Nuclear warfare-an imagination or possibility?


The Korean Crisis reminds many of the Cold War Era. Some say it is more threatening than the Cold War Era, but all I have to say is that it is very unlikely for this increasing tension to transform into nuclear warfare, although there are mixed views on this issue.

One teacher in South Korea commented, “I teach at a university in Gwangju, South Korea. Last week, I asked my students if they were concerned with the escalating border tensions. Their answers were no different than normal: indifferent, unconcerned and even disinterested. I asked the same question today and their faces were quite serious. This is actually the first time I’ve witnessed a sense of fear since I arrived here in 2004.”

Check out the hyperlinked BBC article about the Korean Crisis for some more factual content.

North Korean Crisis

There is a theory called the MAD theory, which stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. The theory states that as long as both sides are convinced that using nuclear weapons would cause the complete destruction of both countries, neither would ever use their weapons. This is why the Cold War never became a Hot War (real war). I know that if I hit you with a nuclear warhead, you are most certainly going to hit me back, therefore I will not take the risk. Even though Kim Jong Un is crazy, he will be aware of the threat of starting a nuclear war and I think he is calling bluffs, not real threats, because he is insecure and trying to prove something to his people. Let us hope so anyway.

coldwar

According to me nuclear proliferation isn’t a bad thing, however going overboard like the Soviet Union did is crazy. Every state having a few nuclear warheads is a good thing as the nuclear weapons act as a defence mechanism rather than an aggressive mechanism because of the MAD theory. If certain states don’t have nuclear weapons then they’re susceptible to attack, since the attacker knows they won’t be able to retaliate, although it is high likely in our globalised world that bigger nations such as United States will protect the smaller states. This is seen with the Korean crisis, as Obama is sending his troops to surround the Korean peninsula. All this talk of defence is reminding me of the Triple Entente and Triple Alliances that were made pre-WW1. These alliances were also made in the interest of protection, however when the war between Austria Hungary vs. Serbia (who asked for Russia’s help) started, all the alliances did was drag more nations into the war and cause more destruction. A pact for peace turned out to be a pact for destruction. Let us pray the same doesn’t turn out with the MAD theory.

I’ve explained why I think nuclear proliferation is good, but an excessive build up of nuclear weapons is unnecessary because you could probably blow the whole world up with 200 nukes ( btw. this is a guess); therefore there is no point in one country building 1000s of nuclear missiles like Soviet Russia did, especially during a time of austerity.

The leader of SNP was arguing that Scotland won’t keep nuclear missiles or defence systems in Scotland if they become independent and I think this would be a grave mistake. I agree with David Cameron, who says that the UK needs to keep its nuclear defence system running at full speed to avert danger. Even though I agree with David Cameron I do think that the leader of the SNP made a very good point, which was we can’t afford to build nukes when we’re making savage cuts everywhere else in our industries. The middle path is usually the best and in this situation I think the best option is to build up a minimum stock of nuclear weapons and defence systems and stop there. I am not asking nations to go mad and make a stock large enough to blow the world up, just the minimum number of weapons needed to discourage the aggressor from attacking you. (I have no idea how many weapons that is and how expensive that would be. Any help with figures would be appreciated. Leave a comment if you think you know.)

I don’t see much of a threat of nuclear warfare from the Korean crisis. I think the real threat lies in terrorist organisations buying or stealing nuclear weapons. A nuke in the hand of a group like the Taliban certainly spells THE END OF THE WORLD. The largest threat of the launch of a nuclear missile comes from neutral organisations, which don’t have much to lose; therefore I think it is of utmost importance that we carefully guard our nation’s weapons and make sure they don’t fall into the wrong hands.

What do you think of the issues I have presented?:

If you have any other answers/opinions please leave a comment in the comments box below. Thanks.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Multinational Issues and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Nuclear warfare-an imagination or possibility?

  1. freeonus says:

    I think the Korean crisis is a real threat, I’m just not sure if it’s a nuclear threat. War without setting off ‘The Bomb’ still has serious consequences.

    What concerns my about N. Korea, more so than many other nations, is that, as far as I can tell, the power is in fewer hands – maybe even in one man’s hands – a rather unstable man at that.

    During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union were rational enough to not desire their own destruction, even to the point of conducting their wars far from home.

    • aket95 says:

      I think my poll question isn’t great. I am going to change it to, “Is the Korean Crisis a real nuclear threat?” I think your comment is very wise and I agree that there is a big chance of their being a war, just not a nuclear one, but even a regular war is bad enough. I agree with everything you say (except the crisis being a real threat, but I am not sure if you are talking about a normal threat or nuclear threat), yet I voted differently to you on every question. I don’t know what happened there. Btw. Thank you for commenting and your comments are always quite insightful.

  2. freeonus says:

    Continuing…
    I’m not sure that Kim Jong Un is as rational.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s