T Nation

Accidental Nuclear Armageddon


#1

The idea of an accidental nuclear strike occurring has always seemed to me to be extremely likely. It came so close so many times in the past. Can you imagine what a single ICBM warhead that got through missile defence systems could do to a city? To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already and I think it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about because they think the "red scare" is over or something. I can certainly say I'm considerably, nay immeasurably more concerned about nuclear proliferation than I am about "global cooling/warming/climate changing = our fault; must destroy industry and live in teepees). Anyway, shouldn't the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited


#2

Interesting discussion topic. Some observations/questions:

Does North Korea even have the capacity to ‘annihilate’ us all?
I imagine they can cause immense damage IF some of their nukes get by our defenses but annihilate us all?
If they were to attack first, they would immediately lose the backing of China, no? However, if we were to attack first, how would China react?


#3

the article you linked to was interesting, but I don’t see the connection to an accidental first strike. A couple years ago there was an article about the aging Soviet “doomsday device.” http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all It is supposed to be an essentially automated “all-in” nuclear response to any strike on Russia. The scary part of the article was that it is allegedly still active and with very little controls in place.

On the other hand, the whole USSR 2.0 is pretty concerning stuff. I lurk in another group based around the US/UK intelligence community. They seem very concerned about Russia. That makes me concerned. I try not to blame Obama for everything wrong in the world but he seems to turn every diplomatic situation to shit with his Audacity of Hope. I can only hope there are some strong diplomats acting who quietly disregard the POTUS’s tactics and do something right.


#4

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The idea of an accidental nuclear strike occurring has always seemed to me to be extremely likely. It came so close so many times in the past. Can you imagine what a single ICBM warhead that got through missile defence systems could do to a city? To be honest, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already and I think it’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about because they think the “red scare” is over or something. I can certainly say I’m considerably, nay immeasurably more concerned about nuclear proliferation than I am about "global cooling/warming/climate changing = our fault; must destroy industry and live in teepees). Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Well, if you happen to be in a country that is an enemy of the US government that does not have nukes then you might have something to fear considering the US government is the only country to have ever used them against people before.

Fortunately, for those countries that already have access to nukes, “mutually assured destruction” is a powerful concept which is why a country like Iran should have them in order to remain safe from the US government’s depraved foreign policy.


#5

Got keep an eye on the Legion of Doom AKA the U.S. government…


#6

Luckily Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Jihad John, and the rest of the Super Friends keep them in check.


#7

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The idea of an accidental nuclear strike occurring has always seemed to me to be extremely likely. It came so close so many times in the past. Can you imagine what a single ICBM warhead that got through missile defence systems could do to a city? To be honest, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already and I think it’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about because they think the “red scare” is over or something. I can certainly say I’m considerably, nay immeasurably more concerned about nuclear proliferation than I am about "global cooling/warming/climate changing = our fault; must destroy industry and live in teepees). Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Well, I would say we had a lull in the threat after the cold war. As more and more rogue nations develop nuclear capabilities, the threat reemerges.


#8

[quote]TheKraken wrote:
the article you linked to was interesting, but I don’t see the connection to an accidental first strike. A couple years ago there was an article about the aging Soviet “doomsday device.” http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all It is supposed to be an essentially automated “all-in” nuclear response to any strike on Russia. [/quote]

Yes, I know all about this…


#9


#10

Accidental nuclear war is indeed the most unthinkable threat we as a species live with today. Reading about some of the past’s close calls is a really harrowing experience.


#11

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Russia seems to be the bigger threat. Why not nuke them pre-emptively?


#12

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Russia seems to be the bigger threat. Why not nuke them pre-emptively?
[/quote]

Because they can fight back.

It is against US military doctrine to preemptively strike anyone who can launch an effective counterattack.


#13

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#15

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Russia seems to be the bigger threat. Why not nuke them pre-emptively?
[/quote]

Because they can fight back.

It is against US military doctrine to preemptively strike anyone who can launch an effective counterattack. [/quote]


#16

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Russia seems to be the bigger threat. Why not nuke them pre-emptively?
[/quote]

Because they can fight back.

It is against US military doctrine to preemptively strike anyone who can launch an effective counterattack. [/quote]

You should’ve done it in 1946.


#17

[quote]TheKraken wrote:
the article you linked to was interesting, but I don’t see the connection to an accidental first strike. A couple years ago there was an article about the aging Soviet “doomsday device.” http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all It is supposed to be an essentially automated “all-in” nuclear response to any strike on Russia. The scary part of the article was that it is allegedly still active and with very little controls in place.

On the other hand, the whole USSR 2.0 is pretty concerning stuff. I lurk in another group based around the US/UK intelligence community. They seem very concerned about Russia. That makes me concerned. I try not to blame Obama for everything wrong in the world but he seems to turn every diplomatic situation to shit with his Audacity of Hope. I can only hope there are some strong diplomats acting who quietly disregard the POTUS’s tactics and do something right. [/quote]

Yes I’ve heard about that. The OP article is only tangentially related to the subject in that the Cold War is not really over; quite the contrary. But whatever direction the comments go is okay with me. It’s a broad topic.


#18

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Anyway, shouldn’t the sane world have a responsibility to launch a first strike against the loonies in North Korea before they annihilate us all for starters?

Edited[/quote]

Russia seems to be the bigger threat. Why not nuke them pre-emptively?
[/quote]

Because they can fight back.

It is against US military doctrine to preemptively strike anyone who can launch an effective counterattack. [/quote]

You should’ve done it in 1946.[/quote]

We should’ve listened to Patton. Saved ourself a lot of trouble.


#19

Why is it that when I brought this up a few months ago, the “consensus” was that I was missing my tin foil hat? Seriously, Bismark tore me a new one and everyone jumped on the bandwagon calling me stupid and crazy… But now it’s plausible? No Shit…

I wholeheartedly believe that an “accidental” exchange of nuclear weapons OR a detonation of a dirty bomb / EMP by a rogue state will happen in my lifetime.

I believe that as the “Empire” of the United States begins to crack and falter under it’s own gluttonous weight, that such an event would be welcomed as an excuse to suspend inconvenient portions of the Constitution and keep the current government in power for a longer period than the population would otherwise tolerate. 9-11 and the subsequent legislation that followed laid the ground work for this. All it needs now is a trigger.


#20

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Why is it that when I brought this up a few months ago, the “consensus” was that I was missing my tin foil hat? Seriously, Bismark tore me a new one and everyone jumped on the bandwagon calling me stupid and crazy… But now it’s plausible? No Shit…
[/quote]

Funny, I thought of that too.