them, and more risks for lax security (deliberate or incompetent) to leak nuclear material to terrorists.

Who can doubt after the US response to 9/11 that a nuclear strike against the mainland US (by a nation or by terrorists) would be countered by US nukes. Figure the proportions for yourself. If a war in Afghanistan and another in Iraq is a proportional response to a terrorist attack using weapons of conventional scale, what is the same proportion of response to a nuclear explosion in a US city?

The question is not what are the American feelings now - before 9/11 the bulk of the American voters would not have been behind the Afghan and Iraq wars, or so I am told (I am not American so anything I know about the US public is second hand). After 9/11 the US public's totally understandable anger changed things a lot.

How much more angry would the American people be if Manhattan had been hit by a terrorist nuke? Would a US president survive if he did not nuke some plausble target in retaliation?

And if the US used its nukes, can we be sure that Russia would not join in? I can't.

In the two country nuclear standoff, Kennedy could negotiate with Kruschev, and thank God he did. Just who would Bush negotiate with it there was a credible threat of a terrorist nuclear bomb in Manhattan?

Would the US public stand for such negotiation even if it were possible? Kennedy could talk to Krruschev as fellow national leaders, he could talk without adding credibility to Kruschev's position. If any US president talked to a terrorist under any circumstances that might be felt to be adding credibility to that terrorist group's stature - would Bush do that in the face of a threat as pressing as the Cuba crisis? Or would he feel unable to talk to terrorists under any situation?

I don't single out Mr Bush as an individual here, nor am I commenting on his politics - I'd make the same comments about any futre US president.

I would say that the risk of gloabl nuclear war is even more unmeasurable now than it was then. Not unmeasurable as in small, but unmeasurable as in we don't even know if it is a big or a small risk. The risk of there being a risk - if you see what I mean - is much much higher. There are so many more unquantifiables.

And the complacency that this is yesterdays risk only increases any danger there is. Look how the US refused to take Al Gore seriously when his report warned of lax airport security. His advice would have prevented 9/11. The "we are safe now" mind set is the most dangerous one possible.

In my view, while the US is top dog across the spectrum it is time to take the nukes out of world politics altogether. Start keeping the promises in the non-proliferation treaty that promise to work towards verifiable multi-national disarmament, work on converting all the mil-grade nuke material in the world back into civilian grade to make it far harded for the terrorists to create a weapon.

Mike: that is my opening position in this debate. I look forward to seeing both your pre-prepared piece and any responses specific to my points above.



Edit: to add

Mike: you also said
Don't lose any sleep over global nuclear war (I have a political science professor who does, and he is nuts; he admits that much


There are nutters on all sides of this debste.

Can I ask for a ground rule that we debate the merits of the argumants on each side from the premise that at least some of those on each side have sane and sincere views, and take it as granted that this includes present company, however much we find we disagree with one another ;-)

I am not interested in a nutter-count arms-race.

River~~
ID: 12698 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12704 - Posted: 10 Feb 2006, 21:36:22 UTC - in response to Message 12698.  
Last modified: 10 Feb 2006, 21:51:03 UTC


I am responding here as I share Mikes concern that the discussion would be off topic on the original thread, and because I do want to see his longer posting.


(I removed all of the apostrophes and quotation marks because they made strange symbols; i hope that doesn't inhibit your ability to read this. some things like: som biches are in quotes.)

Thank you for moving the thread and thank you for the eloquence of this whole post; I agree with nearly everything. Its just the optimism I have that seems to set us apart. I believe, as you have stated below, that a certain set of circumstances (A global power supporting a US/EU/Israeli adversary in a conflict) would have to occur for global nuclear war to ensue; or a coup by someone who is crazy. The two page response I have was more tailored to each individual state and what would happen if an attack would come from them, or the response to US aggression against one of their allies. So, I will try and respond in quotes and post what ever parts of that post I feel are relevant below.


I dont share Mikes optimism. My feeling is that even though the odds of any given country starting a nuclear war are lower now, there are more countires that have the capability, and that means more political risks for a nutter to come to power in any one of them, and more risks for lax security (deliberate or incompetent) to leak nuclear material to terrorists.

Who can doubt after the US response to 9/11 that a nuclear strike against the mainland US (by a nation or by terrorists) would be countered by US nukes. Figure the proportions for yourself. If a war in Afghanistan and another in Iraq is a proportional response to a terrorist attack using weapons of conventional scale, what is the same proportion of response to a nuclear explosion in a US city?

The question is not what are the American feelings now - before 9/11 the bulk of the American voters would not have been behind the Afghan and Iraq wars, or so I am told (I am not American so anything I know about the US public is second hand). After 9/11 the US publics totally understandable anger changed things a lot.

How much more angry would the American people be if Manhattan had been hit by a terrorist nuke? Would a US president survive if he did not nuke some plausble target in retaliation?


I would have to agree with the crux of that argument, but I dont believe that the leak of a nuclear weapon used against the US would lead to a response on the country that leaked it. If it were Russia, I doubt the US would retaliate because we would know that they hadnt intended for such an attack, the UN would be gone (if Manhattan were attacked) and the world would, most likely, take swift action to control the situation; and attempt to hunt down those responsible… If it were North Korea or Iran, I can see a nuclear response as plausible, but my optimism leads me to believe that the US would use precision weapons to demolish the infrastructure of said country and possibly follow that with an invasion (I would like to think, if that happened, the world would be behind such an effort)… Of course, the US outcry would be strong to nuke them som biches, but I dont believe the US government would unleash the most devastating weapon known to man; killing countless individuals who probably had no responsibility for the actions of their government(s)…

I would hope cooler heads would prevail and we wouldnt unleash such devastation on a country. I would think, as I stated above, it would depend on whos uranium it was and how vulnerable a country is to attack, such as North Korea and Iran, they would be toppled with conventional warfare. (I hate the term conventional warfare; the only sure convention of war is that it is brutal and usually needless.)

