None of this is to say the immediate effects of a nuclear blast are a picnic. On the other hand, a global nuclear exchange almost happened by accident several times so far due to errors in computer systems and/or the humans operating them. The common dread of what a nuclear strike might lead to was not strong enough to prevent the Kargil War, a short but vicious conventional war over part of Kashmir in 1999, but the mere possibility of a nuclear exchange was enough to motivate the U.S. In response to the other one acquiring, and testing, nuclear weapons they began to increase diplomatic relations to the point where disputes between the countries are now settled over a game of cricket which has the effect of not destroying the region - and the added bonus that you can break at 3:30 for tea. India and Pakistan are two nations that, on the brink of war, decided to acquire nuclear weapons. The most effective technique to use in a nuclear war is quite simple: not to have one. Scientists (operative term being "scientist", not strategists), as a general rule, tend to disagree. Many hawks have tried to downplay the possible effects of nuclear war, many even believing that a nuclear war is winnable (thus the massive amounts of spending on the Strategic Defense Initiative in the Reagan administration, as well as its successor National Missile Defense, both considered abject failures by outside observers). This would be similar to what happened in central Ukraine and southern Belarus after the Chernobyl disaster. Even if this was not the result, the extreme increase in radiation would not only cause many health hazards and genetic abnormalities, but it would also contaminate the soil so that any crops that were produced could not be safely eaten. In fact, studies have shown that even a small regional nuclear war with 100 Hiroshima-sized weapons could have devastating effects on agriculture worldwide. Some have speculated that enough nuclear bombs going off at once would create a " nuclear winter" by blanketing the earth in long-lasting airborne sand which would filter out sunlight and result in the death of most life on the planet. However, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the fear that undeterrable wackos with wild political ambitions or religious fanatics that literally believe in the end of days as something desirable might get them, people are frantically working to find alternatives.Īttempts have been made to evaluate the likely effects of a full nuclear exchange. Until recently, it was assumed that Mutual Assured Destruction would be the best way to prevent states from attacking each other with nuclear weapons, since it would be suicide. The nuclear powers have put a lot of effort into preventing the latter from ever occurring, engaging in various forms of deterrence. This could range from a single, small weapon (like a bunker buster or the ones dropped by the United States on Japan in World War II) all the way up to a full-blown Armageddon between nuclear powers. Technically, a nuclear war would be any war in which nuclear weapons are used. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. “ ”Every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |