The latest Washington DC treaty to lower the number of nuclear weapons the US possesses, START, will probably pass the Senate today. The treaty will limit the number of nuclear warheads for both the USA and Russian Federation to 1500 (down from 2250) and the number of launchers to 800 total land, sea and air.
START will also resume inspections by both sides of each other's nuclear arsenal and launchers.
A number of characters will be doing a happy dance when this treaty gets passed.
Here is what is not covered in the START treaty.
- There is nothing in the treaty about the number of nuclear weapons and launchers that China can have, nor about any sort of inspection for their growing nuclear arsenal.
- There is nothing in the treaty about limiting new countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. Right now the list of countries who have produced crude weapons or are working dillegently on them includes North Korea, Venezuela, Myamar, and Iran.
- There is nothing in the treaty which limits the USA or Russia from assisting another country with the construction or design of nuclear weapons. Further, there is nothing in the treaty which limits either country from new military treaties which can be used to increase the potential nuclear offensive capability of a new alliance.
- There is nothing about the treaty first inspecting the working capability of either country and places limits based upon that capability. Thus, one country may only have 600 functioning launchers meaning this treaty is only window dressing.
- There is nothing in this treaty which addresses the real potential cause for nuclear war which is a terrorist organization, backed by legitimate states, using nuclear devices against the USA or Russia.
At this point, the USA and Russia have successfully, over the past twenty years, reduced the number of functioning nuclear weapons and launchers they both have. That's great if the largest problem in the world is the potential of a nuclear war between the USA and the Russian Federation.
However, in 2010, this situation is not the problem the world faces today.
The real issue with nuclear proliferation today is not between the USA and Russia, but with dozens of other nations which are actively and agressively working on building nuclear capability. If the USA and Russia eliminate too much of their working nuclear deterrent, they may find themselves in the near future at the mercy of a collaboration between nuclear armed terror groups and rogue nations or even a growing nuclear armed nation like China.
At some point, those doing the happy dance with the signature of this START treaty had better start recognizing that the real danger comes from those not in the room on signing day.
Showing posts with label the spectre of atomic war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the spectre of atomic war. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Prepare: NYT - Nuclear Strike is survivable
I woke up today in a different world. Dogs and cats were friends. People liked New Coke. Heck had frozen over.
There in the New York Times was this article about nuclear war and how people could survive it or at least increase their survivability by simply staying put and taking shelter rather than fleeing.
Since the 1970's, the mainstream media has marched the public to the drumbeat of the repeated message - "Nuclear war, no matter how large or small, will result in the complete destruction of the earth and the death of all people. The world will end and there is no point in attempting to prepare for or survive a nuclear war as the resulting world will be worse than death".
Now this.
Administration officials argue that the cold war created an unrealistic sense of fatalism about a terrorist nuclear attack. “It’s more survivable than most people think,” said an official deeply involved in the planning, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The key is avoiding nuclear fallout.”
The only sense of fatalism came from the media. Ordinary citizens built home fallout shelters and stocked their basements. The government, especially under Kennedy, planned and stocked thousands of public shelters across the country. It was the news media who propogated the myth that all would die horrible deaths regardless of their preparations.
“We have to get past the mental block that says it’s too terrible to think about,” W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview. “We have to be ready to deal with it” and help people learn how to “best protect themselves.”
Good gravy. They actually want us to do something about it ourselves rather than wait for Uncle Sugar and his merry band of FEMA friends to show up, hand out bottled water and debit cards and make the problems all go away?
What is sad about this is that in the 1980's, Cresson Kearney produced a book which outlined research from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory about surviving nuclear war. The media and several prominent politicians quickly dismissed it as their own conventional wisdom maintained that nobody would survive a nuclear war and that nuclear disarmament, by the USA, only of course, was the only option to avoiding nuclear destruction.
Now this.
It could be that the administration, pushing for a new START treaty with Russia, wants to frame the nuclear war thing again in the media as a way to get approval for their efforts. Everything is politics of course.
And other than producing the pamphlet outlined in the NYT article, I doubt the federal government will revive the public shelter program, Civil Defense or shelter stocking.
