RE: The terror my parents' generation had of a nuclear apocalypse, lest we forget
January 10, 2020 at 9:10 pm
The threat of nuclear war hasn't really gone away. One can argue that it has lessened considerably but there is still the specter of it happening by accident.
I'm too lazy to look up all the examples on Google but there have been multiple occasions when it only was stopped by the actions of a single officer who took the chance that a false-alarm was just that. Then there was the NATO exercise in late 1984 when Russian paranoia - fueled in part by Reagan's insane Bible quotes - convinced many of them that the exercise was a ruse to lull them into complacency while NATO launched an actual attack - a pretty good military idea, really.
There is little current tension between the US and Russia that would justify either side in launching a massive, preemptive strike in response to early warning system errors but that remains a thing. Imagine being one of the people in control of the ICBMs and you have an indication that an enemy has launched a missile at you. How would you like to be the person who has to decide whether or not to respond?
Despite that danger, I still believe nuclear weapons have stabilized the world. Even the craziest of leaders understand that use of nuclear weapons is almost certain to reduce one's own standard of living considerably. It's not the best of situations but I like it when leaders of super powers understand that domination through military might is not the most practical way to go. It'll give you a good deterrent against aggression but if you want dominance, you'll have to achieve it through other means.
I'm too lazy to look up all the examples on Google but there have been multiple occasions when it only was stopped by the actions of a single officer who took the chance that a false-alarm was just that. Then there was the NATO exercise in late 1984 when Russian paranoia - fueled in part by Reagan's insane Bible quotes - convinced many of them that the exercise was a ruse to lull them into complacency while NATO launched an actual attack - a pretty good military idea, really.
There is little current tension between the US and Russia that would justify either side in launching a massive, preemptive strike in response to early warning system errors but that remains a thing. Imagine being one of the people in control of the ICBMs and you have an indication that an enemy has launched a missile at you. How would you like to be the person who has to decide whether or not to respond?
Despite that danger, I still believe nuclear weapons have stabilized the world. Even the craziest of leaders understand that use of nuclear weapons is almost certain to reduce one's own standard of living considerably. It's not the best of situations but I like it when leaders of super powers understand that domination through military might is not the most practical way to go. It'll give you a good deterrent against aggression but if you want dominance, you'll have to achieve it through other means.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein