They Call Me Dr. Feel Good Strangelove

An irreverent, yet serious, look at nuclear war

DISCLAIMER: I wrote this a long time ago, I still believe it, it’s my educated and professional opinion on the matter of nuclear war. Before I was a chef and a wannabe poet, I was a professor of International War. So, have a laugh and stop being afraid of nuclear weapons…mostly

Stanley Kubrick asked us all to start loving the bomb. What he might have done instead is make us more protective of processed H20 rather than nuclear fission. However, the title of his cult classic film satirizing nuclear threats is something we should be reminded of when dealing with the vast amounts of nuclear threats coming from second party nations (North Korea, Iran, I am looking at you. Pakistan and India, don’t think I don’t see you back there either.) That is why I propose and hope to logically explain why we should all rekindle our love of the bomb; after all, it has been one of our greatest protectors since 1945.

In order to love the bomb again, we as both gentlemen and scholars, must first agree to two things before we can continue; these “things” will be extrapolated further within as well so don’t jump ship just yet. The first is we must relegate to fact the statement that nuclear fission would have been discovered and utilized in this fashion regardless of history playing out any differently than it had. This fact is important because it solidifies not only the natural course of science and man’s need to harness power, but it also allows us to accept the bomb’s existence, and there is nothing we can do about it . Now, if you are still with me, the second thing that needs to be accepted is that the bomb has protected all of us, every last one of us. There is a caveat to that acceptance, and that is that those injured in tests cannot be considered as part of “every last one of us”. How did the bomb hurt them, and not protect them? Well, if we accept the first statement, then we accept acceptable loss, not my fault really, you all accepted it. But back to the second point sans its caveat’ “The bomb has kept us all safe”.

Naturally, we can only consider events after 1945 when the world truly learned the awesome power (not cool but literally full of awe) of nature’s tiniest temper tantrum. After that day, the nuclear bomb became a deterrent to itself. Like no other weapon in history the utilization of the bomb has caused all other nations to fear the utilization of the bomb so much that they build more bombs to scare everyone else from using their bombs even though they know they will never use their bombs and everyone else knows to never use theirs…whoa, that made me dizzy. Allow me to explain in more, shall we say, terms of the lay man.

During the height of the Cold War and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States and the Soviet Union both adopted, unceremoniously and only somewhat formally, the policy of MAD, or mutually assured destruction (Acronyms for the win with that one.) Both nations, as part of SALT I and II, as well as various other nuclear regulatory acts, agreed to not only downsize their arsenal but obey a few ground rules. These were to keep missile silos open and to not actively target missile sites and keep their intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) pointed at population centers only, how nice of them. These methods severely disincentivized either side from pushing the candy red button on the other end of the candy red phone. However, it was not the official policies of MAD that protected anybody, it was the fact that with the advent of the ICBM and 24 hour “Santa Runs” with B-52’s and Tu-95’s, mutually assured destruction was a product of the product. But how can a weapon create deterrence to itself? Firstly, the aim of any weapon is twofold, the first being to effectively kill if it is used (big giant check there) and the second is to deter the enemy from attacking due to the effectiveness outlined in the first point (check again). Achieving what no other weapon could in the history of mankind, nuclear weapons make for the most effective weapon. Further proof of this lies in the fact that ICBM’s and air launched warheads take an inherent amount of time to reach a target and this time lapse creates a sufficient amount of time for the other guy to deploy his 99 red balloons. So again, the nature of the weapon itself deterred the use of the weapon itself and no other destructive device in history has ever been able to do that; case in point would be the Maxim machine gun, we all know what Maxim himself said about that thing, talk about missing the mark right? However, there is one more criteria that needs to be in play in order for the bomb to keep us all safe, said criteria is second strike.