However, let's not forget that there are now more nations with nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon manufacturing capability than there was as late as the 1980's and more nations will soon join them. We are in an arms race not between two nations, but between thirty or forty.
It's great the government wants to talk about nuclear war preparedness again, but remember, they only want to have a conversation. Talk is cheap. Real preparedness starts with you right now.
There in the New York Times was this article about nuclear war and how people could survive it or at least increase their survivability by simply staying put and taking shelter rather than fleeing.
Since the 1970's, the mainstream media has marched the public to the drumbeat of the repeated message - "Nuclear war, no matter how large or small, will result in the complete destruction of the earth and the death of all people. The world will end and there is no point in attempting to prepare for or survive a nuclear war as the resulting world will be worse than death".
Now this.
Administration officials argue that the cold war created an unrealistic sense of fatalism about a terrorist nuclear attack. “It’s more survivable than most people think,” said an official deeply involved in the planning, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The key is avoiding nuclear fallout.”
The only sense of fatalism came from the media. Ordinary citizens built home fallout shelters and stocked their basements. The government, especially under Kennedy, planned and stocked thousands of public shelters across the country. It was the news media who propogated the myth that all would die horrible deaths regardless of their preparations.
“We have to get past the mental block that says it’s too terrible to think about,” W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview. “We have to be ready to deal with it” and help people learn how to “best protect themselves.”
Good gravy. They actually want us to do something about it ourselves rather than wait for Uncle Sugar and his merry band of FEMA friends to show up, hand out bottled water and debit cards and make the problems all go away?
What is sad about this is that in the 1980's, Cresson Kearney produced a book which outlined research from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory about surviving nuclear war. The media and several prominent politicians quickly dismissed it as their own conventional wisdom maintained that nobody would survive a nuclear war and that nuclear disarmament, by the USA, only of course, was the only option to avoiding nuclear destruction.
Now this.
It could be that the administration, pushing for a new START treaty with Russia, wants to frame the nuclear war thing again in the media as a way to get approval for their efforts. Everything is politics of course.
And other than producing the pamphlet outlined in the NYT article, I doubt the federal government will revive the public shelter program, Civil Defense or shelter stocking.
However, let's not forget that there are now more nations with nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon manufacturing capability than there was as late as the 1980's and more nations will soon join them. We are in an arms race not between two nations, but between thirty or forty.
It's great the government wants to talk about nuclear war preparedness again, but remember, they only want to have a conversation. Talk is cheap. Real preparedness starts with you right now.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Prepare: The spectre of nuclear war
The meeting in New York this week between several nations discussing the proliferation and threat of nuclear weapons brings up today's post. The threat of nuclear war is still with us, but is far different than it was originally.
In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the possibility of full scale nuclear war appeared imminent, here is what the family of the time faced. Dad might be a few miles away at the factory or office, or maybe downtown whereas the family lived in one of the new tract home suburbs popping up across the United States.
A fallout shelter might have been in the basement or perhaps in the backyard if they had the time or money. It was stocked with cans of Campbells Soup, powdered milk and Sanka instant coffee. In the event of a nuclear attack, Civil Defense sirens would sound their low warbling tone, and radio stations would switch over to the Conelrad system with the purpose of instructing listeners of what actions to take.
An nuclear attack on the US in 1962 would have been carried out with long range bombers, some short range submarine launched missiles and a several intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US would have had anywhere between twenty minutes to an hour or more before a bomb might land near their location. At the same time, the US would have scrambled hundreds of bombers from across the US and launched its own intercontinental ballistic missiles once confirmation was received. Submarines would have moved to launch positions and wait for the second or third salvo. Some US Navy ships would do the same.
1962 Dad may have time to get home and get the family to the shelter. Mother would have filled water containers and collected more canned food from the kitchen. Sissy would get her favorite doll and Junior his baseball glove. Dad would have collected a flashlight, batteries and maybe a portable AM radio and placed them in the shelter. The family might have to spend as much as two weeks in the shelter to avoid fallout.
