Despite the warnings from history we never seem to earn and we are only happy when we are playing with fire. Annie Jacobsen then spins a scenario to draw the reader into a plausible sequence of events, albeit "unlikely" whereby a nuclear armed minor state (spoiler alert - North Korea) launches an attack on the United States of America .. twice, an ICBM and a submarine launched one. The response (because there may well be a third) is to obliterate North Korea, but because of technology defects on the Russia monitoring satellites they believe (falsely?) that this is an attack on Mother Russia and immediately fall into the "dead-man's hand" counter-strike mentality because they cannot talk to the US President (because he is "unavailable"). The Kremlin-Washington hotline goes very cold. What China would do in response to it meanwhile soaking up radioactivity by the mega-Currie is not deliberated, or India or Pakistan. The decapitation effect of not getting the President of the United States out of Washington in time is though. This is a curious thought experiment of things not going to plan.
I have friends who are sceptical as to the plausibility of the scenario, stating that sixties-to-nineties technologies have been modernised (despite what detractors say of all things Russian) and the kind of mistakes Annie says could happen just don't add up. I do hope so. There is much that does not add up in the real world, but that is my worry. I read it (or rather listened to it) and had that morbid fascination of 'good when finished'. It did feel that Dr Strangelove had undergone a year 2000+ makeover, but highlighted that command elements of the Superpowers are (or could be) stuck in the 1970s.
Links:
The more I look the more I wonder how thin is the knife edge we walk?
Nuclear Close Calls:
A topic of considerable interest, now that the Doomsday Clock is closer to 'midnight' ('kiss yer bunns goodbye', time) than it has ever been. The Herman Kahn tariff was always a nonsense; the Russians know full well that once WW3 goes nuke, that's the end of human life on this planet; the Americans (and, I gather, the UK) seems to harbour maniacs in high places who actually think a nuclear war is 'winnable'. They are like Hazel: nuts.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what is meant by 'the mistakes Annie says could happen just don't add up.' The world has at least twice been on the very brink of nuclear war on account of 'mistakes' of no greater plausibility. What happens when you get people in power simply itching to set nuclear Armageddon in motion? Tell you what, we have least one national leader willing to risk his whole country for the sake of his own skin: Benjamin Netanyahu. And we have other soi-disant 'leaders' in the West that sees perpetual war as a desirable thing (and how big is the step thence to 'going nuke'?).
I believe that the hot line has pretty much frozen over; and the other 'back channels' are also gathering dust. When a President of a nation can be threatened with impeachment on the grounds of treason simply for talking to a foreign head of state, then you know that tinder could spark at any time.
When Joe Biden took office, I estimated the odds of a global nuclear war within his first term at 50-50. It still remains at 50-50. With Trump... his first 100 days will tell us what's the story with him. He's been given the ball to run with; it looks as though he's fumbling it already.
Cheers,
Ion
Yep, it's my nightmare too. I hope the various world leaders won't be so stupid as to start WW3, but the way things are going I'm not expecting a good outcome.
ReplyDeleteHello Archduke Piccolo, plenty of wise words in your comments. The sequence of mistakes Annie proposes tend to the fanciful side, but I agree "looking back" highlights the misguided thought process of "it can never happen". I have to hang a "don't really know" how poor the Russian would be in detecting a nuclear strike not aimed at them. Incredibly little thought seems to be given to countries not directly hit but affected by nuclear fallout. China - India and Pakistan in particular .. UK, France and Israel being on a different side line. The technical side is shrouded in secrets - Annie plays the imagine their tech is poor card.
ReplyDeleteGeordie -
DeleteThat last point I didn't pick up. I think recent events in Ukraine ought to be telling us that it would be not very smart - for either side - to imagine 'their tech' (and their technique) is poor. It would also be no smart thing to assume 'the other side' is bluffing. To take a dig at Barack Obama, whose comment showed that even intelligent and urbane people can 'do stupid': Russia has unmasked itself as a superpower that has been masquerading as a 'giant gas station'...
Cheers,
Ion
Likewise A J, I share your thoughts and concerns.
ReplyDeleteNorwgian Moon Thule 60, Cuba 62, Able Archer 83, Stanislov Petrov 83 .. these were the nuclear alerts I knew of but I have put a Wikipedia link in the post - where to my horror I see there are more.
ReplyDeleteArchduke Piccolo, I agree - part of the nuclear problem is that it lies outside normal messaging it is an existential threat .. in the film "Thirteen Days" .. McNamara says "strategic nuclear gives a whole new language for diplomacy" [to learn and we are in the kindergarden"] - Best Wishes, Mark
ReplyDelete