To be short and to the point, MAD does not work unless both entities, or, in a utopian type world, all entities have the ability to strike after being struck. The modern day example of this would be India and Pakistan. At first glance, and by that I mean a very first glance, the edge in that grudge match of unadulterated hatred (or minor annoyances, potato patato), India would be given the nuclear prize. However, Pakistan actually has second strike ability where as India does not. Pakistan has bunker based warheads and various mobile long range delivery systems where as India largely utilizes air based methods. Does this difference in deterrence mean that nuclear war between the two is more likely? No, of course it doesn’t. Why you ask? Allow me to explain whilst you all fight amongst yourselves in the war room. Every nation in the world has second strike, if not on paper, then on practicality. For instance, NATO, as well as various other alliances, deter any nation from using nuclear warheads because of the sole fact that at the end of the day some one’s friends have them too and their friends do as well and so forth and so on in a wonderfully Dr. Seuss-ian fashion. So, in a logical manner, we have reasoned out that MAD is a universal thing and that even if direct second strike is not present, secondary second strike (that could be a new term, dibs) will always be there.

Now, what about all the threats made by various nations to use nuclear weapons? How has the bomb made us any safer when the likes of North Korea threaten an entire theatre whenever they run out of food? The answer is simple; the bomb is protecting us by being put in a position to kill millions. Now, now, calm down, remember that a good weapon is a deterrent that deters because it is a good little murder box, and also remember, we have yet to see one used since the first one. When North Korea or insert rogue nation here flaunts a bomb, the collective world rushes to negotiate. The bomb has forced diplomacy, which is peace. Think about it; India and Pakistan have not fought a war (1000 battle deaths) since they both went nuclear (the Kargil Conflict doesn’t count, only 980 were killed and Pakistan had only tested a device at the time, technicalities are awesome.) And every time NK comes to CNN, nothing happens, they get what they want and this is even a country without second strike, one that by conventional nuclear doctrine should be attacked at first threat conventionally and dealt with as such.

So why? Why do we not use “the bomb”, why do we not see anyone using, “The bomb”?

Because we are afraid of it. (Nobody wants to be THAT guy, laugh, but I’m serious.)

In August of 1945, the entire world witnessed what a bomb, by today’s standards infantile, could do. Truman had plans to run up to ten more missions on Japan and was startled when an entire empire surrendered after two bombs. The weapon’s ability to deter its own use was solidified at the first flash. Instances like the Cuban Missile crisis never had a chance of going nuclear and the only chance any situation had or will have to go liquid hot, would be if one nation saw a no win coming at the end of a war; and in the age of diplomacy and “non-conquering” even total wars as Wagner, 2008 describes them, are all but improbable. So, out of this entire argument, the no win outcome is still the only variable that might make the bomb a demon rather than a protector, so I can admit there is a tiny leak in the argument, but that’s all, a tiny unlikely leak. Also, to quickly address the matter on everyone’s mind, what about third party actors, I will admit I gave a lot of consideration to state actors over terror groups; and there is a simple answer to that as well.

Harkening way back to the beginning when we all agreed that nuclear weapons would have been invented no matter what. They exist beyond our ability to make them not exist. We must also accept the truth disarmament won’t make a difference in deterring an entity from getting a hold of a bomb. If every last nuke was dismantled, the plutonium and uranium would stay weaponized for hundreds of years, and the methods of enrichment and so forth would simply not be lost to mankind. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do other than protect the stockpiles we have now and accept a third party will always be in a position to undermine MAD. What needs to be taken away is the bomb as a deterrent has stopped the world from ending by its own hands. Yes, a third party actor could trigger an entire event, but that is moot because the mere presence of the bomb has made every state agencies top priority the restriction of nuclear use; humanity created a thing we are so afraid of that we are constantly vigilant on where everything is and even if a state slacks like Russia, other states fill the gaps.

Hopefully I have logically, at least in the exploratory sense, eased some tensions on the nuclear dilemma. My aims are not to sway anyone from their positions and certainly not to make plutonium advocates out of anyone. My goal was to ease fears by reiterating how the whole deterrence thing works and has worked so far. But hopefully people can take this article for what it is….or how to stop hating and starting loving the bomb, again.