Simple really. Rational nations led by rational leaders have had access to nuclear weapons. Both sides had one goal, to live, which means never really wanting to use them
the danger this day and age is that are some very irrational powers, possibly including leaders and the countries they represent, that, well, don't think the same.
Even India and Pakistan get along because neither side is governed by fanatical leadership. Likely the real danger comes from one of the more intolerant sects of Islam
They are hard to build because once the chain raction starts in the nuclear material, the resulting reaction tends to break up and disperse the nuclear material before the chain reaction progresses very far. It's called a fizzle. Fission bombs are designed with a wrap-around concave shaped charge of conventional explosive around the nuclear material. This is detonated as the critical mass of nuclear material is slammed together, and the compression wave from the conventional explosion holds the fissioning mass of nuclear material together long enough for the chain reaction explosion to complete. The engineering for this and the precise timing and controll of the detonation sequence is extremely hard.
My understanding is that the engineering for this can be done by someone who has studied the stuff, and uses publicly available materials. He or she does need to be competent but does not need to be Einstein. See John Aristotle Phillips. [0]
The main challenge is simply the industrial process required to collect the fissionable material. That is why Iranians have centrifuges and why Stuxnet attacked those centrifuges. [1]
A terrorist can't really build a fusion bomb, because you need a government to support the infrastructure. But the fear is not entirely unjustified because a government would be able to give the bomb to a terrorist who then uses it. Or perhaps a government employee might steal it (for bribes) and give to a terrorist. So I can imagine terrorist having a small fission bomb. But I cannot imagine an arrangement where a terrorist would acquire a fleet of B-29's that could be used to fire-bomb a city.
To build it from scratch yes, it's possible to build a primitive bomb from stolen refined plutonium. After the collapse of the soviet union, a lot of it went missing and there a dozen cases of people getting caught trying to sell it on the black market (and those are just the people that've been caught.)
Mass arson is possible, though not on the scale of firebombing. The US in WWII developed the idea of strapping incendiary bombs on bats and releasing them in a city, where they would roost in random buildings and start hundreds of small fires.
Getting the fissionables to make a bomb requires major industrial effort. And an "average terrorist" would only be able to build a gun assembly bomb like Little Boy, which requires a lot of uranium 235.
If we think fission. If we think fusion - you could build something nasty with tritium and deuterium with some depleted uranium as neutron deflectors ... but the ignition will be bitch ...
Nuclear weapons are hard to engineer [1]. Assembly requires a lot of expensive engineering resources and access to raw materials. By the time you've got the infrastructure together you're no longer an average terrorist, but more like a small state or maybe a corporation, and vulnerable to espionage or military disruption by other players. Terrorists are interested in using terror to achive
BUT the US government ran a study in the early sixties, called the "Nth Country Experiment" [2], that took a few recent physics PHDs and paid them to see if they could develop a design for a nuclear weapon. They surprised everyone by designing a credible implosion weapon. So it can be done. And the amount of available information and technology is better than fifty years ago.
The ones in 1945 were prototypes with everything that implies. And fundamentally we don't build or use a lot of them, so they're slow to improve (think space rockets, not microchips).
That said they're not that hard, and they get easier every day. At an anti-proliferation conference a few years ago Iran argued that any world-class university physics department probably has the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, and commentators agreed. Eventually it'll reach the point where a high school AP student could do it.
United States dumps two bombs with no reason in Japan and you are saying that only rational leaders and rational nations have access to nuclear weapons?
We are not in a nuclear war because US makes more profit based in the fear than in the use of the bombs. Don't play this "intolerant" game.
I´m neither American nor a fan of US foreign policy, but you seem to be overlooking the small fact that the US was at war with Japan at the time.
The bombs made clear that the US had the upper hand in warfare technology (and no scruples in taking advantage of it) and that action ended the war without additional casualties on US part.
The decision wasn't neither humane nor merciful , but from a rational point of view made a lot of sense.
Today is the 70th anniversary of VE day and it's actually have quite a lot of coverage here in the UK given that there are other things happening today.
There were a few quite moving interviews with veterans on Radio 4 this morning - including one with a chap who had fought in Europe and was, like many others, about to be shipped out to the Far East to help the US invade Japan.
He was, perhaps understandably, delighted to hear that Japan had been bombed.
Personally, I think the motivations for using the atomic bombs on Japan are complex and unclear - even with hindsight.
I don't think the motivations were unclear at all: They were in a Total War where there was no distinction between military and civilian targets, and they had a new, powerful weapon; of course they were gonna use it. There was never a discussion as to whether use it or not. The immediate political effects of the bombs, if they were really the main factor in Japan's decision to surrender for instance, are indeed murky, though it was most probably Soviets entering the war that did it more than the bombs.
and frying people with nukes and condemning their offspring to a life of fatal deformities and diseases apologists like you are rational too, I guess ...
I beg you to look for the definition of "rational", and I take issue in you calling me an "apologist" without knowing anything about my ideas or positions.
I find it atrocious, and possibly should have been avoided, but it's easy and convenient for us to sit in front of our laptops and pass judgement 70 years after the fact, without having first-hand experience of the situation at the time.
Personally, I think that any nation involved in the war, if they had been in the same position of the US, would have taken the same decision, but again it's easy to judge and theorize now.
We can't do a lot about 70 years ago but hey, we can be against the irrational drone attacks and mass murderer of today that we are going to contest 70 years from now.
Hey "rational gentleman", do you realize that most of the victims of these US state sponsored terrorist attacks on Japan were poor civilians not even military personnel?
Do you think that it's acceptable or "rational" as you put it to have people fried alive in furnaces or dissolved in acid?
Would you like to face a similar "rational" fate for you or your loved ones?
Hadn't been for the US and its allies emerged as victors in WWII, all of their political and military leadership would have been had their own Nuremberg trials a decades ago but they got it away with it for the simple fact that they prevailed over their enemies.
Like they say 'History is written by the victors'.
I'm from a country defeated in the war, Romania, so I should be somewhat objective as "I" didn't "write" any history. Japanese atrocities are well documented, so it's not like the US was the only one doing awful things.
I, for one, am glad that the Allies won the war. The lesser of two evils.
As long as we're talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's worth pointing out that humanity's experience with the insidious effects of nuclear radiation had not yet been formed -- they began that day -- and that leaves the trade-off of "frying people with nukes" versus "shooting and/or exploding with regular bombs" look a lot more humane. (In either case assuming peace is not yet secured, obviously.)
Or we could light their cities on fire with bat bombs. War is hell.
In retrospect, it wasn't even necessary, given the sad state of the Japanese wartime economy -- the US wasn't very far from overwhelming them with conventional warfare. But such things are more obvious to leaders in retrospect, especially when they haven't been in a war mindset for years, fighting a string of incredibly nasty battles one island at a time before coming to the islands named 'Japan'....
But either way -- you can say it was the right decision or the wrong decision -- it was hardly "for no reason".
It is worth noting that there is considerable debate among historians about the degree to which the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings influenced the Japanese decision to surrender. Hiroshima was attacked on 6th August and Nagasaki on the 9th, but the surrender wasn't announced until the 15th. Some historians see the Russian declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria as being equally or more significant [1].
Heard this before, sounds reasonable (for non-expert).
In 40's mentality in Japan, emperor was a god, and common citizens didn't matter a bit in war efforts. They were burning alive (tens of) thousands by carpet bombings on all major cities (also having many buildings built with wood helped spread fires), and it didn't move opinions of ruling elite a bit.
I would say atomic bombs were one of the many factors considered when finally giving up, but common US view of "hey we bombed them hard with our cool new toys, they craed their pants and gave up immediately" is not very accurate.
The other historically plausible motivation is that Truman wanted to display to Stalin as a deterrent against for soviet expansion into europe that a) they had the bomb b) they were not afraid to use it c) what effect it has on cities. Japan was at war against USA at the time and effects of firebombings with traditional planes and explosives were no less horrible in cost to human lives than the A-bombs so the morale of the whole thing is ambiguous.
Really, "with no reason"? There were plenty of reasons. You can debate whether they were good or bad, or justified what was done, but to just dismiss it all as "no reason" is ridiculous. Even people who think that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was completely reprehensible will still say that there was a reason for it, like putting a fright into the Soviets.
So "no reason" is a phrase which destroys thoughts and makes us be content with not understanding people's motivations. I object to using it when it's so clearly wrong. And yes, I would just as strongly object to someone saying that ISIS beheads and rapes people for "no reason."
You can debate whether it was ethical to use them or not, but you can't say it was irrational. They were at war with the country and trying to use every advantage to end it as quickly as possible.
That's very different than starting a nuclear war for the hell of it knowing your country will be totally destroyed as a result.
It's not that simple at all. Several times systems and procedures were set up to trigger nuclear escalation, and even though those sytems and procedures indicating making an attack, the person who had the final say in doing so chose not to. Thsy didn't make that choice necessarily knowing about game theory or Nash equilibriums, they weren't following deliberately concieved national strategic policy. They just made a judgement call.
You don't need to know anything about game theory to say "hey, I don't want to start a nuclear war and think I should precede very cautiously."
The only two incidents I'm aware of where it got that close, one was stopped by an officer before it even got up the chain of command. The other got to Yeltsin, who made the very rational call to wait and see if there was an error before starting a nuclear war.
Even Iran and Saudi Arabia are pretty rational when it all comes down to it. The leaders are usually just pious on the surface - not even close to suicidal martyrs[0]
The real problem is the suicide sects, which is what I assume you meant.
0: http://nerdist.com/sex-nerd-sandra-30-harem-hottie/ (Interview with a former prostitute to the harem of the prince of Brunei. Alcohol is verboten in Brunei as a muslim country. Not only did the royals, other leaders and prostitutes do alcohol, they also did cocaine and everything else you can imagine)
What a bunch of colonialist garbage. You're probably Israeli, right?
"Rational nations"? Get real. No nations are rational. Nations are driven by political systems that are driven by the emotions of the populations of those places. Are human emotions rational? Are human emotions more rational in Israel than they are in Ghana or North Korea?
I'm glad the author says "one starts to wonder if it really is plain dumb luck". Another way to answer the question:
> Why Hasn’t the World Been Destroyed in a Nuclear War Yet?
Because in an alternative universe where there was a nuclear war, this has already happened, and there was no one left to ask the question. Or if there was, they certainly had better things to do.
See also: most questions and statements about real estate in 2007, or on Long Term Capital Management and their scientifically proven methods before their demise.
Survivorship bias is a PITA.
