All this time I thought the two ultimate paths to destruction were drugs and unprotected sex. Guess I can go live it up now. Thanks!

But there is never just 'a single nuclear bomb'.

Based on our vast experience with dropping nukes?

It is not sophisticated technology that has pushed us to the brink of destruction....

You don't think H-bombs require sophisticated technology?

We were not content to sit back and relax.

No, we weren't. I actually appreciate air conditioning and a cold Coke in the fridge, and cruising the highway at 70 mph to get somewhere. And how about those airplanes? And movies. And music reproduction. And Fender Stratocasters. And computers. And modern medicine. And space telescopes. What kind of primitiive world would you prefer?

... nuclear weapons have no place in a peaceful world.

Um, well, yeah, I guess. Where is that world?

Mutually Assured Destruction can lead to one thing only - mutual destruction.

Says who? It kept the Soviet tank force from mowing over Europe, didn't it?

A world where the US, Russia, China and the rest of the big powers are no longer nuclear is undoubtedly a safer one

Ain't gonna happen. Think of something else.

It is a testament to our sophistication that we now have the ability to do so.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

We can get through this. After all, people were making the same kind of scary pronouncements when disco hit its peak in the '70s.

Heathlander,,,where does stem cell research fit into your view of the world?

The threat of nuclear weapons is so meaningless in this era that I find your article fundamentally disconnected from the real world. The chance of a widespread nuclear confrontation is minuscule, because the countries which have enough nukes to do worldwide damage are completely disinclined to actually use them. If Iran had 10,000 nukes I'd worry, but not when the US has them. We don't need nukes to deal with our enemies, and neither do Russia and China. We've also had them long enough to know that their use is self-defeating.

As for the climate-change issue which you devote less time to, there's a good reason for neglecting it, I suppose. After all, it's far from proven science, and even if we are going through a climate shift, our ability to stop it is about as limited as our ability to cause it.

Dave

"A world where the US, Russia, China and the rest of the big powers are no longer nuclear is undoubtedly a safer one, ..."

I doubt it. In fact, the US' posession of atomic weapons probably saved us from an extremely destructive and deadly war with Russia. A conventional war along the lines of WW2 would probably have resulted in more deaths than the 40 million (a horrific death toll) of WW2. The number of people actually killed by nukes is relatively small.

"...not least because the incentives for smaller countries to spend vast amounts of money and risk international isolation in order to go nuclear will be vastly reduced."

Only the most foolish and deluded leader of a small country would undertake a nuke program. Would you? If I lead a small nation the very last thing I would undertake would be a nuke program. Such a program will make you the immediate target of hundreds of automatic US missile nukes that one has no defense against. It would be madness, and empirical evidence supports my assertion: the leaders of small nations that seek nukes are quite evidentally mad. Just look at the leaders of Iran and North Korea.

Jamie,

Interesting piece...

Just a few thoughts. A culture of wasteful consumption will reduce bio-diversity, and over time make life very hard for u. That is a no-brainer. The only people who will rewsent this argument and fight it are those who resent giving up the creature comforts of wasteful consumption, or who aspire to wastefully consume as do their richer "betters." That's a lot of opposition right there.

The strategy of mutully assured destruction that was prevalent when the Soviet Union was still around actually kept us alive. As a survival strategy, it was fit for its time.

No such universal strategy exists now. The enmity and adverarial relationship between Russia and the US, the main nuclear powers, is clouded over by the fact that others are playing in the club due to the significant weakening of Russia...

IN addition, nonbody wants to accede gracefully to a unipolar world where the USA is the be all and end all arbiter, and Americans do not understand that the choice beore them is three fold. One is an inefficient imperial policy, which only costs blood and money but does not guarantee American supremacy, a second is an efficient imperial policy, which costs blood and money but does give Ameerica mastery over the world, and finally, accepting that an unstable multipolar world will emerge, one where nuclear war is a distinct possibility, one where worries over security finally overtake the determination to preserve liberty.

It apopears that the US is following an inefficient imperial policy, and that a multipolar world will result from it.

The esential solution to all this, as you point out, is a change in human morality, human nature. You then dismiss this as a remnant of Christianity myths. Funny that you don't even give us Jews, who fathered both Christianity and Islam, any credit. But on the other hand, you do spare us the blame. Seems to me that you've paddled yourself up a nasty creek and tossed away the oars.

I hope I'm not in the same boat you are.

"You don't think H-bombs require sophisticated technology?"

Obviously, I do. I said it will not be the sophisticated technology that does us in; it will be the mentality that leads us to use them.

