It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are We Closer To Nuclear War Now Than In The 1950 and 1960'S?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Considering the current climate of paranoia and pre-emptive action built only on suspicion of a threat, I would say that the use of a nuclear device is not only possible, but highly likely.
After the 2nd world war that saw the use of nuclear weapons on Japan, a number of governments around the world immediately realised that it would be prudent to develop their own nuclear capability as quickly as possible. Although scientists knew of the power that is unleashed from these devices, there was still much to learn regarding the effects. Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the study centers, whilst the arms race slowly began to to gather pace.
However, it wasn't until the 50s that the cold war really took a grip upon the hearts and minds of the people of both the East and the West, and thus the age of paranoia was born. By the 1980s, both America and the Soviet Union had built and strategically placed nuclear missles around the globe, whilst other countries such as the UK, China, France, South Africa and Israel, acheived their own smaller nuclear arsenals. Between them, they could annihilate life on the planet many times over, and this capability still exists today.

Two things have enabled man to stave off nuclear conflict since the end of WW2, and those were the actual use of nukes on Japan, and the principle of M.A.D (Mutual-Assured-Destruction). It is probable that without 'little boy' and 'fat man' being used on Japan, man in his ignorance would have used nukes in one of the many conflicts to have arisen since WW2. Without what has been learned from Japan, the world today might be a wholly lifeless planet in the grip of a nuclear winter.
As the awful and very wide-ranging effects of nuclear weapons became known over the years, past governments saw the 'insanity' behind ever allowing the nukes to used and unleashed, and thus they developed policies and compromises from political philosophies aimed at keeping a lid on them. It became 'unthinkable' even to suggest their use, as the cost was beyond what man could actually pay, for if they were ever used, he would pay with his extinction: Two thirds of the worlds population would be wiped out in the initial attacks, and the rest, including most other life forms, would die out over the ensuing years. You would not want to survive an all-out nuclear conflict, for if you did, the physical and psychological effects would make you envy the dead.

Today, those policies designed to stave off the 'thinkable' use of nukes have been brushed aside by politicians whom have been gripped by fear and paranoia. Today, they openly discuss the strategic use of nukes not only as a retalitory response, but also as a pre-emptive one. The problem is, M.A.D. is still in place, and nukes being the wholesale devastation that they are, countries cannot anticipate or hesistate in unleashing their own nukes whilst awaiting to be potentially attacked. Bush's open policy of having a self-proclaimed right to pre-emptive action against not only an actual attack, but the threat of one, has brought nuclear use within the realm of high-probability. The unthinkable has not only become thinkable, but also do-able.

The original question for this thread was are we now closer to nuclear conflict than at any time in the past? The question can be sub-divided into questions of premeditated or accidental use. On the premeditative side, I would say yes we are, probably as close to nuclear conflict as say the Bay of Pigs, but on the accidental side, we are no more closer than we ever have been.

Regards




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Not closer than the Cuban Missile Crisis, but still a lot closer than any other day of the Cold War.

Why? Because neither the US or USSR during the Cold War were interested into plunging the whole world into a global nuclear war... but now that the "two great superpowers" situation is no more, the Western world is into a logic of invasion and both the US, Israel, UK, and France are no longer afraid of using the nuclear weapons as both political threat and military tool, while some "rogue nations" will use everything they have in store in a desperate attempt to repel the invader. This is the war that Kissinger had predicted just a few years ago, right before 9/11 on a CNN interview... the Western world using the threat of international extremist networks to "bring peace and freedom" in the Middle-East and Eurasia, which translates to regime changes, State terror and military invasion.

The "accusers" (i.e. our Western governments)... these are the ones that are the real threat to world peace, as they are the ones who have the biggest amount or WMDs and are reckless about invading Middle-East and Eurasia.

The actual situation is far more complicated and dangerous as it ever was, I believe. Or course there's still hope for a diplomatic solution, but with all these demented right-wing zionists in power in North America and Europe, I have my doubts. Catastrophies, just like in the 1983 event, have been prevented by people who are committed to peace (which means AVOIDING war, not starting wars for it), but these days it seems the global balance of power goes to the war-mongerers.

[edit on 16/7/06 by Echtelion]



new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join