As you stated, the possibility of a given country (like Russia, China, Pakistan, India) starting a war is diminished; however the possibility of someone coming to power, not of sound mind, is possible. I agree completely and we know that we have irrational individuals in power in Iran and North Korea. If someone irrational were to come to power in Russia (or a coup were to take place) that would obviously change the current geo-political atmosphere and the world may fall into another nuclear scare. I do believe that once something like that would happen, the longer that person is in power: the smaller the chances of an attack were would take place (stability would build, of course there is the possibility of a whim on the part of this person). I dont see that happening in Russia, while they have moved back from democracy, if Putin were to die/be ousted they would probably have another election and thats the wonderful part about elections, (general) people whom are insane cannot go through the vetting process.

China, on the other hand, is moving toward democracy, free speech, fair wages, human rights, etc. (Slowly but surely) They are more inclined to compete and destroy the US economically. It is possible in the future they will pose a threat but I dont see that possible at the moment, they seem stable and happy with their current position in the world. The great fear is if they invade Japan; forcing the US to act... I doubt they would attack Japan and I dont feel we would respond to an attack on Taiwan.

India and Pakistan have always had a poor relationship; if only they would have been more cordial when they broke off from the British their relationship might be pleasant today; sorry for that moment of counter-factual reasoning… While my knowledge of their conflict is historically based, and I know little of their current feelings toward each other, I dont see it being very likely they would attack each other. While it is much more likely than any of the major powers like China, Russia, US, (France & UK) to attack one another, I believe they are relatively happy with their current circumstances; I dont see a preemptive strike or invasion is what I am suggesting. If they were to attack each other it is entirely possible that Russia, China or the US would become involved. I think the big three would have to make a decision: to stay out, or to help. If they were to help: I dont believe it would be in a nuclear way. And if the big three were to take opposing sides on the issue, I believe it is even more likely none would not have a serious presence and only supply support from afar; knowing a nuclear standoff would be possible. (Support in the nature of: the lend-lease program or our covert actions in Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union was occupying their country, and countless other conflicts the US has meddled in.)

So, you are completely right a mentally-deficient individual controlling a major state is a fear, but I think we would have time to see this change in the would try to reassess our current ideas about nuclear war and see how this new power fits into the global political society…

(An interesting thing about the Cuban Missile Crisis that is quite scary is that Castro was asked three questions by Robert McNamara: 1) Did you know 162 nuclear warheads were in Cuba? 2) If you did, would you have recommended to Khrushchev, in the face of a US attack, that he use them? 3) What would have happened to Cuba?

Castro said: I knew they were there. I wouldnt have recommended, I did recommend their [preemptive] use to Khrushchev; and Cuba would have been totally destroyed…

Castro went on to say, if you had been in my position: that is what you would have done…) [thats from the documentary the Fog of War; probably the best documentary ever made; and one of my top five all time movies; I recommended it very, very, very, strongly to everyone…]

I agree completely, that is the type of individual we need to fear the most… It is the most plausible cause for a global nuclear war. It is far worse than the idea of a possibly agitating one of the global nuclear powers in a conflict with another state; because we can guess, plan, and discuss conflicts with those countries; and I dont think any of the major global nuclear powers would wish to engage in the destruction of huge portions of our planet… And seeing the countries possessing major amounts of nuclear weapons as stable, I see little possibility of a major nation being run by a crazy person…


And if the US used its nukes, can we be sure that Russia would not join in? I cant.


This is the most pivotal point in what would or wouldnt lead to a global nuclear war. The risk of provoking Russia, China, India or Pakistan is the key principle that would have to be carefully considered if any nuclear bombs were to be used. (Which I dont believe would be done; as I stated above…)



In the two country nuclear standoff, Kennedy could negotiate with Kruschev, and thank God he did. Just who would Bush negotiate with it there was a credible threat of a terrorist nuclear bomb in Manhattan?


You are right I dont think he could, or would even know who to negotiate with, I believe the first sign of such an attack would be a mushroom cloud…


Would the US public stand for such negotiation even if it were possible? Kennedy could talk to Krruschev as fellow national leaders, he could talk without adding credibility to Kruschevs position. If any US president talked to a terrorist under any circumstances that might be felt to be adding credibility to that terrorist groups stature - would Bush do that in the face of a threat as pressing as the Cuba crisis? Or would he feel unable to talk to terrorists under any situation?


Even if a nuclear device were to be detonated in the states, by a terrorist organization, I dont see the US retaliating with nuclear weapons. There are key questions: What state could the US/would the US attack. The US wouldnt respond to a Russian/Chinese leak of nuclear materials because chances are it wouldnt be their fault. And as stated above, Iran or North Korea would probably be dealt with using conventional warfare. I doubt any major world power would be adverse to the US attacking such a state. And if they were, the US would have to be extremely cautious; I doubt the US would take such an action that they hadnt thoroughly thought through and discussed at the UN, or at least the powers they might upset.


I dont single out Mr Bush as an individual here, nor am I commenting on his politics - Id make the same comments about any futre US president.

I would say that the risk of gloabl nuclear war is even more unmeasurable now than it was then. Not unmeasurable as in small, but unmeasurable as in we dont even know if it is a big or a small risk. The risk of there being a risk - if you see what I mean - is much much higher. There are so many more unquantifiables.

And the complacency that this is yesterdays risk only increases any danger there is. Look how the US refused to take Al Gore seriously when his report warned of lax airport security. His advice would have prevented 9/11. The we are safe now mind set is the most dangerous one possible.


