Nuclear War

ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR WAR

War has always been a companion of mankind, whether we look back at the caveman times or the recent years. However, in Stone Age men had primitive weapons to wage war upon each other which would end with the death of the person. Recent weapons are more technologically enhanced; they not only destroy the person they hit but effect the climate, land and generations to come. The first nuclear weapon used by United States was “on August 6, 1945, the United States exploded an untested uranium-235 gun-assembly bomb, nicknamed "Little Boy," 1,900 feet above Hiroshima. The city was home to an estimated 350,000 people; about 140,000 died by the end of the year. Three days later, at 11:02 am, the United States exploded a plutonium implosion bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" 1,650 feet above Nagasaki. Approximately, 70,000 of the estimated 270,000 residents died by the end of the year.” ( ) Through military spies, the Soviet was able to completely copy the bomb and test their first weapon in 1949 in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan. Britain tried its first atomic bomb in 1952 and France in 1960. ( ) The use of the nuclear weapon did call a form of truce between the powerful countries and gave them time to lick their wounds, regroup and attack again. After the end of Second World War, the cold war began, which gave countries like U.S., Soviet Union, China, France, Great Britain, India and Israel to stock up in nuclear weapons. These different super powers started creating and testing nuclear weapons to be better than the other country. It was a general belief that if one country had more weapons, they will be more powerful than the other and the other country will not strike; if there was an attack than there will be retaliation against the attacking nation.

One a primitive level, everyone knows about nuclear weapons and their consequences. People have witnessed the results of the first atomic bomb in Japan and the constant bio-warfare in Iraq. However, nuclear weapons are so openly discussed that there has been a sense of safety and protection associated with the possession of nuclear weapons. Countries that possess nuclear weapons are considered stronger than the other and their citizen’s feel more protected. In fact, in third world countries, like Pakistan, it is considered as an important military tactic to expand in that sector. It is generally believed that if we as a nation have nuclear weapon the other country would not attack us. As Griffiths, in the book, The Dangers of Nuclear War, suggests that “if we begin at the beginning, there was never any high chance that the United States would use its nuclear monopoly against Stalin’s Russia. If only because one probable price of such use would have been a Soviet occupation of Western Europe.” (Griffiths p. 29) These super powers are more interested in increasing their economic status by transporting nuclear weapons among different states at a higher price and make money. They already know that these weapons are not very safe to use and they might as well make money out of it. If a country wants a nuclear weapon, they can get some parts from one country, while other parts from another, the assemblage will be done in another and will be sold in another. It’s a whole chain of events that are put in place to make money and to get stronger.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The above stated argument is one side of a very controversial topic related to nuclear weapon and warfare. The other side is more pessimistic or realistic, depending on ones’ point of view, argues that nuclear weapons will be the death of everyone and it is just a make-believe safety net created by super powers to give a false sense of security to its citizens. There are a lot of religious fanatics, serial killers, murderers and mentally imbalanced people in this world. If by any chance these nuclear weapons fall in their hands there would be millions of people dead in the world. In fact, at various places it has been quoted by super powers and their military superiors that the safety of these weapons are not absolute, they can fall through the safety net and can be used without having a fool proof prevention method. In the opinion of “General Lee Butler, former head of U.S. Strategic Command, December 4, 1996, “We have yet to fully grasp the monstrous effects of these weapons, that the consequences of their use defy reason, transcending time and space, poisoning the earth and deforming its inhabitants.”” ( ) The climate, water and economic system, will all be affected negatively, which in turn will harm life form on earth.