EDIT: Someone doesn't understand probability. Possible worlds is the only rigorous way of reasoning about counterfactuals.
Do you have any reason to believe that to be the case?
I agree that self-preservation has probably been a factor in the more than dozen close-calls the world has seen, but I would hardly call it impossible. There are many instances of humans failing to self-preserve.
Do you have any reason to believe that to be the case?
Yes, but only within the limited circumstances of the cold war.
I strongly believe that nuclear war between two equal and opposing parties is effectively impossible. The game theorist Thomas Schelling wrote about it - each party can only 'win' by demonstrating they're more willing to risk all out destruction but, importantly, never actually go through with it otherwise they lose. With nuclear war both sides lose completely if they go through with it, but they can lose less by giving up. Consequently one side will always, eventually, capitulate before a nuclear war happens because that's actually better for them.
Schelling has been on my to read list for a while - it's definitely an interesting subject (his model on segregation is really cool too).
My problem with this reasoning is that it seems to assume perfectly rational actors. For most problems you can do that in the long run, and it's generally a sane thing to assume, but in this case it's a ruin problem - one irrational person with imperfect/delayed information in a power position is enough.
It also ignores the possibility of accidental nuclear war. Once ICBMs became common and warning times dropped to minutes, so much of the machinery of war had to be automatic (whether with actual machines, or with people given pre-baked orders and procedures) that setting it all off by accident was a serious possibility.
Actually, is a serious possibility. That stuff is all still there.
The problem is that we don't truly believe in the strongest notions of the Anthropic principle. You can relativize it to yourself and then apply it to future events: "I will sit locked in this room where this bomb will detonate unless these numbers on my lottery ticket are the winning numbers tomorrow" does not sound wise but insane.
The trouble with the alternate worlds (and the very similar quantum suicide) idea, is that there are lots of ways not to be killed by a nuclear war (even for the majority of the population). Why haven't we seen any of those paths?
Most people wouldn't be right next to one going off, though.
Even at the peak of the cold war, pushing The Button wouldn't have killed everybody. Probably not even a majority of humanity. It would have been righteously apocalyptic, and wrecked a good chunk of civilization, and made all other wars before it look puny and laughable, but there would be plenty of survivors, especially outside the countries involved in the war.
As is probably obvious by now, I don't share your optimism on that score. Even peasants using Stone Age farming techniques would be affected if a radioactive dust cloud blows over their fields, or if soot thrown into the atmosphere causes a nuclear winter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter) that prevents their crops from getting the sunlight they need to grow. Livestock can unknowingly eat contaminated feed or water and produce contaminated meat and milk. Diseases that run rampant through the weakened immune systems of populations closer to the blasts can mutate more quickly into strains that threaten anyone. Etc. So even if you're on the other side of the world when the bombs fall, peacefully farming with a stone plow, there's lots of ways those bombs can ruin your day too.
There's a great novel from the '80s called Warday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warday) that explores these themes in more detail. It's set in the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear war -- limited meaning, in the case of the US, that the only targets struck by Russian missiles are New York City, San Antonio, and the Midwestern missile fields. (Some of the missiles aimed at New York even miss, exploding out at sea.) Most Americans never see a mushroom cloud and come through the one-day war without a scratch. But the nuclear exchange, "limited" as it is, sets off a chain of ecological and technological consequences that after five years have killed many more people than the bombs did.
I'm a big fan of that book. Not only is it really well written, but as far as I can tell it's pretty accurate as well.
The reason for my "optimism" (if you can call it that... everything is relative, I suppose) is that it gets harder and harder to kill people as the numbers increase. Maybe some disease arises which replicates the Spanish Flu or Black Death, and among a weakened population it kills off 50% of them. Well, you still have 50% left. As the population declines and civilization collapses, diseases will have a much harder time spreading, so it becomes self-limiting. Contamination will mostly not affect your day-to-day life outside of certain areas. It'll definitely affect your ability to die of old age, and have healthy children, but people as a whole will survive.
I imagine there would not be a particularly large number of survivors in the US after an all-out nuclear strike. But people in places like South America wouldn't be affected all that greatly aside from the instantaneous collapse of global trade and communications.
What's the expected number of person-minutes of life among people surviving a nuclear war? I'm guessing a lot less than for people surviving the absence of one.
Stalin died shortly after the Soviet Union became a nuclear power. I read an interview of Beria's son explaining that Stalin was planning an all-out nuclear war. Given that killing a few dozen million people wasn't really a big deal to Stalin, there was a real risk he would have gone ahead.
McNamara in the excellent Fog of War also mentioned that Kennedy was extremely close to giving the order to bomb Cuba, I think he even mentioned that at one point the order had been signed, ready to go.
The Cold War is gone, but I think we have another danger. Drones and Robots have made it much cheaper for big powers to be more aggressive militarily. And the US is working actively on shields that could shoot down ICBMs. If the US can attack cheaply on the ground (as in with no US casualty) and not be deterred by a nuclear response, war is just bound to happen.
Yes, it's a diabolical situation that a good defense system actually increases the risks, that is, a defense system promotes war.
It's a risk-vs-return situation: the nuclear standoff brings the risk of complete destruction, but that has low probability; while conventional weapons make mutual obliteration harder, but increase the likelihood of some war.
It seems unlikely that Stalin would have planned a war which would have been so completely one-sided. The Soviets didn't really achieve any kind of parity with US strategic weapons until well into the 1970s.
