The specter of nuclear holocaust may have shrunk to practically zero. But it isn't zero.Wikimedia Commons
December 21, 2012 has arrived, and the world has not come to an end, despite the feverish expectations of millions worldwide believe the Mayan calendar foretells our collective doom. However, there is a very real potential doomsday which does threaten our global civilization and virtually all forms of life on the planet, and our complete disregard for this threat is a form of collective madness far more crazy than waiting out December 21 in a backyard bunker.
At the height of the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear arsenals that exceeded 10,000 warheads a piece. Today, the United States and Russia still possess approximately 1,500 nuclear warheads each. That's a dramatic reduction numerically, but a nuclear exchange involving 3,000 weapons would end our civilization just as effectively as one involving 20,000 -- to say nothing of the strategic stockpiles in China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and Israel, or the suspected nuclear weapons program in Iran.
It's pointless to try and guess how many would perish immediately in a full-scale nuclear exchange, or whether the survivors would die primarily because of radiation sickness, hunger, thirst, or disease. Life in a post-nuclear world would be savage, brutal and miserable beyond imagination. If you survived the initial blasts, and didn't soon afterwards succumb to radiation poisoning or typhoid, where would you find food for you and your family? How would you stay warm when winter arrived? What would you do for entertainment without the Internet, video games, cable TV or Netflix?
And yet there is close to zero public debate or discussion of the horrifying threat of nuclear arms. It's astonishing that people who don't trust government to administer a national health-care program, or who don't trust politicians to decide on the nation's top tax rate, seem to have unqualified and unthinking trust in the people and institutions that get us all killed, practically speaking, in a heartbeat.
Nuclear weapons are subject -- at least, I hope -- to the strictest controls known to humanity. And while we scoff at the doctrine of papal infallibility, we seem to accept without hesitation the notion that the command-and-control systems of the White House and the United States military are absolutely and perfectly failsafe. And if you have no doubts about America's systems, we are still at the mercy of command-and-control systems in Russia and in China -- systems you might consider even less reliable than ours.
Nothing designed by man is absolutely and perfectly failsafe. And major decisions about these doomsday devices are ultimately made not by all-knowing and infinitely wise philosopher-kings, but by elected politicians prone to miscalculation and misjudgment. According to recent and authoritative histories of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy balked at offering the Soviets a critical part of the bargain that ended the nuclear showdown, removing strategically useless American Pershing missiles from their bases in Turkey. His express motivation was that doing so publicly before the November 1962 elections would cost his party a dozen seats in Congress. Think about that for a moment.