I agree whole heartedly that the unquantifiable circumstances are a serious risk, but I believe that for global nuclear war to ensue it would take several actions/circumstances to be present and it just doesnt appear to be that way (in my opinion) currently and presently.

(On a side note: I took Al Gore seriously and thats why Im glad he won the election; thats more disappointing more than it is funny… A complacent mindset is a serious threat; vigilance from the IAEA/UN/major powers is incredibly important…)


In my view, while the US is top dog across the spectrum it is time to take the nukes out of world politics altogether. Start keeping the promises in the non-proliferation treaty that promise to work towards verifiable multi-national disarmament, work on converting all the mil-grade nuke material in the world back into civilian grade to make it far harded for the terrorists to create a weapon.


I agree whole heartedly, the SALT-I and SALT-II and many of the recent steps are pivitol to making the world safe now and in the future. We all must be vigilant, write letters and (as you said) not be complacent when serious devastation is possible.


Mike: that is my opening position in this debate. I look forward to seeing both your pre-prepared piece and any responses specific to my points above.


One quote I would like to mention is: In WWII the US killed 50-90% of the people in 67 Japanese cities and then bombed them with two nuclear bombs; this was not proportional to the objectives we were trying to accomplish. (again from The Fog of War.)

Then, and now, the world hasnt seen the full force of nuclear weapons; we must try to keep that from happening. Proportion is important and I believe the destruction of Manhattan by a nuclear weapon from a state like North Korea would deserve a proportional response to the North Korean government and their country, not their innocent citizens. I believe this could be achieved without nuclear weapons and I would like to think these sentiments are shared by people in the US government…

Its obvious that we agree: a crazy person and aggravating a major nuclear power are serious concerns. We differ on the issue of a response to a terrorist attack, but it really depends on the circumstances and I would be inclined to think that its really more of a 70/30 chance against/for; which I am not comfortable with. Your argument about US sentiment really made me think about what would be done. Politicians love to appease the public and I would hope they could keep from making a poor decision based on public opinion.

(Ok so here are a few of the relevant things I wrote beforehand… (I know my post has been long winded and rambling but I just have a few more things to post so you can get the gist of what I wrote before…)

If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, I believe the US would hope Israel would still have the capability to launch a counter-attack; as to not involve the US/Russia/whom-ever in the immediate response to an attack of that nature. It is possible the US would support Israel with precision bombing and a possible invasion; which could lead to tension between Russia and the US, but if this were to happen, in my mind at least, it seems doubtful that the US would appear to be the major force in the retaliation; hoping the Russians wouldnt involve themselves also. I doubt we wouldnt have immediate diplomatic talks with the Kremlin and move things swiftly to the UN; as to not appear to be going it alone… A good and bad note on this issue is that Russia recently offered to enrich uranium for Iran; which shows they dont want Iran to have this capability, but they also have a partnership with Iran. So this is what I feel is the most possible source of tension between US/Russia on an issue.

As for China, a major source of tension would be if they were to attack/invade Japan. We would have to respond and this would cause a war, I doubt this will happen. Another possibility is a US war with North Korea and Chinese supporting the North Koreans. The only way we would risk such a war is if North Korea had attacked us with nuclear weapons. Which I feel probably wont happen and if it did I would like to think China (who has been moderate with North Korea and hosted diplomatic talks) would not be adverse to a US attack on North Korea…

A preemptive Chinese attack also seems doubtful, since total nuclear war would ensue…China has an estimated 300-2350+ nuclear bombs: There is no way they would attempt an attack that would surely lead to total annihilation of Asia and North America (and god forbid Europe).
While I see an optimistic future for China there is a risk that a tyrant would come to power and then continue the scaling up of Chinese nuclear MIRVs/MARVs and their SLBMs [MIRV/MARV] submarines like the JS-1 and JS-2, if that were to happen in conjunction with said political changes, we would have something to fear…) Of course the US would still have, baring serious reductions in arms (which we are all hoping for), the Chinese dominated with the land based (ICBM), water based (SLBM), air based (and possibly space based) weapons. I wouldnt like to see a political climate were the world had to deal with such circumstances…

Ok so thats more rambling and long winded posting than I really need to be doing. I am sorry, I assume some (or maybe most) is incoherent and convoluted; forgive me for that…

Mike

Post Script: The crunching setup you have is awesome; I wish I had a network like that ;) …
There are a couple great sites on this issue like : http://www.fas.org/nuke/index.html and the CIA world factbook and other pdfs are quite interesting about countries...


blog pictures
ID: 12704 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12706 - Posted: 11 Feb 2006, 0:26:29 UTC - in response to Message 12704.  
Last modified: 11 Feb 2006, 0:56:02 UTC

Small correction:
The Chinese JL-1 & JL-2 (and HY) are their SLBM missiles, not the submarines themselves; please forgive the error. (On a side note, with the US continued reduction, and the Chinese increase in production of SSBM (SLBM) and land based ICMB's: the "domination" I spoke of earlier shouldnt last long unless China curtails their production; hopefully nations will stop producing large numbers of these evil things.)
Thank you,
Mike
Post Script: The missiles and submarines with nuclear warheads are here.

blog pictures
ID: 12706 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12708 - Posted: 11 Feb 2006, 2:01:56 UTC - in response to Message 12706.  
Last modified: 11 Feb 2006, 2:05:07 UTC

I'm sorry to post again, but the more i think about nuclear weapons, and war in general, i become disgusted...

The top ten military spending countries spend: $691,973,300,000 a year...
(with the estimated US 2006 increase it's now 761 Billion USD's)

Can you imagine what the world could do if the top ten military spenders cut their funding in half?
(Half of that is $66 dollars (37 pounds/55 euros) for every man women and child in the world...)