"The chance of a widespread nuclear confrontation is minuscule, because the countries which have enough nukes to do worldwide damage are completely disinclined to actually use them."

India. Pakistan. Israel. There was a time when only the superpowers had nuclear weapons, and now look. Proliferation happens, because a world where some countries have nukes and others don't is not sustainable. All that is going to happen as time progresses is that it will get easier to go nuclear, not harder. Iran would likely be nuclear right now, were the Shah not deposed in 1979.

"What kind of primitive world would you prefer"

I am not 'blaming' technology. Our trait of costant striving is a necessary one, because without it all we see around us (including, probably, ourselves) would not exist. That is why I brought up intellect, and it allows us sometimes to disobey our evolutionary characteristics. Because in this case, regarding both climate change and nuclear weapons, bigger, stronger and more is bad.

"Says who? It kept the Soviet tank force from mowing over Europe, didn't it?"

Arguably, MAD worked for that situation. The fact we were in that situation at all was madness in itself, but it could be argued that nuclear weapons prevented a war. Then again, thanks to MAD, the world came ridiculously close to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It doesn't apply now, in a world where there are several nuclear powers and proliferation will mean more and more will join the club. It is true that nuclear disarmament has to be accompanied by a more sensible foreign policy. The UN should be strengthened and big countries should treat it as the highest authority. Nevertheless, there can be no such thing a secure world when nuclear weapons still exist.

"The esential solution to all this, as you point out, is a change in human morality, human nature. You then dismiss this as a remnant of Christianity myths."

Firstly, I did not dismiss anything. I merely included a link to someone who does dismiss the idea that we can change ourselves, John Gray. I then said 'I disagree'.
I don't think we have to change our mentality in the sense of changing our basic makeup. That is very likely impossible. But humans have intellect, and this means they have the ability to ignore their evolutionary urges and traits. Intellect, in the form of being able to see and care about what will happen to future generations, is needed here, because atleast with climate change, it looks like sacrifices have to be made.

"We don't need nukes to deal with our enemies, and neither do Russia and China."
- Dave Nalle

Well of course not...not as long as there are still foot soldiers brave enough to actually fight the battles of the armchair generals...

Arguably, MAD worked for that situation.

No need to qualify it with the "arguably." No nukes were dropped on us by the Soviets, and we dropped no nukes on them, right?. It worked just as it was supposed to. There is nothing to argue about. Cut and dried.

The fact we were in that situation at all was madness in itself

It was vastly preferable to watching the Soviets annex most of Europe over the course of a weekend, then launch a retaliation using conventional forces. Like Bliffle mentioned earlier, that would have been the bloodiest and costliest war ever. By far. And we might have gotten our butts kicked by the Soviets to top it off. Our nuclear arsenal was a relatively inexpensive way to keep all that from happening, because an all-out conventional war by nuclear powers runs the risk of escalation, with the side that's losing feeling all too tempted to dump a few nukes onto the battlefield. It's MAD. It was the only sane philosophy. It prevented millions and millions of deaths. So please don't come on here and ridicule the acronym the same way people did back in the '80s. Yeah, yeah, haha. It worked, and your life is better for it. You should be thanking the people who implemented it, not trying to come on with airs of moral superiority.

Well of course not...not as long as there are still foot soldiers brave enough to actually fight the battles of the armchair generals...

Well, if that's the way you Armchair Generals prefer to do things. I wouldn't know. I was talking about things like diplomacy and economic sanctions. But thanks for giving us your perspective, MCH.

Dave

The Cold War was, in general, not about Russia at all. That is why after the Cold War ended, military spending and all the rest of it remained largely the same. That's because it wasn't really about fear of the Soviets or of Communism. Unless, by Communism you mean people in small South American countries organising against Washington-based neo-liberal policies.

That's not to say Russia wasn't involved. If the US instigated a blockade or sanctions, countries could turn to the other big power - Russia. In that sense, Russia was there. As George Kennan pointed out, Russia posed a political rather than a military threat to the US.

Lets look at interventions. The Soviets repeatedly intervened in Eastern Europe - along the routes that were used to attack Russia three times already that century. Aside from that, there was Afghanistan, which was also on the Soviet border.

In contrast, US interventions were worldwide.

George Orwell wrote at the end of 1984 that the perpetual war was not fought against the enemy state, but against its own citizens. To a large extent, the Cold War can also be viewed through this lens. In Russia, the Cold War helped the military ruling class stay in power. In the US, it helped convince the public to subsidise hi-tech industry.

