posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:06 PM
So I was listening to a radio show last year about the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, and during the discussion they interviewed a high up
British official during the cold war who was with of the people who "Had his finger on the button" so to speak. He was one of the go-to guys who
could authorize a nuclear launch.
Now an old man long retired with no reputation or political consequences to worry about, not to mention now a staunch supporter of multilateral
nuclear disarmament he quite freely admitted that if he had gotten news that an all-out nuclear attack was launched at the UK from the Soviet Union,
he would not have retaliated.
I want to ask you what you would do. Right now, hypothetically put yourself in the position of power in your own nation (And give them nukes if they
don't have them) with ultimate, unquestioning authority over the use of nuclear force. What you says goes and no one at any level can contradict or
over rule your orders on this matter.
You are woken up at 3am by your Secretary of Defence letting you know that a Soviet/NATO/Chinese/Indian nuclear attack is heading to every major city
in your country, absolutely assuring the death of 50% of your population from the blasts with a further 40% expected to die from the ensuing fallout
and disruption in the next 30 days. The attack will hit within the next 3 hours, and he needs your authorization to launch a retaliatory strike.
What do you do? The knee-jerk reaction is "Light 'em up!" But, think about it logically. You are put in an interesting moral position. You and
everyone you know is going to die thanks to the decisions of a few unhinged politicians thousands of miles away, and now you can respond in suite to
get back at them.Although, that would also mean murdering hundreds of millions of innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with these missiles
and would probably be quite opposed to them being launched in the first place had they known.
Or you can accept your fate, tell your wife and children you love them, not retaliate and spare the lives of perhaps billions of people. Your
inaction might even give mankind a future that exists beyond extinction. Although it sets an uncomfortable precedent and it ultimately is letting the
belligerent bad guy win.
Christians. Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? Within your religion, would God have mercy for you if you chose to retaliate against a
A lot of the people I asked amongst my friends concurred that they would in fact not push the button. That they would welcome the oncoming nuclear
holocaust and wish the world the very best rather than bringing it down with them. But that brings me to an interesting notion.
How many men of power during the cold war would have actually not have chosen to retaliate in a nuclear strike?
How many men of power today share that notion, and would see the virtue of non-retaliation considering all that was at stake?
Is perhaps, the reason that we never went to nuclear war with the Russians despite several false positives from early warning systems during the 40
year long cold war because at the end of the day, only a minority of people would actually do it when push came to shove?
**P.S. I spent well over an hour just now looking for who exactly it was I am referencing to at the beginning of my post but, considering it was from
a year-old radio show I couldn't find out. Sorry. Although I suspect it could be one of the many former Secretary of Defence's who are now members
of anti-nuclear weapon societies.**