How much good could we do with 380 billion? How many scientific achievements could be made? How many people could be saved with medications and operations? What magnificent things that we have only dreamed of could be done? Could we bring Carl Sagan back to life; i bet he would have a few good ideas...

sorry, I had to share that,
Mike

Post Script: Figures courtesy of the CIA world factbook

blog pictures
ID: 12708 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12709 - Posted: 11 Feb 2006, 6:44:11 UTC - in response to Message 12708.  
Last modified: 11 Feb 2006, 7:22:11 UTC

Yet again, I know I am posting, but I also feel this is important.

The Fog of War (11 lessons from the life of Robert McNamara) is by far the best documentary ever made, and among the top five movies ever made. (as i mentioned in my first post...)

I strongly suggest to anyone who reads this: rent the film!!!. (Robert McNamara was the president of ford [when they were profitable], he was there there during WWII, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis & Vietnam, he worked as the president of the world bank for 13 years; he has profound insights into 20th century global conflict.) (He was, of course, President Kennedy's secretary of defense during Vietnam and the Cuban Missile Crisis...)

(((This is where River~~ has everything correct: a quote from the film:
'Rational Individuals, came that close [holding his fingers a millimeter apart] to total destruction of their societies… The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations; is it right and proper, that today, there are 7500 strategic offensive nuclear weapons, of which 2500 are on 15 minute alert to be launched by the decision of one human being?')))


It is directed by Errol Morris ("Brief History of Time" and "Thin Blue Line")

It received the Oscar for best documentary, an Eddie for best documentary, Chicago film critics - best documentary, directors guild of america - Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Documentary, Nominations and awards from: the spirit awards, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, National Board of Review, Online Film Critics Society Awards, Satellite Awards, Toronto Film Critics Association, and two awards from the Cannes...

Here are links to the trailers:


Windows Media (ASX)
Quick Time (MOV)
Real Player (RAM)

Mike
Post Script: Please see this film. If i can get one person to see this film, and spread it to others, i would be more than grateful (my lifes work would be complete)... I wish everyone on earth could see this film; war would cease to be a problem.

blog pictures
ID: 12709 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12716 - Posted: 11 Feb 2006, 20:06:24 UTC

Hey Mike - I came back hoping for one long post, and got a few short ones as well as a bonus! Thanks.

There are three areas where I am less optimistic than you concerning a US response, and a fourth that neither of us has mentioned yet.

I also share your optimism that it is not too late to do something about it.

I disagree with you on the US view of the UN and on the US reluctance to involve innocent civilians.

I do not think the US now regards the UN at all seriously. It basically did not care about the UN's views in the most recent Iraq war. If a US president wanted to nuke somewhere they'd just do it.

Secondly, the US does not care about enemy civilian casualties. During the cold war, official policy of the US was that citizens of any country, democratic or otherwsie, could be held accountable for the actions of their government. That was the rationale used to justify the possible nuking of Soviet and East European citizens during the cold war.

A similar situation exists today in Iraq: the Iraq war has killed more Iraqi civilians that it has killed combatants on all sides. The only possible thinking behind this is that in the view of the White house the life of a US serviceman is more important than the life of many Iraqi citizens. This is in contrast to the requirements of the laws of war, as promulgated for example by the Union government during the US civil war for the guidance of Union tropps, and upheld by the US at Nuremburg. Those standards have been relegated to lip service by the US, hence its refusal to take part in the International Criminal Court.

Thirdly, (rhis is the totally new point) considering Guantanamo Bay, the US has taken the stance as a new line of thinking in international law that treaties governing conduct in wartime are irrelevent to actions taken against terrorists. Otherwise the prisoners there would be entitled to the protection of the Red Cross and other rights as PoWs.

Even if the US did recognise the laws of war, it would logically take the stance that any nuke that was not detonated by a state entitled the US to take any action whatsoever as no international laws would apply. I have a Law degree - that is the way lawyers think. Once they have a plausible argument (as over Guantanamo) they will expand it every which way regardless of human cost.

Fourthly, I do not think the US would be able to take Russian views into account. The scenario might be

1. Nuke in Manhatten. Al Q takes responsibility.
2. Russia warns US not to retaliate
3. US nukes Afghanistan and/or Iraq and/or any other territory where Al Q has operatated; whilst warning Russia that it has kept the vast majority of its aresenal back for MAD
4. Russia launces a few against US in proportional response to US nukes
5. US refuses to accept that there was anything for Russia to be proportional about and launches massive pre-emptive strike back

Notice the multiple destabilising influence of the third party that initiates the use of nukes - it opens wider the door for nuclear escalation. It becomes even lees likely to imagine a 'limited' nuclear exchange when the two major powers do not agree which weapons count to which side.

It would not be a case of launching against a country that had leaked the fuel, but of launching 'to make sure we destroy the places where this weapon was produced' and (in the anger of the moment) not caring about the 'collateral damage' to all those innocent citizens any more than the current US and British governemtns care about the Iraqi civilians killed in the recent war there.

The reason there is cause for hope is that the US is still a democracy. Things can be done to change its direction, as they can in my counrty (the UK). IN my view letter writing and voting are important, but will probably have to be augmented with massive peaceful protests to achieve an end to the nuclear weapon culture.

It is not to late to hope -- but I still believe it is more urgent now than it was in the days of the Soviet Union. For me the only valid hope is hope which prompts us to action to make it so.

River~~
ID: 12716 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12717 - Posted: 11 Feb 2006, 22:28:13 UTC - in response to Message 12716.  
Last modified: 11 Feb 2006, 22:35:13 UTC

Hey River~~, thanks for your response. Yet again it's eloquent; and in recognition of your ability with the English language: it cannot compare to my longwinded ramblings. :)


Hey Mike - I came back hoping for one long post, and got a few short ones as well as a bonus! Thanks.