Both sides, Russia and the US,used the Cold War to justify intervening in coutnries around the world - battling for influence. In the end, for many reasons, the US 'won' and so could 'intervene' in Panama and Nicaragua without fear of Russian retaliation.

That is what I meant by 'The fact we were in that situation at all was madness in itself'.

In terms of relevance to this topic, we can see that mutually assured destruction could easily have led to a nuclear war, which would definitely not have saved lives.

That is why, along with complete nuclear disarmament, imperialism and expansionism should also be stopped, and a strong, representative UN should be developed.

"You should be thanking the people who implemented it, not trying to come on with airs of moral superiority."

I am not trying to 'come on' with anything. I think nuclear weapons existing spells disaster for all of us, and I have attempted to explain why.

Truthfully the main problem with nuclear weapons is that they're such a pain in the ass to get rid of and it's more touble than it's worth to convert them to anything useful or productive. That aside, this article is merely typical leftist wish-fantasy. The author wants the world to be as bleak as he can imagine it to be, because that kind of desperate circumstance is what turns people towards the rescuing arms of the nanny state. If you can convince people the sky is falling then you can sell more magical sky-protection helmets, also known as international socialism.

End of story.

Dave

End of story?

'fraid not. I don't want to the world to be 'bleak' - far from it. I have no interest in turning people towards anything, especially not a 'nanny state'. I didn't mention anything about socialism for good reason - this has nothing to do with it.

How you managed to make a jump from me arguing for nuclear disarmament and serious action on climate change to me trying to sell socialism is beyond me.

As a general rule the disarming of sovereign nations is one of the cornerstones of the creation of an international socialist state. Similarly, the bugaboo of climate change is being used as a hammer to force sovereign states to submit to the will of the internationalist community. That you should be promoting both of these agendas in one post hardly seems coincidental. Whether you're an active agent or just a dupe remains to be seen.

Dave

I think nuclear disarmament and sensible action regarding climate change are actions that are beyond political systems, since both affect the very survival of our species.

The creation of a UN that actually has some force is simply taking the idea of collective security that has been largely accepted in the West for decades and actually carrying it out. Yes, scrapping the veto and accepting the UN as an authority means putting an end to imperialist and expansionist policies. If you want to call that 'international socialism' then fine. Whatever it's called, it's necessary.

Necessary for the internationalist agenda and the subjugation of individual liberty, but certainly not necessary to those of us who value freedom more highly than we value 'collective security'.

Fraklin wrote: "They that would sacrifice liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And left off the obvious part about how they get exactly what they deserve.

Dave

"A world where the US, Russia, China and the rest of the big powers are no longer nuclear is undoubtedly a safer one, not least because the incentives for smaller countries to spend vast amounts of money and risk international isolation in order to go nuclear will be vastly reduced."

Why? It seems like in a world with no nuclear powers, the one country with a bomb has a lot of bargaining power. If the US gave up its nuclear arsenal, and everyone else did too, Venezuela would be one weapon away from becoming an empire.

On a practical note, how would every country get rid of their nuclear weapons? The incentive to conceal a few missiles would be enormous.

I credit you for acknowledging the possibility that MAD prevented a hot war in Europe. You talk about the US almost triggering a nuclear war during the Cuban crisis, but that was the Soviets' doing. They built nuclear launch facilities in Cuba (which is not on the Russian border, incidentally).

Most international studies-types study the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of resolving a conflict through diplomacy. They also study the other great nuclear crisis of the Cold War, in 1973. The Nixon Administration is credited with preventing Soviet intervention in the Yom Kippur War by preemptively putting the military on nuclear alert. What makes this crisis so interesting is that it teaches the exact opposite lessons of the first. Brinkmanship won the day.

Over the years, the Kennedy crisis has gotten better press. The involved parties have met and talked about the events in retrospect. There are some pretty obvious reasons why Nixon, Syria, and Israel haven't met up at a nostalgia event at Harvard.

"As a general rule the disarming of sovereign nations is one of the cornerstones of the creation of an international socialist state."

But it also seems to be a 'cornerstone' of an International Corporate State, as witness the GWB foreign policies. In fact, it can be said to be the cornerstone of any international anything state.

(that was just the most amusing of the errors of Excluded Middle by which a commentor sought to strike an opponent down by incriminating the commentor as leftwing, a tendency which approaches rabidity among some people.)

As you correctly point out, globalism isn't necessarily a right or left wing philosophy. That's why you see people from both the political left and right protesting at the G8 meetings.

IMO international corporatism is less harmful to individuals than international socialism. Corporations are less likely to try to interfere in our daily lives. They just want our money and prefer to seduce it from us than to take it by force, unlike a socialist state.

