Omar: As a matter of mathematical principle, I
suppose that having as few nuclear weapons as
possible in the world would make the world safer.
But it doesn't follow that having huge arsenals of
nuclear weapons concentrated in the hands of
several states makes it safer.
Sure it does, if you think of the cultural and
technical infrastructure behind nuclear weapons
systems. For example, in recent years, the worst
near-nuclear mishaps have occurred in primitive or
degrading command and control systems.
In one of the last near-nuclear mishaps on record,
in 1995, the Russians almost "launched" in
response to a Norwegian weather satellite launch.
They had been notified by Norway but word never
got to the Russian nuclear command and control
systems, which BECAUSE they are degraded, could
not immediately identify the launch as that of a
weather satellite. The US has since paid millions
to upgrade Russia's satellite lookdown capacity,
just to avoid accidental nuclear war.
A second case* occurred between India and Pakistan
during Clinton's second term, in which the Pakis
were physically loading nukes onto an airplane,
which was then to fly over India, and the crew was
to physically push the bombs out of the plane over
major Indian population centers.
The first case shows the danger of primitive or
degraded technical systems of nuclear command and
control. The second case illustrates the
recklessness of cultures with no long experience
living with the Bomb and thinking about its
consequences.
_____
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