There are three areas where I am less optimistic than you concerning a US response, and a fourth that neither of us has mentioned yet.

I also share your optimism that it is not too late to do something about it.

I disagree with you on the US view of the UN and on the US reluctance to involve innocent civilians.

I do not think the US now regards the UN at all seriously. It basically did not care about the UN's views in the most recent Iraq war. If a US president wanted to nuke somewhere they'd just do it.


While it is true those innocent civilians are often a "casualty" of war, I don't think the US (or UK) takes the loss of life "all too lightly".

It's is completely true that the (current) US government (and many citizens) believe the UN should be there when we need them, and when we don't, or disagree: they are "unnecessary, far reaching and either full of terrorist countries that shouldn't tell us what to do, or liberal-socialist Europeans."

You should hear the right-wing talk radio, in the States, talking about the UN being a "new world order" and pointless... (It's really quite sad) I believe that the coming legislative elections in November, and the presidential race in a few years, will change this attitude. (Traditionally, in the US, when a president has a mid-term election [of the congress], his party loses nearly every time.) So I am hopeful that soon we will see a change in the US political atmosphere and put emphasis back into the UN, law and international partnership that isn't one sided...


Secondly, the US does not care about enemy civilian casualties. During the cold war, official policy of the US was that citizens of any country, democratic or otherwsie, could be held accountable for the actions of their government. That was the rationale used to justify the possible nuking of Soviet and East European citizens during the cold war.

A similar situation exists today in Iraq: the Iraq war has killed more Iraqi civilians that it has killed combatants on all sides. The only possible thinking behind this is that in the view of the White house the life of a US serviceman is more important than the life of many Iraqi citizens. This is in contrast to the requirements of the laws of war, as promulgated for example by the Union government during the US civil war for the guidance of Union tropps, and upheld by the US at Nuremburg. Those standards have been relegated to lip service by the US, hence its refusal to take part in the International Criminal Court.


Well put. I must agree that, while we don't take the loss of life lightly, Iraqi and Afghani civilian loss of life is not held in the same esteem as that of US and UK citizens; by the White House and the administration neo-cons. (This is a sad state of affairs.)

However, I don't feel the terrorist threat is (very) comparable to the cold war mentality (were not hiding under desks or building bomb shelters), so I wouldn't think we wouldn't use a nuclear weapon against a country and group their citizens in the same category as we would the terrorists.

The only country that I can really see us bombing is Pakistan. (Intelligence points to Osama and many of the Al Qaeda leaders being in Pakistan; as I am sure you have seen our recent "smart" bombings of specific houses in Pakistan.) I would think for this to happen: it would need to be shown that Pakistan either helped or turned a blind eye to the construction and deployment of such a bomb.

Anyhow after 9/11, The US government increased its aid and strengthened their partnership with Pakistan, so I wouldn't see us bombing them either, aside from the aforementioned circumstances.

North Korea is what I see as, the most plausible.

Of course all of this brings us to your fourth point of escalation and upsetting Russia or China.

I agree whole heartedly about the US lip service and failure to join the criminal court. The attitude toward international law, specifically rules of war & treatment of prisoners, must become a primary concern for the US. From what I understand the refusal to join the criminal court was a fear of US citizens being tried as war criminals. (I don't believe the government found that acceptable; yet again the mentality of "our way or the highway.")


Thirdly, (rhis is the totally new point) considering Guantanamo Bay, the US has taken the stance as a new line of thinking in international law that treaties governing conduct in wartime are irrelevent to actions taken against terrorists. Otherwise the prisoners there would be entitled to the protection of the Red Cross and other rights as PoWs.

Even if the US did recognise the laws of war, it would logically take the stance that any nuke that was not detonated by a state entitled the US to take any action whatsoever as no international laws would apply. I have a Law degree - that is the way lawyers think. Once they have a plausible argument (as over Guantanamo) they will expand it every which way regardless of human cost.


That's great that you have a law degree, are you a Professor at Open U? (I'm taking a constitutional law class at the moment; we dealt with law, in small parts, in my international relations classes.)

There is a huge push in the US to close "Gitmo" and cease the practice of rendition; mostly by the ACLU, one of my favorite organizations, and certain senators and representatives. The US public and portions of the government are starting to recognize we cannot keep these "enemy combatants" indefinitely, and we must allow the Red Cross and other organizations to monitor any detainment of any "enemy combatant"... Hopefully new bills working through congress, public sentiment (in US and internationally) will force the administration to stop subverting, well established, international law. (These changes will probably come once congress demands action, or President Bush & his secretaries are out of office...)

I agree with all this aside from the point that the US would take any action against whomever they wish. While I have little, to no faith, in the President and his administration, I don't believe they are completely inept, nor would take an action that would lead to escalation of nuclear tensions between Russia or China. We have hotlines and diplomatic channels that would be implemented immediately. I cannot see either China or Russia not sharing our will for retribution; in a non-nuclear way, unless a specific country like Pakistan, Iran, or South Korea were to help with the attack.


Fourthly, I do not think the US would be able to take Russian views into account. The scenario might be

1. Nuke in Manhatten. Al Q takes responsibility.
2. Russia warns US not to retaliate
3. US nukes Afghanistan and/or Iraq and/or any other territory where Al Q has operatated; whilst warning Russia that it has kept the vast majority of its aresenal back for MAD
4. Russia launces a few against US in proportional response to US nukes
5. US refuses to accept that there was anything for Russia to be proportional about and launches massive pre-emptive strike back

Notice the multiple destabilising influence of the third party that initiates the use of nukes - it opens wider the door for nuclear escalation. It becomes even lees likely to imagine a 'limited' nuclear exchange when the two major powers do not agree which weapons count to which side.

