Saturday, October 27, 2018

Who Profits From Ending The Mid-Range Nuclear Treaty?

I Do Not Benefit From This, Do You?
An article questioning who benefited from ending the mid-range nuclear treaty inspired this short response. The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or rational from attacking America, and for anyone else, an arsenal of any size will be insufficient. What we are talking about is the Intermediate-range Nuclear-Forces treaty also known as the INF Treaty which limits missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,000 km. China, Iran, and North Korea do not pose a “threat” to the United States by deploying these "short range" missiles. The INF is all about the European theater of war.

We go about our merry way thinking in the back of our minds that while someone may someday unleash a nuclear bomb that may kill hundreds of thousands or more people but the odds are it will land on someone else. The problem with this theory of survival is that a huge number of deaths will come not at the time of detonation but later. The radioactive fallout created as the explosion gathers up tremendous quantities of dust and ocean water and spits them into the atmosphere which then represents a secondary grave risk, especially in the first hours after an attack but one that remains for many years.

Like many people, I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring. What the world would look like following a nuclear war is very murky, yet today it seems many people consider nuclear weapons as just another tool or option for us to use in our defense if we are attacked. In an article published by Project Syndicate, Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, and Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005 writes;
In this new environment, the “rationality of deterrence” maintained by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has eroded. Now, if nuclear proliferation increases, the threshold for using nuclear weapons will likely fall. 

"Duck and Cover" Is A Poor Strategy For Survival! (click here)
I agree with Fischer that today a great number of people have come to accept the idea of a "small or limited' nuclear war as acceptable. The reason they feel this way may center around the fact they have not given it enough thought. If enough damage is done to the world those surviving will face lives that are greatly diminished in quality. The article below delves into the massive cost of these programs.
http://Nuclear Weapons-Putting The Issue In Perspective.html

Ironically, while people know this might happen little real preparation for such an event has taken place. One of the few places to make an effort is Ventura County, located just northwest of Los Angeles, they have taken the unusual step of prepping a 250-page plan on how to respond to the humanitarian crisis that would result from a nuclear attack in Los Angeles. Their efforts even include a truly bizarre and some people might say, frightening public service announcement that instructs folks to shelter in place and cover windows with plastic.

On a more positive note, while a global nuclear confrontation is generally viewed as a bad thing, for Ron Hubbard, President of Atlas Survival Shelters in Los Angeles, it has resulted in an economic windfall as a staggering number of Californians and people even as far away as Japan have suddenly turned into doomsday preppers. The company, based in Montebello in eastern Los Angeles, sells shelters priced from $10,000 to $100,000. The shelters are designed to be buried 20 feet below ground and can sustain survivors for up to one year, depending on the size and model. This means they should give you more protection than simply ducking and covering up, that is, of course, providing you can get there in the few minutes you may have.

Footnote; Below is the link to another article related to the subject of nuclear war.

Footnote #2; Seriously, I have to question how many of us might forget "not to look at the light" or do that "duck and cover" thingy when caught by surprise.

1 comment:

  1. Can we not get down to about 300 nuclear devices that are 100x stronger than Hiroshima and figure we are have a responsible deterrence to anyone who is rational? Check out