Dave

"If you can convince people the sky is falling then you can sell more magical sky-protection helmets, also known as international socialism."

Another form of protection would be a fenced compound.

Actually, a falling sky is one of the things a fenced compound really won't protect you from.

Dave

IMO international corporatism is less harmful to individuals than international socialism.

International corporatism is extremely dangerous to us. In particular the "Business of Disease", Big Pharma/Big Medica, for whom sick people are an asset to their bottom lines, are attempting to make it impossible for people to keep themselves healthy. They are doing this by using the UN's globalistic Codex Alimentarius commission, along with the enforcement power of the WTO and national sovereignty compromising agreements like CAFTA, to define Vitamins, Minerals, and Herbal Remedies as toxic substances, limited through the pseudo science of "risk-analysis" to uselessly untherapeutic dosages - thereby guaranteeing the largest possible market of unhealthy people for their artificial, patentable drugs.

True, Richard. But that's the perverse workings of the UN, and it's not because they want to help out corporations, it's because they want to meddle in peoples lives and establish themselves as a regulatory authority over pharmaceuticals, all part of their ongoing powergrab.


Dave

Baronius: You talk about the US almost triggering a nuclear war during the Cuban crisis, but that was the Soviets' doing. They built nuclear launch facilities in Cuba (which is not on the Russian border, incidentally).

Wait, are you saying that building nuclear launch facilities on another nation's border is an act of aggression? And that the USSR was the aggressor in this case?

But that's the perverse workings of the UN, and it's not because they want to help out corporations, it's because they want to meddle in peoples lives and establish themselves as a regulatory authority over pharmaceuticals, all part of their ongoing powergrab.

The same could be said of the "perverse workings of the FDA". It's true that regulatory authorities, whether national or international, are not set up for the explicit purpose of helping corporations. They are initially set up with high-sounding socialistic "consumer protection" rhetoric. But with their enormous financial resources, large corporations end up in one way or another influencing regulatory policy for their own selfish ends - corporate PR departments become expert in the manipulatory use of phony consumer protection rhetoric; the officials of those regulatory bodies are largely drawn from the industries they are supposed to regulate; those industries maintain large and highly influential lobbies (I believe the GERMAN pharmaceutical, Bayer, has the largest lobby in Wahsinton D.C.); outright bribery and other corruption; etc.

When the only REAL protection consumers have, namely the competition for reputation in a free market (free of government interference), is replaced by the chimera of a government guarateed totally risk-free existence, then bad protection drives out the good.

So there is also a very real "perverse power grab" by corporations made possible by a close cousin to "socialism", namely corporate welfare statism.

I guess I can agree with you on that, Richard. It certainly isn't a good thing when any special interest, be it socialists, unions or corporations develops a powerful voice in government out of proportion to its reasonable interests.

Dave

Anything that becomes too large and unaccountable, regardless of whether it is government or corporate, can become a threat to the well-being of human kind. Examples for both include Enron and the government of China.

"You talk about the US almost triggering a nuclear war during the Cuban crisis, but that was the Soviets' doing. They built nuclear launch facilities in Cuba (which is not on the Russian border, incidentally)."

Well, firstly it does not really matter whether it was the Soviet's 'doing' or the US' - the point is that the fact that the world was whisker-close to nuclear war should have been a clear signal that nuclear weapons should be outlawed. It would have been much easier then, since only two states had gone nuclear - but obviously the political situation did not facilitate it.

But anyway it is too simplistic to say it was the Soviet's doing or the US' doing. It was the US' doing in the sense that its programme of expansionism is what got it into conflict with the Soviets in the first place. Obviously, the Soviets too were also jockying for influence. The point is that this expansionism (by anyone) makes for instability, and with nuclear weapons this instability can have terrible consequences.

In fact, if the world was nuke-free, had a powerful UN and had great powers that did not embark on imperialism or expansionism, the world would be much safer. The prerequisite for all the above is that the great, nuclear powers have to be committed to this system. The UN can't be powerful without the support of the great powers, and 'nuclear disarmament' is currently ridiculous since no-one who matters is taking it seriously.

As to how one would go about outlawing nuclear weapons. Well, the first and most obvious step would be for everyone to honour the terms of the NPT. The enxt would be for everyone (or atleast the big powers) to sign the FissBan treaty. Hans Blix and his WMD commission include a whole section on the practicalities of how disarmament can be realised. I don't have the exact link to the document, but I'm pretty sure you can find it on cfr.org and then 'Essential Documents'.