On nuclear deterrence

Kudos for Dr. Bradley Gitz for his column on the role of nuclear weapons in keeping the peace. I would like to add a few words about deterrence.

What is it that makes these weapons so effective as a deterrent? First of all, it is the absolute horror that results from their use. The disaster on 9/11 was a horrible, senseless tragedy. Multiply that times the total number of buildings in Manhattan and the surrounding boroughs. Then multiply that by the number of large cities. Imagine the economic Armageddon that would result from the loss of every operating computer, server or microprocessor in the United States due to the electromagnetic pulse from a very high altitude burst over the center of the country.

Another deterrent is that the leader who makes the decision to start a nuclear conflict is immediately placed on the front line, unlike conventional war where we send our “boys” over there. Decapitation would be one of the first priorities of a response.

The third factor is the inability to unmake the decision or to truncate the extent of the conflict. This could lead to the end of our species due to radiation and the loss of sunlight.

Other countries envy the benefits of the deterrence enjoyed by nuclear states. Unfortunately, our efforts to prevent proliferation only slightly slow the process. The genie is out of the bottle. The technology is well-known and plenty of businesses worldwide stand ready to sell components required for the development. Each new nuclear state stimulates one or more antagonist states to do likewise. Pakistan wanted to deter India, Iran wants to deter Israel, North Korea wants to deter the United States (or South Korea, our client state).

WADE SELPH Hot Springs Village