If Dad could not get home, or if other family members were away, they might have had to shelter in one of the public fallout shelters found in many office and public buildings. There, they would have access to basic medical supplies, energy biscuits, canned water and other supplies put in place by the Federal Government Office of Civil Defense.
Today would be a different situation. Very few countries possess the ability to launch multiple nuclear devce bearing vehicles at the US. In today's terrorist attack world, a nuclear device may be smuggled into the country and detonated in a van or storage container. The nuclear weapon may actually only be a conventional bomb with nuclear material creating a "dirty bomb" instead.
In this case, there would not be any advance notice or time for preparation. If a country did launch an attack on the US, most people do not have a fallout shelter or access to one. The US Civil Defense Department was renamed FEMA and in the past thirty years, has removed nearly all Civil Defense supplies and closed public shelters. Even the old Fallout Shelter signs have been taken down.
People who used to work in the same communities they lived in, now may be 40,50 or 60 miles away from home. Mom and Dad both work these days and Junior and Sissy might be at school, an activity or at a sitters home. Basically, the whole family could very well be miles apart when an attack happens. Further, as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina showed, a nuclear attack would quickly overwhelm city and public services nationwide and the government may be days away from any response.
In a nutshell, let's hope that the world powers work out a good way to avoid nuclear war, rather than make it a possible reality. Simply put, we are not ready and as a society, would most likely not survive.
Do you have food insurance?
In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the possibility of full scale nuclear war appeared imminent, here is what the family of the time faced. Dad might be a few miles away at the factory or office, or maybe downtown whereas the family lived in one of the new tract home suburbs popping up across the United States.
A fallout shelter might have been in the basement or perhaps in the backyard if they had the time or money. It was stocked with cans of Campbells Soup, powdered milk and Sanka instant coffee. In the event of a nuclear attack, Civil Defense sirens would sound their low warbling tone, and radio stations would switch over to the Conelrad system with the purpose of instructing listeners of what actions to take.
An nuclear attack on the US in 1962 would have been carried out with long range bombers, some short range submarine launched missiles and a several intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US would have had anywhere between twenty minutes to an hour or more before a bomb might land near their location. At the same time, the US would have scrambled hundreds of bombers from across the US and launched its own intercontinental ballistic missiles once confirmation was received. Submarines would have moved to launch positions and wait for the second or third salvo. Some US Navy ships would do the same.
1962 Dad may have time to get home and get the family to the shelter. Mother would have filled water containers and collected more canned food from the kitchen. Sissy would get her favorite doll and Junior his baseball glove. Dad would have collected a flashlight, batteries and maybe a portable AM radio and placed them in the shelter. The family might have to spend as much as two weeks in the shelter to avoid fallout.
If Dad could not get home, or if other family members were away, they might have had to shelter in one of the public fallout shelters found in many office and public buildings. There, they would have access to basic medical supplies, energy biscuits, canned water and other supplies put in place by the Federal Government Office of Civil Defense.
Today would be a different situation. Very few countries possess the ability to launch multiple nuclear devce bearing vehicles at the US. In today's terrorist attack world, a nuclear device may be smuggled into the country and detonated in a van or storage container. The nuclear weapon may actually only be a conventional bomb with nuclear material creating a "dirty bomb" instead.
In this case, there would not be any advance notice or time for preparation. If a country did launch an attack on the US, most people do not have a fallout shelter or access to one. The US Civil Defense Department was renamed FEMA and in the past thirty years, has removed nearly all Civil Defense supplies and closed public shelters. Even the old Fallout Shelter signs have been taken down.
People who used to work in the same communities they lived in, now may be 40,50 or 60 miles away from home. Mom and Dad both work these days and Junior and Sissy might be at school, an activity or at a sitters home. Basically, the whole family could very well be miles apart when an attack happens. Further, as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina showed, a nuclear attack would quickly overwhelm city and public services nationwide and the government may be days away from any response.
In a nutshell, let's hope that the world powers work out a good way to avoid nuclear war, rather than make it a possible reality. Simply put, we are not ready and as a society, would most likely not survive.
Do you have food insurance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Tag and Bookmark
x
Posts