It would not be a case of launching against a country that had leaked the fuel, but of launching 'to make sure we destroy the places where this weapon was produced' and (in the anger of the moment) not caring about the 'collateral damage' to all those innocent citizens any more than the current US and British governemtns care about the Iraqi civilians killed in the recent war there.


This is where we really differ, as I stated in the previous post and touched on in this post. I don't feel the US would take careless actions in the heat of the moment, the idea of using nuclear warheads wouldn't be carelessly discussed and deployed without serious thought and discussion. In the set of circumstances where it was plausible to use nuclear weapons, I don't believe the US would be willing to upset the Russians or Chinese, and I would think Russia or China wouldn't tell us not to retaliate against a nation that either helped or allowed the construction of a nuclear weapon. (I know I'm sounding rather redundant, with my last post, and this post, so I will stop.)


The reason there is cause for hope is that the US is still a democracy. Things can be done to change its direction, as they can in my counrty (the UK). IN my view letter writing and voting are important, but will probably have to be augmented with massive peaceful protests to achieve an end to the nuclear weapon culture.

It is not to late to hope -- but I still believe it is more urgent now than it was in the days of the Soviet Union. For me the only valid hope is hope which prompts us to action to make it so.

River~~


Well put, yet again, eloquent and completely in line with my thinking. I do agree it is possible for escalation, but doubt it would be a factor after an attack on New York. Let's hope if it were to happen, it doesn't happen in the next three years while George Bush is in office trouncing the law and widely held beliefs about being part of a civil society...

River~~ It's been more than fun. I have, yet again, thoroughly enjoyed your opinions, and discussion, thank you again,

Mike

blog pictures
ID: 12717 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12723 - Posted: 12 Feb 2006, 19:30:47 UTC - in response to Message 12717.  


River~~ It's been more than fun. I have, yet again, thoroughly enjoyed your opinions, and discussion, thank you again,
Mike


Likewise - you have identified accurately where we disagree and Ive nothing more to add. Thanks for the discussion, and I will keep my fingers crossed for the next round of elections - I don't know enough about internal US politics to know if you are right, but I certainly hope you are.

River~~
ID: 12723 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
DerekL

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 5
Credit: 31,262
RAC: 0
Message 12740 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 6:39:52 UTC - in response to Message 12698.  

River, I wrote about a five page reply to your post - but I deleted it because I can sum it much more succintly thusly;

You haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
ID: 12740 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12748 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 20:23:55 UTC - in response to Message 12740.  

River, I wrote about a five page reply to your post - but I deleted it because I can sum it much more succintly thusly;

You haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about.


Thank you for your erudite, detailed, and constructive critique

R~~
ID: 12748 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile StarHalo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Oct 05
Posts: 2
Credit: 13,156
RAC: 0
Message 12749 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 23:22:03 UTC

A few points to spice the conversation -

- In the history of mankind, only two nuclear devices have ever been actually used as weapons in wartime against an enemy, and that was over 60 years ago.

- A B-2 bomber costs $2 billion dollars to build. The cost of the Mars Pathfinder mission was just under $500 million total. That means every B-2 that you see represents roughly four missions to Mars. There are 21 active B-2s in the US.

- Maintenence and operational costs of the US Nuclear program is just under $100 million dollars a day. Or 73 missions to Mars yearly.

- The reason the League of Nations failed is because the US didn't take it seriously and went it's own way. Note our current relationship with the UN.

Good convo thus far, all. However, I think you should draw the distinction between nuclear weapons and what is probably the larger modern threat, *dirty bombs*.
"The whole world is ours; not a single creature resists us, we devastate the world, we repopulate it with new objects which, in turn, we immolate. The means to every crime is ours, and we employ them all, we multiply the horror a hundredfold."
ID: 12749 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12760 - Posted: 17 Feb 2006, 0:54:32 UTC - in response to Message 12749.  
Last modified: 17 Feb 2006, 1:45:57 UTC

A few points to spice the conversation -
- The reason the League of Nations failed is because the US didn't take it seriously and went its own way. Note our current relationship with the UN.

Hey guys,
I figured i would let this thread die, but i thought i would make a couple comments and a clarification or two:

River~~,
When we were discussing "Gitmo" and inspections from the Red Cross (and other humanitarian organizations): We both said the Red Cross should be able to monitor "Gitmo".

I recently read that "Gitmo" is being monitored by the Red Cross, so we both weren't quite correct about that. On a side note, they cannot make public anything they see or do at "Gitmo".

DerekL,
While River~~ and I disagree, i belive your comments could have been put forth in a more civil tone. (i don't mean to offend, or start a flame war, I'm just adding my 2c's in respect of River~~ and his opinions.)

StarHalo,
Every time i hear something about the League of Nations, I wonder what Woodrow Wilson would think had he seen World War II; surely his hopes to fight a "war to end all wars" would be dashed. :( Hindsight is 20-20 and I bet congress would have ratified/joined the league had they known the future... From what I learned in 20th century global conflict class, not ratifying the LoN and forgiving debt/war retributions led to WWII; of course we all know the entire century was one long war until Glasnost, Perestroika, and other Russian policy changes, led to Russia and the satellite/bloc states spliting away from communism & the soviet union...

warning, only read the italic if you want to read rambling facts/opinions about china
An additional point on global nuclear war... While i don't think China is much of a threat and I assume (and hope) major powers will stay stable and friendly I have a couple additional points on China: (just a few opinions and facts you may find interesting)

1) I did mention their possible 2350+ nuclear bombs I believe that is false information leaked for political purposes. The US government now assumes the number to be 300-900 with around 20-50 ICMB's capable of reaching the US. (Of course SLBM's and nuclear warheads delivered by submarine and plane could reach the US easily, but would be seen ahead of time.)