Starting an "all out" war with the US with LeMay in command of SAC would have been national suicide - and the Soviets knew they were at a huge disadvantage. Stalin was lots of things but I don't think he could ever be accused of being stupid.
Edit: Mind you I suppose it was possible that the Soviets thought they could invade Western Europe and survive the inevitable US and UK attack - but the US would have been untouched in such a scenario which probably wouldn't be a good idea...
I think the point was rather that Stalin was happy to use nuclear weapons casually, as just another weapon in the arsenal.
We tend to forget that all sides in WW2 happily carpet bombed cities and civilians. Using nuclear weapons to achieve the same result more efficiently would have been only a logical evolution.
In a way we are lucky that nuclear weapons only arrived late in the game and that after the war all sides preferred a status quo.
> If the US can attack cheaply on the ground (as in with no US casualty) and not be deterred by a nuclear response, war is just bound to happen.
This gets at the real reason there have ever been some long spans without huge wars: stable balance of power. Usually in world history when the World Order changed much there were big wars involved. In the 20th century the USSR and China and NATO formed a relatively stable set of opposing forces.
What about coups such as the US overthrow of Iran in 1953? [1][2]
Both seemed to be democracies at the time. A coup is not a war, but it isn't peace either. Is it the lack of a big shooting war? Or the power imbalance between the overthrower and the overthrowee?
> Also, the adage that democracies are disinclined to [suddenly] go to war.
The usual form of that is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, and even then it requires such an excessively restrictive definition of "democracy" and/or "war" to be true that the statistically expected number of inter-democracy wars would be (to the nearest whole integer), given the number of wars over time and the number of democracies and the periods for which they have existed, would be zero.
Its not even usually claimed that democracies are less prone than non-democracies to going to war with non-democracies.
Sorry for this silly recursive joke. However it has a point : For some philosophers (e.g : Gerard Dupuy) theorizing the self realizing prophecies, in order to prevent a catastrophy, you need to think about it as if it already happened in the future. It is the only way to act on it to counteract the curse of determinism... Enjoy the paradox !
If by world you mean earth, and by destroying you mean something like splitting planet open, then I presume way more than current arsenal of usable nukes.
Destruction of mankind would be relatively easy, we've become frail and our society severely depends on easily disruptible things like electricity. If you mean destruction of life itself, anything short of black hole/sun going supernova is not enough.
The gravitational binding energy (what it would take to turn the Earth into a collection of floating, unbound gravel) is equivalent to about a week's worth of the Sun's total output. (Not a week of what the Earth receives, but a week of the entire output. Quite a lot.)
The energy required merely to sterilize the crust of all life is vastly lower, of course. But still many orders of magnitude greater than the world's nuclear arsenals.
Even destroying mankind would be pretty tough. Destroying modern civilization is probably doable, but people would endure. Lots of people get by with subsistence farming now, and their lives wouldn't change so much.
There was a time when people wondered if it would be possible to have a limited nuclear war. Hypothetically, if Russian land forces invaded France, could we launch a few small nukes at military targets only, to scare them off? They'll see it's a small scale attack and decide not to retaliate because they don't want to trigger MAD any more than we do. Right? And that way we can save money on conventional forces, as nukes are all we need.
By creating a fully automated doomsday device which will trigger MAD even in the event of a limited nuclear war the possibility of a limited nuclear war is taken off the table - and with it, the possibility of cutting back on conventional forces.
In the recent discussion about the article "Almost everything in Dr. Strangelove was true" [0], mikeash posted a link to a captivating alternate-history story about the Cuban Missile Crisis going horribly bad:
In the book "The Stragegy of Conflict" Thomas Schelling proposes accidental launches as a form of "randomised threats" which let you position yourself in between "I certainly won't launch" (not a threat) and "I certainly will launch" (not a credible threat, as not rational due to MAD)
A Washington Post article [1] describes it like so:
So you're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You'll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal -- threatening to push him off the cliff -- would doom you both?
Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don't have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win.
So in the Cuban missile crisis accidental launches, not intentional launches, are what the Russians are threatened with. And when designing a nuclear deterrent, it's actually useful if the failsafes aren't 100% reliable - if a rogue general sets your nuclear launch code to all zeros [2] and they make sure the Russians find out about it, that's actually a good thing.
Reminds me of that situation in The Dark Knight (Batman 2), where both sides couldn't bring themselves to kill so many people although they were sure that would mean their own death.
I wonder if we people really are like that, because at the same time there are many examples of people having threats to their own life or a loved one's life trigger them to kill another person.
Well, we talk about immediate, final threats to ones life, not something that might kill you one day in the future. If you hold a gun to one head and tell him to kill another person there is a certain assumption that he will do so.
If you count possible long term threats then of course people don't care. I just think about normal things like smoking, drinking, eating, couchpotatoing.
One answer that is possible though not a popular idea is 'The UN.' More broadly it's the international governance that the UN is a part of. The UN's goal is/was largely preventing a nuclear WWIII, so it's at least worth considering.
It's easy to discount the UN. It's ineffective, self righteous without introspection, a paper tiger, a cynical dealmaking forum, undemocratic, etc. etc..
But… There are two influential UN agendas that have been to some extent, effective: Non Aggression and Non Proliferation.
Nonproliferation was a limited success. Only Pakistan, India, Israel & North Korea went nuclear despite it. Those are worrying, but do not amount to inevitable nuclear war.
If nuclear weapons were sold in the arms markets like ICBMs, fighter jets, cutting edge anti missile/aircraft defense systems, etc. then the list of nuclear powers would be much bigger than it is today. Sadaam's Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt & Saudi Arabia would have them (they have everything else). That's just one neighborhood. Non-State nuclear powers would be far more likely. 911 might have been a nuclear attack.
Non aggression is the second principle/agenda. Boiled down it means 'No Wars of Conquest'. If you conquer territory that is "rightfully" yours because ancestors or whatnot, no country will recognize your territorial gains ever.
Non Aggression has also been a limited success. Israel in 1967 is the high profile counter example. Russia in Ukraine is the bigger and more recent one. There have been other violations, but compared to the pre-UN period it is a different paradigm.
Instead, we have a paradigm of "intervention" and occupation instead of conquest or colonialism. It's not ideal but it does change the whole incentive-dynamic. No country's political discourse is dominated by the idea of expanding. That is uniquely true of the last 3 generations and no other period.
In that sense, the UN Non Aggression principle has successfully taken the spoils out of war and prevented the cyclical warfare which created the two Great Wars.
Ukraine is the counterexample and may be the end of the era. Who knows.
TLDR: The UN lowered incidence of wars between major powers via the "non aggression rule" and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to minor powers and non state actors via non proliferation initiatives. These two have been working together to keep the chances of nuclear war down, but it's a shaky system.
I couldn't agree more. Expansionist policies at the expense of the incumbent population are less and less accepted.
It's difficult to be convinced of this assertion when we have ongoing wars, but broadly speaking we are evolving to talk it out as opposed to fight it out.
> (In the Cold War satire Dr. Strangelove, the Soviet Union deployed a similar “doomsday device” and also neglected to tell the world about it. In the film, Dr. Strangelove points out that not telling anyone obviates the deterrence of any deterrent device; the real-life Soviets seem to have missed the point.)
When I first read about the system, it was clearly explained that the idea was to put high-ranking Soviet generals at peace. If they know the system is there, they will not go paranoid and launch a nuclear war on their own (Dr Strangelove is one of the best movies ever). Yet, several times after that I have seen this "silly Soviets" way of telling the story, where authors completely seriously imply that the Soviets designed such a thing and then just, presumably out of pure stupidity (?), forgot to tell everyone. How can anyone find such an explanation acceptable?
Makes you wonder how much stupid shit we read every day, and accept it without noticing.
From what i recall, there is a exchange in the movie where it is mentioned that the Soviet president (premier?) was planning to unveil the system on May 1th.
Because a nuclear war with human weapons can not destroy the world nor even the life in the planet. Life is simply tougher than this.
A nuclear accident or weapon excels in one sigle matter, to wipe the human race. Humans are efficiently banned at least in some places of Ukranie and Japan now so... yes, is happening.
Basically, MAD plus level-headed ... sub captains equals stability. The number of near-misses was
vanishingly small.
In a sense, nukes were more peaceful - the practical effect
was to replace large armies with nukes for cost reasons. Using nukes destroys them, so there's a disincentive to
actually use them. They're only any good if you don't use
them. That's some catch, that Catch-22.
The Cold War is oh-so-much not nearly even close to WWI.
Bismarck pretty much predicted WWI - down to the Balkan
character of the spark that ignited it - not long after he
was forced out of power in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Last_warning_...
"
According to Albert Ballin, the year before he died
Bismarck told him:
"One day the great European War will come out of some
damned foolish thing in the Balkans".[81]
Fukushima is kind of reinforcing that sense of ickiness to the long-term detriment of nuclear as an alternative energy source, which is unfortunate because to me at least it appears to be the most viable.
If any nation were to 'go nuclear' either preemptively or through natural escalation, they would in one stroke become the new Nazis and hold this title for the rest of recorded history; no societies with direct or indirect recollection of the event would ever forgive or forget the decision. Given that no nation on this planet is truly ruled by one person, the Collective in Charge would have to make the decision to out-Hitler Hitler. Therefore, i believe that even if [Russia were to use a 'Nuc after its initial thrust into Europe failed/ the US were to use a 'Nuc after Russia's initial thrust succeeded/ China were to use a 'Nuc after the Asian Pacific joined together in opposition/etc], no rational state actors would respond in kind.
Also, in line with the above thought, there is no guarantee of global cataclysm if there is a Nuclear exchange. How big was the explosion from the Yucatan impact? Life was changed dramatically, but it was not extinguished.
Because in this neighborhood of the superimposed wave function that comprises the multiverse that didn't happen. There are also an infinite number of neighborhoods where the ability to ask that question doesn't exist because of the event.
To ask why it didn't happen in this particular neighborhood is to ask why the lack of that event is possible. In a Q.M. multiverse "why" questions get real tricky.
100 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 194 ms ] threadthe danger this day and age is that are some very irrational powers, possibly including leaders and the countries they represent, that, well, don't think the same.
Even India and Pakistan get along because neither side is governed by fanatical leadership. Likely the real danger comes from one of the more intolerant sects of Islam
The main challenge is simply the industrial process required to collect the fissionable material. That is why Iranians have centrifuges and why Stuxnet attacked those centrifuges. [1]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
Fire bombing can (and has done) more damage to a city than a fission bomb.
Mass arson is possible, though not on the scale of firebombing. The US in WWII developed the idea of strapping incendiary bombs on bats and releasing them in a city, where they would roost in random buildings and start hundreds of small fires.
Edit: replaced neutrinos with neutrons
BUT the US government ran a study in the early sixties, called the "Nth Country Experiment" [2], that took a few recent physics PHDs and paid them to see if they could develop a design for a nuclear weapon. They surprised everyone by designing a credible implosion weapon. So it can be done. And the amount of available information and technology is better than fifty years ago.
[1] http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment
That said they're not that hard, and they get easier every day. At an anti-proliferation conference a few years ago Iran argued that any world-class university physics department probably has the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, and commentators agreed. Eventually it'll reach the point where a high school AP student could do it.
It's a very primitive device compared to a nuclear weapon, but it could have created an runaway nuclear reaction and do a ton of damage.
We are not in a nuclear war because US makes more profit based in the fear than in the use of the bombs. Don't play this "intolerant" game.
The bombs made clear that the US had the upper hand in warfare technology (and no scruples in taking advantage of it) and that action ended the war without additional casualties on US part.
The decision wasn't neither humane nor merciful , but from a rational point of view made a lot of sense.
There were a few quite moving interviews with veterans on Radio 4 this morning - including one with a chap who had fought in Europe and was, like many others, about to be shipped out to the Far East to help the US invade Japan.
He was, perhaps understandably, delighted to hear that Japan had been bombed.
Personally, I think the motivations for using the atomic bombs on Japan are complex and unclear - even with hindsight.
I find it atrocious, and possibly should have been avoided, but it's easy and convenient for us to sit in front of our laptops and pass judgement 70 years after the fact, without having first-hand experience of the situation at the time.
Personally, I think that any nation involved in the war, if they had been in the same position of the US, would have taken the same decision, but again it's easy to judge and theorize now.
Do you think that it's acceptable or "rational" as you put it to have people fried alive in furnaces or dissolved in acid?
Would you like to face a similar "rational" fate for you or your loved ones?
Hadn't been for the US and its allies emerged as victors in WWII, all of their political and military leadership would have been had their own Nuremberg trials a decades ago but they got it away with it for the simple fact that they prevailed over their enemies.
Like they say 'History is written by the victors'.
I, for one, am glad that the Allies won the war. The lesser of two evils.
Or we could light their cities on fire with bat bombs. War is hell.
But either way -- you can say it was the right decision or the wrong decision -- it was hardly "for no reason".
It is worth noting that there is considerable debate among historians about the degree to which the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings influenced the Japanese decision to surrender. Hiroshima was attacked on 6th August and Nagasaki on the 9th, but the surrender wasn't announced until the 15th. Some historians see the Russian declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria as being equally or more significant [1].
[1] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
I would say atomic bombs were one of the many factors considered when finally giving up, but common US view of "hey we bombed them hard with our cool new toys, they craed their pants and gave up immediately" is not very accurate.
That's very different than starting a nuclear war for the hell of it knowing your country will be totally destroyed as a result.
The only two incidents I'm aware of where it got that close, one was stopped by an officer before it even got up the chain of command. The other got to Yeltsin, who made the very rational call to wait and see if there was an error before starting a nuclear war.
The real problem is the suicide sects, which is what I assume you meant.
0: http://nerdist.com/sex-nerd-sandra-30-harem-hottie/ (Interview with a former prostitute to the harem of the prince of Brunei. Alcohol is verboten in Brunei as a muslim country. Not only did the royals, other leaders and prostitutes do alcohol, they also did cocaine and everything else you can imagine)
He mentions a leader should only appear to be very pious.
Of course, there are claims that the book was seditionary; designed to mislead the powerful and create unrest.
[1] http://nothingbuttherain.com/2013/08/12/lesson-2-rationality...
"Rational nations"? Get real. No nations are rational. Nations are driven by political systems that are driven by the emotions of the populations of those places. Are human emotions rational? Are human emotions more rational in Israel than they are in Ghana or North Korea?
> Why Hasn’t the World Been Destroyed in a Nuclear War Yet?
Because in an alternative universe where there was a nuclear war, this has already happened, and there was no one left to ask the question. Or if there was, they certainly had better things to do.
See also: most questions and statements about real estate in 2007, or on Long Term Capital Management and their scientifically proven methods before their demise.
Survivorship bias is a PITA.
EDIT: Someone doesn't understand probability. Possible worlds is the only rigorous way of reasoning about counterfactuals.
I agree that self-preservation has probably been a factor in the more than dozen close-calls the world has seen, but I would hardly call it impossible. There are many instances of humans failing to self-preserve.
Yes, but only within the limited circumstances of the cold war.
I strongly believe that nuclear war between two equal and opposing parties is effectively impossible. The game theorist Thomas Schelling wrote about it - each party can only 'win' by demonstrating they're more willing to risk all out destruction but, importantly, never actually go through with it otherwise they lose. With nuclear war both sides lose completely if they go through with it, but they can lose less by giving up. Consequently one side will always, eventually, capitulate before a nuclear war happens because that's actually better for them.
My problem with this reasoning is that it seems to assume perfectly rational actors. For most problems you can do that in the long run, and it's generally a sane thing to assume, but in this case it's a ruin problem - one irrational person with imperfect/delayed information in a power position is enough.
