Why are we avoiding the ‘what if’ of nuclear war?

Adding to this MADness is the nonchalant manner that a large part of the world has adopted toward the threat of a nuclear conflict. 

The possibility has shifted to the back of our collective psyches allowing us to focus on more important issues crowding our agenda. 

By Stewart Mackinnon, CEO, Circle Pictures 11/10/2023  https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/11/why-are-we-avoiding-the-what-if-of-nuclear-war

The clear and present danger of nuclear escalation that once lurked over the civilised world’s head has dissipated into the ether, and the nonchalant manner that the world has adopted toward it raises many questions, Stewart Mackinnon writes.

Exactly 37 years ago, on a bleak outlook overlooking the Atlantic, the two remaining Cold Warriors met in Reykjavik and proposed the almost unthinkable — to rid the world of all nuclear weapons. 

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev began a dialogue that set in motion a series of summits that would ultimately not achieve this bold objective but resulted in what many historians cite as the beginning of the end of the Cold War. 

However, the question remains: to what end?

Nuclear weapons are deadlier than ever

While the Cold War came to a close, the threat of nuclear war did not. The global nuclear arsenal had reached its peak in 1986 with over 63,000 weapons in circulation compared to 12,500 today, according to the Federation of American Scientists. 

But the number of missiles is immaterial, as today’s weaponry is five times more lethal than Big Boy and Fat Man — the two bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII. 

In addition, the range and mobility of the current arsenal have expanded significantly with the ability to reach any destination — from London to Moscow to Washington — in a matter of minutes, wiping out millions of people instantaneously.

The lethality of the weapons has advanced greatly since their inception in 1942. That historic moment, which was so aptly captured in the sure-to-be award-winning film Oppenheimer, showcased how the technology for “the bomb” was developed. 

However, except for a few symbolic scenes in the film, the true horror and devastation of the weapons were largely glossed over. A missed opportunity.

From Megadeath to Mutual Assured Destruction

In 1945, history was irrevocably changed with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, leaving 80,000 citizens dead and another 30,000 to later perish from radiation exposure. 

The term “megadeath” — a unit used in estimating the number of casualties from a nuclear bomb strike — had become a reality and the horrific devastation wrought on its victims was unimaginable. 

Many survivors were burned beyond recognition and exposed to high levels of radiation that would burden them physically and psychologically for the rest of their lives.

The subsequent arms race that ensued between America and the Soviet Union led to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, that served to handcuff both sides with the premise that “if you fire on me, I’ll fire on you.” 

A flawed concept to be sure. Yet the MAD strategy (which it truly is) remains the primary nuclear conflict deterrent today.

Nuclear engagement is not out of the question

Adding to this MADness is the nonchalant manner that a large part of the world has adopted toward the threat of a nuclear conflict. 

The possibility has shifted to the back of our collective psyches allowing us to focus on more important issues crowding our agenda. 

A case in point is the most recent Republican presidential debate. While there were several questions around Taiwan and Ukraine, there was no specific reference to the “what if” of a nuclear engagement.

Sadly, such an event is not out of the question. Russia’s Vladimir Putin has openly threatened the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. 

And recently leaked documents revealed plans to conduct nationwide nuclear war drills in Russia along with the testing of a nuclear weapon in the Arctic as a show of force to the West. 

His comrade in arms Kim Jung Un regularly rattles his nuclear sabre threatening his neighbours near and far and touting North Korea’s advancements of long-range missiles capable of reaching Western shores in the not-too-distant future.

It was refreshing to see nuclear disarmament on the agenda at the United Nations General Assembly meeting a few weeks ago even though it is not one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. 

However, the issue was largely overshadowed by other global issues from climate change to artificial intelligence. Truly, these are important topics to tackle but they become irrelevant with the launch of a nuclear war where there are no winners, only losers.

We still don’t have a plan B?

As a child of the Cold War, I can still remember the air raid drills in my community and hiding under my school desk. 

That clear and present danger had lurked over the civilised world’s head but has since dissipated into the ether. 

One would hope bright minds in political capitals around the world are gaming how to avoid a nuclear conflict. 

But that notion calls to mind a moment when President Reagan after being briefed on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction posed the simplest of questions, “What is Plan B?” to which his advisors had no answer.

And today as we celebrate their famous meeting in Iceland almost four decades later it is time again to ask our leaders — “What is plan B?” #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants

October 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Scott Ritter: Are Hamas fighters using American weapons meant for Ukraine?

When it comes to arms supplies, the US is its friends’ worst enemy.

Rt.com 9 Oct 23 #Ukraine

Throughout recent history, the perceived weapon of choice for a terrorist (or freedom fighter, depending on one’s perspective) has been an AK-47 assault rifle. Today, in the aftermath of the so-called post-9/11 “global war on terror,” it’s not uncommon to see such fighters with a Glock 9mm pistol, or a Colt M4 carbine.

These are weapons paid-for by the US taxpayer and ostensibly provided to forces joined in the cause of defeating terrorists and/or freedom fighters (again, depending on the political beliefs of the observer), but that end up in the hands of the latter instead. Obviously, that is never the outcome Washington intends. And yet, somehow, these weapons end up arming the very forces the US and its allies are trying to defeat.

The most recent example of this phenomenon appears to involve Hamas and the attacks perpetrated by militants affiliated with that organization on military and civilian targets in southern Israel. A video, the authenticity of which has yet to be verified, purports to show a Hamas fighter thanking Ukraine for the provision of small arms, ammunition, and hand grenades. More videos, taken during the actual assaults, show the Hamas fighters armed with a plethora of US-made weapons.

These videos have alarmed some US lawmakers, such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia’s 14th District, who, in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack, Tweeted/Xeeted “We need to work with Israel to track serial numbers on any US weapons used by Hamas against Israel. Did they come from Afghanistan?” the Congresswoman asks. “Did they come from Ukraine? Highly likely the answer is both.”

Any attempt to answer Marjorie Taylor Greene’s questions will more than likely turn up information that should make the US government very uncomfortable. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been saying since June of this year that US-made anti-tank weapons intended for Ukraine were turning up on the Israeli border. Left unsaid by Netanyahu was how this had come to be – corruption is rampant inside Ukraine, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has reported on hundreds of millions of dollars of aid being diverted into the hands of parties it was not originally intended for. By my calculations based on conversations with numerous informed sources, the amount diverted could be as high as six out of every ten dollars of assistance sent to Ukraine. It’s one thing if this involves money; it’s another thing altogether if this involves weapons.

The wide availability of US-made weapons on the global black market used by terrorists/freedom fighters to arm themselves is reflective of the lax approach the US takes when it comes to providing military assistance to parties involved in active combat. The US appears to be more interested in reinforcing the political messaging attached to such deliveries–that the US is actively supporting friends in need. The actual security-related aspects of this effort, however, seem to escape most senior US policy makers.

This became evident in May 2022, when Rand Paul, a Republican Senator from Kentucky, tried to have an inspector general put in place to monitor and account for some $40 billion in military assistance to Ukraine requested by President Joe Biden. Senator Paul’s motion was overwhelmingly defeated by a Congress which appeared to be happy to assume a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” posture when it came to the issue of Ukraine and corruption.

The issue of US weapons falling into the hands of persons not only for whom the weapons were not intended, but –more critically– into the hands of people the weapons were intended to fight against, who then use them against American allies, is not a new one………………………………………….

The reality is that the US has become one of the major sources of weapons for terrorists/freedom fighters around the world. While Marjorie Taylor Greene is correct to demand answers when it comes to the issue of the security of Israel, a long-time American ally, the same questions can be asked about virtually every security assistance program instituted by the US in the post-9/11 era. It appears that America’s approach to fighting the global war on terror has ended up making those whom it calls terrorists more capable of carrying out the acts of violence US policy portends to be trying to stop. The sad truth is that America, in its rush to arm the world, in many ways ends up being its friends’ worst enemy.  https://www.rt.com/news/584413-hamas-fighters-us-weapons/

October 11, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment