But what about the nuclear factor? They are threatening a nuclear strike. Wouldn't we respond by giving Asia a night-light? Should we respond in that manner? (ie, moral considerations) Shouldn't we respond in that manner? (ie, the effective response needed to end the situation)
It took us some time to reduce the size of a warhead to be deliverable by ICBM. Also, we started out with only one Little Boy and two Fat Men. After Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, we had shot our wad, so to speak. After that, we basically bluffed our way to the Japanese surrender. So after having demonstrated their basic ability with nuclear weapons, how far have they actually gotten with a deliverable system?
How much of their own homework do they need to have done to get there? Back around 1980, give or take a half decade, the PBS show
Nova hired an upper-division chemistry student to design a nuclear weapon. Using sources that were freely available, he came up with a design that was evaluated as being 50% probable to successfully work.
Our professional analysts would know better than we what their capabilities would be. But if you're a street thug telling that street cop that you have a firearm in your pocket and you move to draw it to use against him, then that street cop is justified to defend himself. So if North Korea, as an international thug, says that he's attacking with a nuclear weapon, then he has to be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly.
Tom Lehrer,
Who's Next? (c. 1964)
quote:
First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?
France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?
Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
I remember the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Cold War was over! I also remember a lecture by my classical Greek professor. During the Peloponnesian War, all sides engaged in massive building up of weaponry and the training of soldiers. Then when that war ended, you suddenly had all kinds of surplus weapons that could be had for really cheap and all kinds of experienced mercenaries out for hire. What followed was a rash of bush wars in which every minor principality or whatever suddenly could afford to wage war against his neighbors. Chaos. So when the Soviet Union fell and "peace broke out", I muttered "Oh fuck. Here it comes."
As long as the wielders of nuclear weapons have a stake in the outcome of the game, as long as they have something to lose by using their nuclear capabilities, there can be some hope of keeping the world safe. But throw in a lunatic with nothing to lose and all bets are off.
I'd say that they're bluffing. But then what do I know?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