Actually, is a serious possibility. That stuff is all still there.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/lau...
Not with modern thermonuclear weapons, there isn't. There's no hole you can dig deep enough to save you from one of those going off right next to you.
Even at the peak of the cold war, pushing The Button wouldn't have killed everybody. Probably not even a majority of humanity. It would have been righteously apocalyptic, and wrecked a good chunk of civilization, and made all other wars before it look puny and laughable, but there would be plenty of survivors, especially outside the countries involved in the war.
But the fallout, and the famines due to agricultural productivity collapse, and the reduced disease resistance due to malnutrition, and...
There's a great novel from the '80s called Warday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warday) that explores these themes in more detail. It's set in the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear war -- limited meaning, in the case of the US, that the only targets struck by Russian missiles are New York City, San Antonio, and the Midwestern missile fields. (Some of the missiles aimed at New York even miss, exploding out at sea.) Most Americans never see a mushroom cloud and come through the one-day war without a scratch. But the nuclear exchange, "limited" as it is, sets off a chain of ecological and technological consequences that after five years have killed many more people than the bombs did.
The reason for my "optimism" (if you can call it that... everything is relative, I suppose) is that it gets harder and harder to kill people as the numbers increase. Maybe some disease arises which replicates the Spanish Flu or Black Death, and among a weakened population it kills off 50% of them. Well, you still have 50% left. As the population declines and civilization collapses, diseases will have a much harder time spreading, so it becomes self-limiting. Contamination will mostly not affect your day-to-day life outside of certain areas. It'll definitely affect your ability to die of old age, and have healthy children, but people as a whole will survive.
I imagine there would not be a particularly large number of survivors in the US after an all-out nuclear strike. But people in places like South America wouldn't be affected all that greatly aside from the instantaneous collapse of global trade and communications.
Stalin died shortly after the Soviet Union became a nuclear power. I read an interview of Beria's son explaining that Stalin was planning an all-out nuclear war. Given that killing a few dozen million people wasn't really a big deal to Stalin, there was a real risk he would have gone ahead.
McNamara in the excellent Fog of War also mentioned that Kennedy was extremely close to giving the order to bomb Cuba, I think he even mentioned that at one point the order had been signed, ready to go.
The Cold War is gone, but I think we have another danger. Drones and Robots have made it much cheaper for big powers to be more aggressive militarily. And the US is working actively on shields that could shoot down ICBMs. If the US can attack cheaply on the ground (as in with no US casualty) and not be deterred by a nuclear response, war is just bound to happen.
It's a risk-vs-return situation: the nuclear standoff brings the risk of complete destruction, but that has low probability; while conventional weapons make mutual obliteration harder, but increase the likelihood of some war.
It seems unlikely that Stalin would have planned a war which would have been so completely one-sided. The Soviets didn't really achieve any kind of parity with US strategic weapons until well into the 1970s.
Starting an "all out" war with the US with LeMay in command of SAC would have been national suicide - and the Soviets knew they were at a huge disadvantage. Stalin was lots of things but I don't think he could ever be accused of being stupid.
Edit: Mind you I suppose it was possible that the Soviets thought they could invade Western Europe and survive the inevitable US and UK attack - but the US would have been untouched in such a scenario which probably wouldn't be a good idea...
We tend to forget that all sides in WW2 happily carpet bombed cities and civilians. Using nuclear weapons to achieve the same result more efficiently would have been only a logical evolution.
In a way we are lucky that nuclear weapons only arrived late in the game and that after the war all sides preferred a status quo.
This gets at the real reason there have ever been some long spans without huge wars: stable balance of power. Usually in world history when the World Order changed much there were big wars involved. In the 20th century the USSR and China and NATO formed a relatively stable set of opposing forces.
Which builds in a moderating effect to the calculus when at least one side has democratic government.
Both seemed to be democracies at the time. A coup is not a war, but it isn't peace either. Is it the lack of a big shooting war? Or the power imbalance between the overthrower and the overthrowee?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re...
I would say that most covert US meddling in foreign governments was covert for exactly that reason.
.. probably some of the anti-Communist actions were the closest thing to democratically-approved intervention. And a lot of that was still covert.
The usual form of that is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, and even then it requires such an excessively restrictive definition of "democracy" and/or "war" to be true that the statistically expected number of inter-democracy wars would be (to the nearest whole integer), given the number of wars over time and the number of democracies and the periods for which they have existed, would be zero.
Its not even usually claimed that democracies are less prone than non-democracies to going to war with non-democracies.
Sorry for this silly recursive joke. However it has a point : For some philosophers (e.g : Gerard Dupuy) theorizing the self realizing prophecies, in order to prevent a catastrophy, you need to think about it as if it already happened in the future. It is the only way to act on it to counteract the curse of determinism... Enjoy the paradox !
Destruction of mankind would be relatively easy, we've become frail and our society severely depends on easily disruptible things like electricity. If you mean destruction of life itself, anything short of black hole/sun going supernova is not enough.
The energy required merely to sterilize the crust of all life is vastly lower, of course. But still many orders of magnitude greater than the world's nuclear arsenals.
Even destroying mankind would be pretty tough. Destroying modern civilization is probably doable, but people would endure. Lots of people get by with subsistence farming now, and their lives wouldn't change so much.