It is a general knowledge that nuclear weapons can create fire. They are very efficient devices that if used once can have devastating effects. However, no one had ever bothered to estimate the quantities of smoke and its contagious effect that might be generated if large numbers of these weapons are actually ever used. Smoke act as an absorption agent for sunlight, which prevents the light rays to reach ground level and pollution to be dispersed in the air thoroughly. However, the sunlight absorbed in the smoke, created by nuclear weapon, will remain stagnant in the air wherever they are tested and create a ‘nuclear winter’. “Carl Sagan and his colleagues in their studies found that a war in which 100 megatons were exploded in low-yield airbursts over cities could ignite thousands of fires. The smoke from these fires would be enough to generate a Nuclear Winter, darkening and chilling the earth and reducing world food crops.” () It is a general belief that a war in the South will be confined to the South and a war in the North will be confined to the North. The root of this general belief lies in the ideology that the normal blocking action of the earth’s circulation which prevents material injected in the northern hemisphere from circulating to the southern hemisphere. The changing pattern of the acquisition and the testing of the nuclear weapons have totally changed the effect of this scientific working. There are nuclear bombs tested in the south and the north. These weapons are being tested on all levels, without actually having a prevention plan in place. Therefore, one can easily conclude that there is no place on earth that is free from all kind of radioactive waves.

Another negative climatic effect by the building and testing of nuclear weapons are the increase level of earthquake and the volcano disruptions. “Due to the various nuclear weapons testing done in 1980, by U.S. and Soviet Union, the world had its greatest volcanic activity in 70 years, with the eruption of volcanoes in the U.S., Mexico, and Indonesia. The explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was the first volcanic eruption in the continental U.S. in 60 years.” ()

Other similar such incidents also took place in Tabas, Iran, where 25000 people were killed due to an earthquake as well. Apparently, Russia was testing the nuclear weapons at Semipalatatinsk, some thirty-six hours before the earthquake incident. A very recent such natural disaster is linked with the Tsunami incident. It has been suggested that Indian government dispatched nuclear bombs to be tested in the Sumatran Trench. “The Indian Government knew full well that this was not a "normal" earthquake. On 27 December India refused to join George Bush's planned exclusive 'club of four', which would have effectively pulled this Asian nuclear power out of its new coalition with Russia, China and Brazil.” ( )

In short, nuclear weapons whether they are being tested, build or used against a country, can have a very devastating effect on its climate and natural habitations around it.

Soviet Union and United States have been after the nuclear bombs for a very long time. The government of one country states that they need more weapons so that they can protect themselves from the attack of another. The threat of massive retaliation will influence superpower conflicts at a lower level only if it is accepted that a suicidal degree of irrational behaviour is possible. If nuclear weapons could be used only to an extent suitable to the scale of the conflict, then the threat of using them could deter lower level conflicts. For such a limited nuclear warfare strategy to work, it would be necessary to use sufficient nuclear weapons to eliminate any benefits that the adversary could derive from a continuation of the conflict, without causing enough damage or apprehension to provoke an escalating nuclear response. (Perry Jr. p.g. 182-184) In fact, it has been suggested by various authors and politicians that US and USSR understand the danger behind the usage of nuclear weapons and will not as results actually deploy them. Each nuclear weapon possessed by these countries can destroy a major city in the whole world.

The former argument is completely flawed on more than one front. First of all, neither United States nor Soviet Union can guess the level of minor conflicts and the threat of nuclear weapons to stop them. If they don’t find the correct balance between the conflict and its punishment and the usage of nuclear weapon, there will be a long term negative side effects on the entire world. They as government body cannot estimate the level of wrong the other country has done and the level of punishment provided to their military men as well as the civilians of that country. This in turn will also affect other countries, like Canada, for generations to come. Since, majority of the countries are getting well equipped in nuclear weapons, the result could be a start of nuclear war between all the countries.

Regardless of the fact that technologies have improved vastly and our whole system is using one form or another of technology as a means of survival, it is still no guarantee that it is perfect. Computers are programmed by humans and are just as likely to collapse as a man’s capabilities. A very common danger associate with nuclear weapons is starting the massive destruction of cities and countries ‘by accident’. “This is being made more likely by the increase complexity and computerization of the nuclear weapon systems and of their associated communication, control and command systems. The simple, basic factor is that systems are larger, more complex and more computer-dependent, and computers are not infallible any more than are human beings.” (Perry Jr. p.g. 64) Some critics have gone so far as to state the ban on nuclear testing. These controlled tests by technologies done in space can have a lasting effect on humans, as well as, communications, radars and other satellite systems in space. This in return will destroy our technological system, which will in turn destroy our complete advancement in technology, bringing back the stone age of mankind.