3) China and Russia did participate in joint war games last year, showing it is possible that they might join each other in a common goal and becoming hostile in the future, but I doubt that they would wish to engage in MAD.

4) China has been great, in respect to being stern, with North Korea and has been a force for peace; which is obviously, a great sign.

5) Recent satellite photographs have been taken of an underground/cave submarine/SLBM site... the pictures and report were put out by The Natural Resources Defense Council although the Pentagon has a lot more information and photos.

6) China's navy will overtake the US navy in the next 10 to 20 years if current building continues as is.

The reason China is being so secretive is they either don't wish to scare the US/Japan, but I also think they release articles such as the 3250+ nuclear warhead memo, to keep other nations from under estimating their might as a nation. Or they plan to return to a bi-polar world atmosphere; or just be the dominant power. The US respons is mixed at best, you don't know if the increase in budget "because china is a threat" is for military gain and purely scare tactics, or what they mean when the adminstration also says china is a friend and partner that we shouldn't fear. I have a few theories about the double-speak, but i won't elaborte: i have already filled my daily requirement to write something long winded and convoluted today. hehe :)

Anyhow those are a few things to chew over if you are interested in China... (It was on my mind, maybe someone else will find it interesting; or comment.)


Mike Molzahn
Aka: ACLUguy

Post Script: I don't fear, nor do i think anyone should, fear China; those are just a few rambling thoughts and facts for contemplation of the future geopolitical atmosphere.

On a side note, if those 20-50 ICBM's are MIRVs thats 60 to 600 warheads... (3 warheads x ICBM for the conservative 20 estimate, and 12 warheads x ICBM for the liberal 50 estimate) ... ...
MIRV picture 1
MIRV picture 2

blog pictures
ID: 12760 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12776 - Posted: 18 Feb 2006, 13:28:44 UTC - in response to Message 12760.  
Last modified: 18 Feb 2006, 14:00:41 UTC


I recently read that "Gitmo" is being monitored by the Red Cross, so we both weren't quite correct about that. On a side note, they cannot make public anything they see or do at "Gitmo".

Do you have a reference for that, or a url?

I'd still say that if they cannot publish general details about conditions (as opposed to comments on particular cases) then that does not count as monitoring as far as I am concerned. I'd concede that this would be better than nothing.

...

warning, only read the italic if you want to read rambling facts/opinions about china


From my point of view the most interesting thing about China is that they are the only 'legal' nuclear weapon state NWS to have voted in the security council in favour of multilateral disarmament. This has been consistently their stated position: if they mean what they say (and some people doubt that) then they are the only NWS to be consistently trying to uphold their obligation under the non proliferetaion treaty to move towards collective multilateral disarmamnet.

The small size of their arsenal by US/Soviet/Russian standards give some credibility to their diplomatic position, IMHO

and by the way, this does not mean I admire other aspects of Chinese policy, but simply that I believe in giving credit even where it is due to the most unexepcted quarter...

River~~


ID: 12776 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12778 - Posted: 18 Feb 2006, 17:32:15 UTC - in response to Message 12776.  
Last modified: 18 Feb 2006, 18:32:08 UTC


Do you have a reference for that, or a url?

Quote - Rumsfeld also took a swipe at Annan, saying, ''He's never been to Guantanamo Bay,'' whereas representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross ''stayed there, lived there 24 hours a day'' to observe conditions.

From that quote it appears they have spent time there, i'm not sure if the monitoring is constant, but it appears that they are/may continue to monitor.
AP-printed in Twin Cities Star Tribune by AMY WESTFELDT 2-17-2006

Quote - The International Committee of the Red Cross is the only independent monitoring body allowed to visit Guantanamo's detainees, but it reports its findings solely to U.S. authorities.

From that statement it seems as if they are monitoring at least on an "on again off again" basis.
AP-Twin Cities StarTribune by EDITH LEDERER 2-16-2006

At worst it was a one time "thing", at best it is on going; it sounds as if it is somewhere in the middle. (at least that's what i can gather from the articles; i will take a look a breif look at a few other articles and see if i can figure it out.)


I'd still say that if they cannot publish general details about conditions (as opposed to comments on particular cases) then that does not count as monitoring as far as I am concerned. I'd concede that this would be better than nothing.
...
~~River


I have to agree whole-heartedly with that; i couldn't have explained it better myself.
Mike

Post Script:
Quote from International Committee of the Red Cross website - ICRC in Guantanamo Bay - October 2005

The ICRC has been visiting detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since January 2002. There are currently about 500 detainees from roughly 40 countries. As of early December 2005, the ICRC has facilitated the exchange of nearly 20,800 Red Cross messages between the detainees and their families in more than 30 countries.


Links:
12-12-2005
11-30-2004

blog pictures
ID: 12778 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12781 - Posted: 19 Feb 2006, 8:25:41 UTC - in response to Message 12776.  
Last modified: 19 Feb 2006, 9:14:06 UTC

Hey River~~ I thought i would post a couple quick points about China... (I wasn't going to, but since you made a point of responding to my bi-polar statements: I thought I would give you the benefit of hearing my perspectives; so we understood each other.)

From my point of view the most interesting thing about China is that they are the only 'legal' nuclear weapon state NWS to have voted in the security council in favour of multilateral disarmament. This has been consistently their stated position: if they mean what they say (and some people doubt that) then they are the only NWS to be consistently trying to uphold their obligation under the non proliferetaion treaty to move towards collective multilateral disarmamnet.

While they have been a force for positive change, China is by far the most secretive, of the major nuclear powers, in the world.

