The 1950s were a turbulent time on both sides of the Iron Curtain. With the Second World War over and the star role played by crude oil in its outcome, British and U.S. intelligence agencies wasted no time working out scenarios should the Soviets invade the Middle East.
Most people intuitively get it. An American preventive strike to wipe out North Korea’s nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, or a commando raid launched with the same goal in mind, is likely to initiate a chain of events culminating in catastrophe. That would be true above all for the roughly 76 million Koreans living on either side of the Demilitarized Zone. Donald Trump, though, seems unperturbed.
(ANTIWAR.COM) — With the US forever investing more into their nuclear arsenal, ensuring they have the world’s biggest collection of city destroying arms, the fact that none have been used in over 70 years is a silver lining to many, but within the administration, it may be a problem that needs correcting.
@media(max-width: 600px) {.adace_adsense_5a48ca8c9991d {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 601px) {.adace_adsense_5a48ca8c9991d {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 801px) {.adace_adsense_5a48ca8c9991d {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 961px) {.adace_adsense_5a48ca8c9991d {display:block !important;}}
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
By Jonathan Power December 19th. 2017 The nuclear weapon missile business is contradictory, full of missteps, highly dangerous and prepared in its madness (Mutually Assured Destruction, aka MAD, they used to call it in Cold War days) to plunge the world into a nuclear war that will reduce most of the world to dust. A […]
Opinion — The case against Iraqing Iran includes the following points:
Exclusive: President Trump fancies himself a crafty, zigzagging negotiator, but his pride in his bellicose unpredictability has brought the North Korean crisis to the edge of a horrific calamity, as Jonathan Marshall explains. By Jonathan Marshall Anyone who says talk…Read more →
@media(max-width: 600px) {.adace_adsense_5a226027c0b17 {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 601px) {.adace_adsense_5a226027c0b17 {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 801px) {.adace_adsense_5a226027c0b17 {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 961px) {.adace_adsense_5a226027c0b17 {display:block !important;}}
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Ironically, President Trump’s frequent nuclear blustering serves to hide one aspect of the nuclear risk. Focus on his instability and possible impetuous resort to the nuclear trigger may distract from equally significant dangers. Any discussion of the threat posed by nuclear weapons should include recounting and further explanation of the multiple accidents with nuclear weaponry as well as the environmental dangers their manufacture and storage pose.
Maybe you thought America’s nuclear arsenal, with its thousands of city-busting, potentially civilization-destroying thermonuclear warheads, was plenty big enough to deter any imaginable adversary from attacking the U.S. with nukes of their own. Well, it turns out you were wrong.
