Mingus Casey: On The History Of Nuclear Arms

Published: Tue 10 Oct 2006 01:15 PM
On The History Of Nuclear Arms, The Arms Trade, And One Very Small Very Vulnerable Very Beautiful Planet
By Mingus Casey
Once only America had nuclear weapons. It has used two nuclear bombs in combat, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to end World War Two. After WW2, the cold war between Russia and America heated up and Russia believed it required Nuclear weapons to defend itself from potential American aggression and to allow itself to fight on an even battlefield, especially after America planned to use nuclear weapons to defend South Korea during the Korean war as a last resort.
After Russia gained nuclear arms, a lot of countries in Europe got very scared of nuclear bombs, this led to England and France reaching for the bomb.
By the mid-1950's four countries were nuclear-capable. Their neighbors were afraid of the bomb. By the mid 1960's, China, in fear of both Russia and America with nuclear weapons developed the bomb. The Sino-Indian war of 1961 followed shortly after by China's nuclear test left India concluding it needed nuclear weapons to defend against the potential threat from China. In the early 1970's India tested it's first nuclear device, a so called "peaceful" nuclear bomb, the 'Smiling Buddha'. Buddha does not smile when you test nuclear weapons, no God smiles when you test nuclear weapons, only the Devil laughs.
By the late 1950's Israel decided it required nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from the threat of it's Arab neighbors, leading to greater fear and both Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions, with Iraq's nuclear reactor being disabled by Israeli F-16's in 1982. Iraq and Iran were at war at the time however there was an unspoken agreement between them that Iraq's nuclear program would be used to safeguard the Arab world against Israel's nuclear arsenal. Since then Israel has engaged in a world wide propaganda campaign against Iran and Iraq, indirectly contributing to America's invasion of Iraq and America's current stance against Iran.
Nuclear weapons are spread by fear.
Iran's fear of Israel has led to its nuclear ambitions.
The ongoing low-intensity conflict between India and Pakistan led Pakistan to reach for the nuclear fist in fear of India, increasing nuclear proliferation world wide and Pakistan has since spread the nuclear disease further, with proven nuclear weapons technology transfer to Iran.
With North Korea having previously been threatened by nuclear weapons during the Korean War it covertly aimed to build nuclear weapons and has recently tested its first nuclear device, raising tensions in the area. Now Japan is more likely to reach for nuclear arms.
The Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as signed and put into place by the Carter administration has been signed and ratified by many countries however the motives for this document were not completely selfless, America viewed itself as a stronger country if it's opponents were not nuclear armed, as did all of the other countries with nuclear arms.
The majority of countries with nuclear arms also deal conventional arms and proliferate weapons technologies willy-nilly. The combination of ballistic missiles, tactical fighter aircraft and nuclear warheads is potentially lethal. Worldwide, the real threat lies with nuclear weapons delivered by fighter aircraft flying at low level, generally missile launches are detectable by radar and early warning satellites however aircraft flying underneath the radar ceiling are a lot more dangerous. However, the main arms dealers of the world and the main nuclear technology proliferators make a lot of money by selling the world aircraft, as illustrated by America's constant willingness to supply the world with F-16's, Russia's trades involving Sukhoi 27's to India and China, and the United Kingdom's recent arms deal with India to supply it with Hawk trainer aircraft.
I believe there is a direct relation between the ability to profit from something and the politicians turning a blind eye to it. America does not profit from its enemies having nuclear weapons. No one profits from nuclear weapons, even those countries that fear nuclear armed powers.
The logic that makes a man reach for a gun when he knows another man is armed and dangerous is the same logic that leads to nuclear proliferation. Arms control laws can be and are broken on a regular basis, nuclear non proliferation treaties as enforced by countries with nuclear weapons is similar to a man with a gun saying "No I want to be the only man with a gun, you can't have one, if you have one I'll shoot you. And if you don't have one I'll shoot you too".
If you believe the man with the gun is going to shoot you anyway suddenly it becomes very important to have a gun. However, fighting fire with fire leads to a bigger fire until everything is burned. This is what the politicians fail to understand. They have the best interests of themselves and their people at heart and they believe they must keep those interests safe at all costs, ultimately through their actions they have shown that Earth is expendable in order for their people to live. And if that means nuclear arms then so be it, in their eyes. I disagree.
They do not see that having nuclear weapons leads to further nuclear proliferation due to other countries feeling fear of them.
Fear breeds fear and it can only be defeated by love and trust for the world.
On the other side of the spectrum multiple countries including New Zealand, Belgium and South Africa have declared themselves nuclear free. I am a citizen of New Zealand, we went non-nuclear despite a great deal of pressure from America, we didn't want to play that game any more, we want to live. We still die if the winter comes though. I'd almost rather live in New York or London or Tehran or Jerusalem or Karachi or New Delhi or Paris or Moscow or Seoul or Pyongyang, somewhere where I won't have to survive the nuclear winter.
I live in our capital, so maybe one or two will be sent down here, to a nuclear-free country that said no to nukes all the way down and yes to life and love and the planet all the way up. Our choice was to say no to nuclear arms and I'd rather they drop the next one on me; I am sick of the immaturity and stupidity of the rest of the so called developed world. What has it done with it's development? It has spread the nuclear cancer, a cancer that if left unchecked will kill us all. The leaders who launch them will die first, or perhaps last, trapped in bunkers with the way out blown apart, a slow and horrible death with nothing but the knowledge that they contributed to the death of the rest of the world and everyone they ever loved to comfort them. And yet I'd still say I forgive them for my death because they were only human.
The ecological effects of nuclear testing are massive, with the vast majority of nuclear armed states (USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel) possessing more than enough nuclear weapons to send the world into a nuclear winter, the only countries in the world with out enough nuclear weapons to do so at this point in time are North Korea (1-15), Pakistan (40-50) and India (40-50).
If only two hundred nuclear weapons are used (a successful first strike scenario against a first world nation) that is sufficient to release enough dust and radioactive fallout into the atmosphere to reduce the worlds temperature by five to twenty degrees centigrade. Two hundred nukes is unrealistically low, a lot more would be used. If this happens, humanity and the majority of plant vegetable and sea life will probably die out. As it is, fall out from previous tests has killed a minimum of five thousand people world wide since the development of nuclear arms.
In the early 1960's the Russian's conducted an atmospheric nuclear weapons test with a yield of over one hundred megatons, this led to lethal amounts of radiation being distributed over the majority of the arctic in the short term and in the long term the Atmospheric Test Ban treaty, they could no longer afford to test nuclear weapons above the surface of the Earth.
If a full-scale nuclear exchange occurs between members of the UN Security council humanity will not survive. If this occurs this proves beyond all doubt that humanity did not deserve to exist in the first place, we have evolved and gained complexity over billions of years, to the point where we can now destroy ourselves utterly and completely, we must now evolve to the point where we can let our world live and this requires compassion and empathy and an end to fear-tactics and scaremongering.
Nuclear proliferation sucks ass. I feel sorry for all the people in the world that have to live in fear of the bomb and pray for the safety of the planet and all the people in it.
Please don't blow up any planets with sentient life on them ever.
Pretty please? Pandora's box had hope.

Next in Comment

A Looting Matter: Cambodia’s Stolen Antiquities
By: Binoy Kampmark
Dunne Speaks: Labour Leadership Speculation Premature And Facile
By: Peter Dunne
Colossal ‘Porkies’ And Band-aids Don’t Make A Health Workforce Plan
By: Ian Powell
The Fuss About Monkeypox
By: Binoy Kampmark
Dunne Speaks: Time For MPs To Think For Themselves
By: Peter Dunne
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media