The US has some (minor, mainly industrial protection) restrictions on who, and what the (IAEA) can view, but figures on our nuclear arsenal and where the warheads are maintained and stored are public information; whereas China refuses to have complete inspections and allow the world community (IAEA/UN) to have complete information and touring...

The small size of their arsenal by US/Soviet/Russian standards give some credibility to their diplomatic position, IMHO

Yes, if they stop building up nuclear arms, navy, and conventional weapons (as they have been for nearly a decade, at a pace far greater than any industrialized nation) that would lend more credibility. However, they continue to build their navy and are assumed to be building their nuclear arsenal (as demonstrated by that recent article two posts ago).

and by the way, this does not mean I admire other aspects of Chinese policy, but simply that I believe in giving credit even where it is due to the most unexepcted quarter...

Agreed, they have been great with North Korea and in other aspects of reform in their government. I do see them as the worst human rights violator; not even USA, Saudi Arabia, and several other voilators combined, can even come close to a shred of similarity when comparing their violations in human and civil rights.

Yet, I see positive change in the future for China and hope to god (figuratively, i do not believe in god) that they continue on their path of reform; no matter how slow it may be.

And at this point in time I see no reason to be fearful of China; it is only changes in future circumstances that would make me fearful of warfare. The thing i feel is most destructive for the US and EU is their theft of intellectual property (which is beyond the pale) and the manipulation of their currency... I empathize with the mistreatment of Chinese citizens on an incredible level; it's so sad to see such treatment from an industrialized nation.

That is yet another thing we can agree on...

Mike Molzahn
AKA: ACLUguy

Post Script: It was nice to see those articles from the Red Cross about their involvement in Gitmo... Glad we could "get to the bottom of that"; from the two AP articles it was hard to grasp the level of involvement. Thankfully their website lent a great deal of insight... Sadly it's not enough; i would like to see more accountability; in an open and informative way..

blog pictures
ID: 12781 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12786 - Posted: 19 Feb 2006, 20:49:03 UTC - in response to Message 12781.  

Post Script: It was nice to see those articles from the Red Cross about their involvement in Gitmo... Glad we could "get to the bottom of that"; from the two AP articles it was hard to grasp the level of involvement. Thankfully their website lent a great deal of insight... Sadly it's not enough; i would like to see more accountability; in an open and informative way..


yes thanks for doing the research on that.

Most welcome news as far as I am concerned is to discover that the US authorities are allowing letters from/to families via red cross.

R~~
ID: 12786 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
senatoralex85

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 4,221
RAC: 0
Message 12794 - Posted: 20 Feb 2006, 6:30:52 UTC

Our world is made of nuclear giants and ethical infants

-Omar Bradley-
ID: 12794 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12795 - Posted: 20 Feb 2006, 7:08:44 UTC - in response to Message 12794.  
Last modified: 20 Feb 2006, 8:05:04 UTC

Our world is made of nuclear giants and ethical infants
-Omar Bradley-

(my response may just be a wish for this thread to be continued; I've enjoyed it very much.)

While I know who General Omar Nelson Bradley is, and appreciate his contributions, i don't feel that a quote strengthens any argument aside from the anti-nuclear weapons argument; which both River~~ and i prescribe to (and i assume most all, educated people, that work on LHC would also agree with).

I would love to hear an opinion in addition to the quote; which was made in the midst of the cold war... (I love hearing opinion and debating.)

(No offense intended) A quote is a nice way to contribute to a thread without actually reading it; in it's entirety, that is... (River~~ and I haven't disagreed on much, but that which we have disagreed on is quite significant.) I am aware River~~'s and my own responses are quite long, so reading the entire thread it daunting to say the least...

Mike

AKA: ACLU Guy

(Indeed, my response may just be a wish for this thread to be continued; I've enjoyed it very much.)

Perhaps we should just leave things as they are; it would be a fitting way to end this discussion (Sorry, if you had just prefaced the quote with: "I love this quote and feel it's relevant"; that would be far more than enough for me to not respond, perhaps i've drank too much to realize the intention; aside from the obvious.)

Posted by: senatoralex85-
Our world is made of nuclear giants and ethical infants
-Omar Bradley-


blog pictures
ID: 12795 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12800 - Posted: 20 Feb 2006, 17:15:06 UTC
Last modified: 20 Feb 2006, 17:15:33 UTC

I'm deeply sorry, i was "trashed" last night and it's obvious just by posting that he felt it was relevant to the discussion. Don't bother responding to my last post; if a moderator could delete this and my last post that would be great.

Mike

Post Script: I wish we could edit past one hour ;)

blog pictures
ID: 12800 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
senatoralex85

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 4,221
RAC: 0
Message 12815 - Posted: 21 Feb 2006, 19:41:54 UTC - in response to Message 12800.  

I'm deeply sorry, i was "trashed" last night and it's obvious just by posting that he felt it was relevant to the discussion. Don't bother responding to my last post; if a moderator could delete this and my last post that would be great.

Mike

Post Script: I wish we could edit past one hour ;)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't worry about it. No harm done! I UNDERSTAND your feelings and realize that you have put a lot of time into your posts and you feel that others contributing to the discussion should as well. No excuse needed!

My reason for putting in a quote there was to give all of us something to think about. I have the quote as well as many others hanging on my bedroom door. Everytime I enter my bedroom, I often think about the quotes and how than can be applied to today's society. The quote I posted is one of my favorite.

At first, I wanted to write a huge post explaining my opinion on this topic, but I think that quote summed up my position as well as gave us all something to think about if we have not already done so!

Great discussion everyone!



ID: 12815 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Cafe LHC : Discussion: risk of global nuclear war


©2024 CERN