Another significant example, of the controversial issue of nuclear weapons, is India and Pakistan. These two countries have been neighbours for the last half a century, with war and hatred dominating their lives. It is true that they have tested their nuclear weapons and are building more to gain the upper hand against the other person. So far, they haven’t tested these weapons out on the other country, but if they did, then they would end up wiping complete cities of one another. These two countries also consist of religious extremists, with various levels of differences with another. They can easily get their hands on most of these nuclear weapons, as the security is not fool proof, as well as, there is a lot of corruption in the system. These people would not hesitate to use it against other religious groups and wipe them out. However, they don’t possess the technical sophistication needed for handling such advanced and delicate technology. They will not only finish their opponents, but they will also finish themselves and their own country. These countries’ climatic condition will be severely changed with a lot of damage to the natural habitat and humans.

According to “Ambassador George Kennan in his speech of acceptance of the Albert Einstein Peace Prize in May 1981, “To my mind, the nuclear bomb is the most useless weapon ever invented. It can be used to no rational purpose. It is not even an effective defense against itself. It is only something with which in a moment of petulance or panic you commit such fearful acts of destruction as no sane person would ever wish to have upon his conscience.” (Perry Jr. 66) It is a very important and serious comment that should be taken into consideration by the countries that are determined on testing and building more nuclear weapons. In their opinion these countries are building their military defense against other countries and trying to protect themselves. The reality is quite different from this misplaced concept. They are giving themselves and their countrymen a false sense of security, which will result in their own destruction on a longer run.

According to “Herbert Scoville, the Scientific Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an article entitled “Flexible Madness” published in the journal Foreign Policy in the spring of 1974, “The initiation of a nuclear war at any level is a disaster that is more likely to occur if national leaders can fool themselves into believing that it might be kept small, and that they might come out the victors. This is less likely to occur in any specific crisis if the military have not prepared plans long in advance and acquired specially designed weapons to fight a limited war.” (Perry Jr. 67)

The economic effect of nuclear weapons testing and building is having a devastating effect in a lot of countries. Russia has approximately 7,150 warheads, which it cannot use without being harmful and destructive to itself. United States has a total of 1,800 megatons, which can destroy the world 18 times. United Kingdom, France and China also have nuclear weapons and can harm the world in a serious manner as well. Pakistan, India and Israel also contain nuclear weapons and have the ability to use them to destroy not only themselves but a lot of their neighbouring countries as well. All these countries are having a terrible time in paying for their nuclear weapons, which was built on the money borrowed from other nations. Russia is suffering through extreme poverty and is in a terrible financial position. United States is trying to get rid of its deficit spending and trillion dollar debt on its head. The new developing countries are struggling to develop and be more successful, yet they are bound by this new debt, voluntarily taken by them. Old powers like Britain and France are in no better position either, as they are struggling to get their financial position in order. “Since humanity can only destroy itself once, nuclear overkill serves no purpose, wastes billions of dollars in maintenance costs, and increases the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists, or by accident, miscalculation, or misunderstanding. The destructive power estimates are conservative since they only include the power of strategic nuclear weapons. If tactical nuclear weapons were added, the overkill capability would be even greater.” ()

However, the only positive point that can be derived out of this is the success of the organizations that are selling the material to of the nuclear weapons to different countries. In fact, it is more like a value chain system, where one can find the raw material at one location, assembled at another, shipped at another and finds its final market at another location all together. It does provide a complete example of globalization, fitting the description of present form of business.

The economic losses incurred by different countries are not only in the form of debt that they need to pay off at the acquisition of nuclear weapons, but also need to consider the final economic consequences of these being used. If there was a nuclear weapon hitting the twin towers at the time of 9-11 incident, then the whole New York city would be completely wiped out. The remaining effect of the smoke and gas would have affected the next four to five generations to come. Not only would one city of the U.S. be affected, but the entire country would be affected with lasting effects. Canada in turn would have been affected as well and would have lost majority of natural habitat and the basic form of shipment. The amount of money U.S. would have needed to invest in New York would have been in millions to billions of dollars, having a long-term effect which would be incurable. Canada would have lost its major form of export through its natural resources and would be set back fourty to fifty years to come.

Conclusion????