Thursday, 24 September 2009

Nukes

Today was an interesting day for discussions on nuclear weapons. The President made his pitch and everyone is now all hot to have a nuclear weapon-free world. Folks are weeping and journalists are grinning from ear to ear.

It's an interesting over this nuke talk. Only two nuclear bombs have ever been utilized....both under the concept that a land battle in Japan meant tens of thousands of dead American GI's. Some analyst have even suggested over 100,000 American GI's would have been either dead or wounded from such an invasion.

The plain truth is that you don't need nukes to fight wars. We've proven this over two thousand years. Had the Germans or Japanese used nukes on us in 1943....it would have swung the war into a different prospective, but in the end....it was industrial strength of the US and simple tactics.....that gained the upper hand for the US and would been the eventual result in this alternate episode.

Quiet simply, the US could fight some opponent who used nukes while we acted out this "good guy" routine and simply fought the pre-1944 way. The cost? This would invite an interesting scenario.

Imagine yourself as a president who has suddenly been threaten by a nuclear-power while you hold no nukes. The public support? It would go to virtually zero overnight. Americans across the entire spectrum would demand nuclear weapons immediately. Your only saving grace would be the fact that we could probably manufacture new nuclear weapons in a matter of weeks.

So I think this chatter this week is pretty neat. We are trying to simplify some version of war that we find disgusting. The problem is.....losing a war.....is far more disgusting.

No comments: