[Vision2020] The Genie Is Out Of The Bottle

[Donovan Arnold]

Ted,

Your right, I have not planned for a post nuclear war in depth. I figure if 
it happens, not much to plan for other than funeral arrangements. However, I 
did study game theory for my degree in political science, studied foreign 
policy, and grew up in an environment that was constantly engaged in the 
what-ifs of a nuclear holocaust.

Game theory is where you study such scenarios of certain events and what you 
would do in certain situations. There are few game theories that claim what 
you are proposing, especially as it relates to Russia today, post cold war.

If, let us suppose, Russia was to cease to exist as a country as you 
proposed. The 90% or more of their nuclear arsenal is invested in 
submarines, not on land under the easy control of the government. If Russia 
were to cease to exist, it would be more likely that the soldiers and 
military would defect to another country and sell the submarine and nuclear 
weapons to the highest bidder or a country they wished to reside in. Firing 
a nuclear missiles at the US, or any country, for the sake of firing the 
missile and dealing with the fact that you murdered millions of innocent 
people for no cause or purpose and losing any chance of a future for 
yourself and family seems like a horrible pointless decision. Compound that 
fact with the situation that it would be a group effort to fire a missile. 
Your choice would be to live freely as a millionaire in another country, or 
as a mass murderer on a planet with nuclear fallout, probably as a fugitive 
from most nations. What decision do you think the rational group would 
choose?

You must also realize that there are more than just two countries in the 
world. If the US, or any country were to attack another country the entire 
rest of the world would move against them, and quickly. In most game 
theories, if a country attacks another country for no conceivable reason, 
the others will destroy that country for fear they will be next. So MAD is 
an affirmative even if you are successful in eliminating your enemy without 
them being able to fire a returning shot as you proposed it would not.

Starvation would not be a motivation either because the nuclear fallout 
would ruin more fertile soil and further limit your food supply.

"You are wrong to think that if a small group of terrorists planned to 
strike the USA with a stolen or stealthily built nuclear weapon that we 
would have no target for retaliation.  We might pick the wrong target, but 
what happened after 9/11?"

OK, let me rephrase that for you then. Retaliating would serve no purpose to 
prevent future attacks, especially if it is against people that were not 
responsible for the attack.

"But if Islamic terrorists knew that if they used a nuclear weapon against 
the USA that we would, for example, wipe Iran and Mecca off the map, would 
this not be some deterrent?"

First, how would you know who did it? There is not much evidence left over 
when a nuclear bomb goes off. We are not going to drop a bomb on every 
country we have a grudge with in the hopes we get the right people. Further, 
what if the terrorists are from France, England, Russia, China, or Oklahoma? 
Are you going to drop a nuclear bomb on London because 20 religious fanatics 
from England got a hold of a bomb? I do not think so.

"Think ahead 100 years when the world may face ecological disasters, a huge 
energy crisis with dwindling fossil fuels, a population of 15 billion, 
potential mass starvation, etc., with numerous nations with nuclear arms."

I do not need to think 100 years ahead. This is already true today, except 
the population is 6 point something billion people, you can say the same for 
2005.

"But if Islamic terrorists knew that if they used a nuclear weapon against 
the USA that we would, for example, wipe Iran and Mecca off the map, would 
this not be some deterrent?"

We would not destroy Mecca, Israel is our ally. As for destroying Iran, that 
might be the objective of the terrorists and you just did their bidding.

If a nuclear bomb just went off in New York tomorrow, then LA the next day, 
and a small group of terrorists from Bangladesh or Pakistan claim 
responsibility and the government states it will cooperate with you in their 
capture, what do you do? This is where we have trouble. Russia has no reason 
to destroy or attack the US, many small poor nations do.

The basic rule, in any game theory, is that those with the least to lose and 
the most to gain take the most and biggest risks. Those with the most to 
lose and the least to gain, take the least risks. So countries Germany, 
Russia, and France will not attack the US, too much to lose and too little 
to gain. While nations like Afghanistan have nothing to lose and a great 
deal to gain by attacking the US. Like George Bush said the day after 9/11. 
"I am not going to fire a $10 million missile to knock over a tent and hit a 
camel in the butt."

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold


>From: Tbertruss at aol.com
>To: donovanarnold at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Genie Is Out Of The Bottle
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:40:04 EST
>
>
>Donovan et. al.
>
>Obviously you have not studied the issue of planning for nuclear war in
>depth.  In fact there are individuals in power in both the USA and Russia 
>who will
>calmly discuss the survivability of a nuclear war.  The theory of MAD
>(mutually assured destruction) may not be workable in the long run to 
>prevent nuclear
>war.  The future could bring circumstances where a nation decides they will
>take their chances at making a decisive first strike.  If a nation was 
>going
>under already, facing a massive invasion, starvation, etc., what would they 
>have
>to lose in using their nuclear weapons anyway?
>
>In fact there were members of the US military during the Cold War who 
>wanted
>to take out the Soviet Union with a massive nuclear attack reasoning that 
>the
>sooner we did it the less time there was for the Soviet Union to become 
>more
>powerful.  And the brinkmanship of the theory of MAD means both sides are
>looking for a sneak attack, ready to launch as quickly as possible, to 
>prevent the
>first strike advantage.  This hair trigger brinkmanship could lead to an 
>all
>out nuclear war even when both sides do not want it.
>
>Consider that we have had a nuclear arsenal for no more than 60 years or 
>so.
>Changes inside Russia, or an expansion of China's nuclear arsenal, and the
>continuing spread of nuclear weapons technology to other nations, will make 
>the
>nuclear weapons game much more complicated and dangerous in the future.  
>Think
>ahead 100 years when the world may face ecological disasters, a huge energy
>crisis with dwindling fossil fuels, a population of 15 billion, potential 
>mass
>starvation, etc., with numerous nations with nuclear arms.
>
>You are wrong to think that if a small group of terrorists planned to 
>strike
>the USA with a stolen or stealthily built nuclear weapon that we would have 
>no
>target for retaliation.  We might pick the wrong target, but what happened
>after 9/11?  I will refresh your memory to remind you that the USA has
>"retaliated" against two nations already for 9/11, an attack carried out by 
>a small
>group of terrorists, though you can argue we have not targeted the actual
>terrorists and their support structure, who carried out 9/11.
>
>But if Islamic terrorists knew that if they used a nuclear weapon against 
>the
>USA that we would, for example, wipe Iran and Mecca off the map, would this
>not be some deterrent?
>
>Ted Moffett