It's not to prevent US from launching a pre-emptive strike, it exists to prevent USSR from launching a pre-emptive strike.
By creating a fully automated doomsday device which will trigger MAD even in the event of a limited nuclear war the possibility of a limited nuclear war is taken off the table - and with it, the possibility of cutting back on conventional forces.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=...
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7109345
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Day
A Washington Post article [1] describes it like so:
So you're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You'll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal -- threatening to push him off the cliff -- would doom you both?
Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don't have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win.
So in the Cuban missile crisis accidental launches, not intentional launches, are what the Russians are threatened with. And when designing a nuclear deterrent, it's actually useful if the failsafes aren't 100% reliable - if a rogue general sets your nuclear launch code to all zeros [2] and they make sure the Russians find out about it, that's actually a good thing.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10... [2] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/12/11/for-nearly-20-ye...
I wonder if we people really are like that, because at the same time there are many examples of people having threats to their own life or a loved one's life trigger them to kill another person.
If you count possible long term threats then of course people don't care. I just think about normal things like smoking, drinking, eating, couchpotatoing.
It's easy to discount the UN. It's ineffective, self righteous without introspection, a paper tiger, a cynical dealmaking forum, undemocratic, etc. etc..
But… There are two influential UN agendas that have been to some extent, effective: Non Aggression and Non Proliferation.
Nonproliferation was a limited success. Only Pakistan, India, Israel & North Korea went nuclear despite it. Those are worrying, but do not amount to inevitable nuclear war.
If nuclear weapons were sold in the arms markets like ICBMs, fighter jets, cutting edge anti missile/aircraft defense systems, etc. then the list of nuclear powers would be much bigger than it is today. Sadaam's Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt & Saudi Arabia would have them (they have everything else). That's just one neighborhood. Non-State nuclear powers would be far more likely. 911 might have been a nuclear attack.
Non aggression is the second principle/agenda. Boiled down it means 'No Wars of Conquest'. If you conquer territory that is "rightfully" yours because ancestors or whatnot, no country will recognize your territorial gains ever.
Non Aggression has also been a limited success. Israel in 1967 is the high profile counter example. Russia in Ukraine is the bigger and more recent one. There have been other violations, but compared to the pre-UN period it is a different paradigm.
Instead, we have a paradigm of "intervention" and occupation instead of conquest or colonialism. It's not ideal but it does change the whole incentive-dynamic. No country's political discourse is dominated by the idea of expanding. That is uniquely true of the last 3 generations and no other period.
In that sense, the UN Non Aggression principle has successfully taken the spoils out of war and prevented the cyclical warfare which created the two Great Wars.
Ukraine is the counterexample and may be the end of the era. Who knows.
TLDR: The UN lowered incidence of wars between major powers via the "non aggression rule" and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to minor powers and non state actors via non proliferation initiatives. These two have been working together to keep the chances of nuclear war down, but it's a shaky system.
It's difficult to be convinced of this assertion when we have ongoing wars, but broadly speaking we are evolving to talk it out as opposed to fight it out.
You start out with a trading company that to protect their interests start training soldiers.
Then effectively take over administrative control of the place by propping up regional rulers.
But then gets in over its head and gets bailed out by the government.
Never mind the Banana Wars that USA was involved with in South America to protect United Fruit interests etc.
When I first read about the system, it was clearly explained that the idea was to put high-ranking Soviet generals at peace. If they know the system is there, they will not go paranoid and launch a nuclear war on their own (Dr Strangelove is one of the best movies ever). Yet, several times after that I have seen this "silly Soviets" way of telling the story, where authors completely seriously imply that the Soviets designed such a thing and then just, presumably out of pure stupidity (?), forgot to tell everyone. How can anyone find such an explanation acceptable?
Makes you wonder how much stupid shit we read every day, and accept it without noticing.
A nuclear accident or weapon excels in one sigle matter, to wipe the human race. Humans are efficiently banned at least in some places of Ukranie and Japan now so... yes, is happening.
In a sense, nukes were more peaceful - the practical effect was to replace large armies with nukes for cost reasons. Using nukes destroys them, so there's a disincentive to actually use them. They're only any good if you don't use them. That's some catch, that Catch-22.
The Cold War is oh-so-much not nearly even close to WWI. Bismarck pretty much predicted WWI - down to the Balkan character of the spark that ignited it - not long after he was forced out of power in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Last_warning_...
" According to Albert Ballin, the year before he died Bismarck told him:
"http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/lau...
Fukushima is kind of reinforcing that sense of ickiness to the long-term detriment of nuclear as an alternative energy source, which is unfortunate because to me at least it appears to be the most viable.
If any nation were to 'go nuclear' either preemptively or through natural escalation, they would in one stroke become the new Nazis and hold this title for the rest of recorded history; no societies with direct or indirect recollection of the event would ever forgive or forget the decision. Given that no nation on this planet is truly ruled by one person, the Collective in Charge would have to make the decision to out-Hitler Hitler. Therefore, i believe that even if [Russia were to use a 'Nuc after its initial thrust into Europe failed/ the US were to use a 'Nuc after Russia's initial thrust succeeded/ China were to use a 'Nuc after the Asian Pacific joined together in opposition/etc], no rational state actors would respond in kind.
To ask why it didn't happen in this particular neighborhood is to ask why the lack of that event is possible. In a Q.M. multiverse "why" questions get real tricky.