You should be scared of nukes. Utterly astonishing that anyone would have to say this.
The main collar on nuclear war is Deterrence. This is where your enemy is convinced that retaliation will result in their destruction, ergo do not
launch. Deterrence is mathematically infinite in a military planner's mind. In reality however, it is eroded by factors such as 1:
, and 2: Decision-Making
. For example, we assume in deterrence theory that Hitler would be rational and not _want_ Berlin
to be flattened in retaliatory strikeage. Sometimes this idea fails (as in Hitler's case). An example of Deterrence failing due to decision-making
would be where the joint chiefs or whomever do not have sufficient time or circumstance to correctly evaluate the threat and therefore decide to
launch, just to be sure. Deterrence-Pure is eroded by these two factors.
There are other collars on nuclear use related to Civility of nations. The primary four components of Civility are 1: Moral
("It is wrong to
kill. Societal norms have established this") 2: Friendship
("I would certainly never kill friends. If others are sufficiently friendly, I
will not kill.") 3: War-Weariness
("I am not disposed to the idea of fighting. I wish to compromise and simply find peace at any level.")
("Nuclear weapons are automated. The decision is out of our hands entirely."). Any of these four factors (together
comprising 'Civility') could fail, but ALL of them must fail for Civility to fail, if you follow.
So the two primary collars or restraints on nuclear warfare are Deterrence and Civility. The great thing about these is that there has to be a point
where they ALL fail. There has to be a moment where morality, friendship, war-weariness and deterrence all break down for a nuclear launch to occur.
Reasoning that such a moment is unlikely, we could safely relax for twenty more years or whatever and not worry (unless we happen to care about the
world our children/grandchildren will inhabit).
Unfortunately, nuclear use due to accident is much more likely.
accidental usage does not have any of the restraints mentioned in the factors
above. In fact, it's worse because accidental usage can come fom a number of fronts. Accidents can and do happen. It was Richard Feynman who
called all the NASA scientists out regarding their failure projections in regard to the shuttle. "approaching 99.9%" was essentialy what he heard
from them. They had no concept of statistal analysis of failure in relation to systems. The Challenger did not have to explode. Would the world
have been different? Listen to scientists at your peril. Basic statistical math is more reliable.
Accident can come from any of four factors, 1: Command
(rogue commander launches his missles without authorization), 2:Control
(electronic failure, plane crash w/ nuclear weapons) 3: Communications
(false communication of attack resulting in counterattack) and 4:
(false information of impending attack resulting in counterattack).
If ANY of these factors fails, retaliation can be assumed.
Then realize that these factors are multiplied by the number of participating nuclear nations. Pakistan must preserve levels of reliability in the
above-mentioned factors that are equally high as it's global neighbors. If either India or Pakistan fails to correctly understand all of these
factors, the results are obvious. Massive pain and death in epoch-ending amounts.
Now imagine nuclear proliferation occurring at its current rate. Brazil, Japan, Saudi Arabia etc. Each of these future nuclear countries would be
like another whole set of factors placed upon the back of humanity.
Nuclear proliferation is suicide for everyone, including those rich elites who aim to survive. Unless you brainwash your children too, they will hate
you for your actions when you finally open the vault and emerge.
Nuclear weapons protect nothing.
Fear nuclear war.
[All this stuff can be investigated here: www.nukefix.org...
[edit on 7-1-2005 by smallpeeps]