Fifty years, thirteen days, one relieved planet

                    

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which, arguably, is the closest the world has come to nuclear war.

The actual US naval blockade of Cuba didn't end until November 1962, but October 28^th was when Nikita Khrushchev ordered the dismantling of missile equipment on Cuba, in exchange for US/NATO doing the same in Italy and Turkey.

You can certainly argue - and I agree - that nuclear weapons have kept a peace, but not the peace, since the 50s. It's maintained a balance between the geo-political big players, which meant that direct confrontation between them is/was unlikely.

But pity you if you live in one of the little countries. The two superpowers/superblocs of the Cold War oversaw proxy wars in : Vietnam, Guatemala, Angola, the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, Grenada, Nicaragua and El Salvador. So "Cold War" is a bit of a misnomer. "Tepid War", or "Oooh, it's a bit hot War" would be more accurate.

You could argue there were fewer deaths as the result of these proxy wars than if the US and Soviet Union went toe to toe - conventional or nuclear. I think it's safe to say that if they had, I, and most of you reading this, wouldn't be here. And if you were - sucks to be you.

Nuclear war isn't the immediate existential threat it was in the 1980s, but since 1962 we've had countless "minor" brushes:

• January 1968 – A US B-52 crashed in Greenland, setting off an indicator that a successful nuclear attack had taken place.
• October 1973 – The American government believed the Soviet Union was going to intervene on behalf of the Egyptians during the Yom Kippur War, and moved their forces to DEFCON 3. The Soviets picked up these troop/plane movements. A alarm was accidentally sounded at an air force base in Michigan during the tensions, and B-52s were ready to take off....until it was recognised as a false alarm.
• November 1979 – A full scale missile attack against the US was picked up at all major command posts. No attempt was made to contact the Soviets via the "hot line" established post-Cuban Missile Crisis, and a number of jets were launched. It turns out a drill was accidentally running on the computers. There was, apparently, "panic".
• June 1980 – A computer chip malfunction showed a missile attack against the US, and bombers were prepped to take off.
• September 1983 - Early warning alarms were set off in the USSR, but the Soviet commander in charge, Stanislav Petrov, deemed the "attack" a false alarm. It turns out it was sunrays reflecting off satellites. He was never rewarded for his actions.
• November 1983 – During an NATO military exercise (Able Archer), the Soviets believed that the exercise was real preparation for an attack (due to unrelated ciphered messages between the UK and the US), and readied their nuclear forces to launch a first strike. Soviet fears only subsided once Able Archer finished.
• January 1995 – A Norwegian weather research rocket was picked up by Russian early warning systems as a possible missile launch. Boris Yeltsin and his defence staff were informed, and the Russian military went into "combat mode", until it was found that the "missile" would miss Russian territory.
• May 1999 – Pakistan made a specific threat that they would use nuclear/WMD's if the Kargil War extended, following nuclear tests in 1998.
• June 2002 – An meteor exploded over the Mediterranean during the height of tensions between India and Pakistan. If it had exploded over south Asia, it would've been indistinguishable from a nuclear first strike.

The 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prohibits all use of nuclear weapons within the signatories jurisdiction. Only India, Pakistan and North Korea have tested nuclear weapons since. The last UK nuclear test was in 1991.

Iran signed the treaty, but never ratified it - along with China, Egypt, Israel and the United States. Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Syria have neither signed nor ratified it.

Would an attack on Iranian conventional
nuclear facilities constitute a "nuclear attack"?
(Pic : Telegraph)

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – supporting disarmament, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy – was signed or ratified by practically every nation in the World, except India, Israel and Pakistan. North Korea withdrew.

Having two ideologically opposed blocs provided the world with a sense of certainty in many respects. Since the end of the Cold War, we've seen the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, greater European integration, the emergence of China as a superpower and the coming of age of India and Brazil.

The key difference between then and now, is that for all their faults, the US and Soviet Union were kept in check because they have/had measured leaders (obvious exceptions aside). Only a psychopath would've willingly started a nuclear conflict. The doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" works in that respect between superpowers, or superblocs. But now there's another threat.

Learning from the Soviet example, the despotic, unstable and paranoid regimes that have emerged since, saw that to be taken seriously at an international level – or since the 1990s, taken seriously the US - you needed to have nuclear weapons, or the means to develop them.
Instead of having that sense of balance, we now have regimes and terrorist groups with no real fear of "Mutually Assured Destruction". They might even welcome it, or don't comprehend what it would actually entail. Those regimes might be willing to sell or develop nuclear weapons, just to give the Americans (or someone else) a bloody nose, and prove how mighty and strong their regime is. Or they could simply fall into the wrong hands through lax security.

It's no surprise that you also have faded powers, like the UK and France, feeling inadequate. They try to cling on to some sense of glory/prestige by maintaining a notionally independent nuclear deterrent. Though - in practice - these would be part of a US-led nuclear umbrella, which is still relevant due to Russia, and Iran developing missiles that could be capable of hitting European targets.

As opposed to a nuclear holocaust, the threat of a "nuclear attack" is quite real. An expanded definition could include an attack on a nuclear facility (the Israeli-Iranian standoff), a single radiological device/"dirty bomb" or smaller tactical nuclear weapons deployed in an urban area.

You could have thousands of "nuclear deterrents" and it cannot - in any way - protect you from that threat. The only deterrent is good counter-espionage and counter-terrorism.

So, what's the point of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era?

You could, perhaps, justify regional/co-operative nuclear umbrellas. You could even say that nuclear weapons would play a role in protecting the planet from extra-terrestrial threats like meteors. But even then, it still wouldn't justify them being in the hands of single nation-states. There's no fail safe, other than hoping they aren't governed by a psychopath, and no nation state should have that power over - quite literally - the life and death of everything.

You also have to question how expensive they are to develop and maintain, and why they would be used.

If they were used, it would be nothing more than an act of revenge against an equally destructive "first-strike." So instead of losing, whatever was left would be able to call it a draw. Whoop-de-doo.
Now I wonder what the billions of pounds - that will almost certainly - be spent on a Trident replacement could do if it were invested in the UK's conventional forces.

Maybe those being made redundant would have a decent pension to look forward to. Maybe service personnel seriously injured in Iraq and Afghanistan would be getting the latest, ground-breaking artificial limbs. Maybe they would get the latest equipment so prevent casualties in the first place.

Maybe the money could be spent on something more immediate, like boosting infrastructure or even deficit reduction. Maybe we wouldn't have seen the Jones Big Ass Nuke Rental & Storage brain fart. "You gotta sub, I got space."

Carl Sagan certainly wasn't too chuffed about our prospects
post-nuclear war. See the link opposite for more details.
(Pic : Scienceblogs.com)

It's worth getting an idea of what a nuclear attack on the UK would (have) look(ed) like - and what our taxes are going to be spent on to enable the UK Government to do in our name. There's a valuable tool for this.

It's a little outdated now, but it's an optimistic, upbeat tale of struggle against the odds and the enduring human spirit and all that rubbish. A true family-friendly exploration of the issue of nuclear weapons. Includes mild peril. Suitable for young children and insomniacs. Don't worry, there's a happy ending for all to cherish. Threads can be watched for free here.

I was disgusted by the lack of Union Flags and bulldog blitz spirit shown.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists publishes changes to the "Doomsday Clock", where midnight equates to the destruction of humanity. It isn't always, but usually is, related to nuclear weapons.

At the end of the Cold War – 1991 – the doomsday clock was at 17 minutes to midnight.

In 2012, it was 5 minutes to midnight.