Today's Nuclear Threat

The November Scientific American magazine contained an article which I found to be extremely thought provoking thus causing me to write a blog on it and share the main information in the article. The main concept of the article combined the idea of a future threat of nuclear war and debating it with the question on the need for new nuclear warheads. Below are the main points in the article that I felt necessary to include. Many of us know the past history concerning nuclear weapons and their threat to the world, few of us probably realize the threat it is still real and in some ways more imminent today. I personally have only thought about nuclear war in the past tense when describing the Cold War. I was shocked to learn that now not only Russia but nine other countries have the ability to launch nuclear warheads. Five countries have the ability to cause mass destruction from the sea by launching the warheads from submarines. The stakes have been considerably raised since the Cold War, many still remember 9/11 like it was yesterday allowing the fear of being attacked again on U.S territory considerably greater and seem more realistic. What makes the fear heighten is the knowledge that there is no defense against a nuclear attack.

• “Nine countries can now deliver nuclear war heads on ballistic missiles, and Iran wants to join this club. Several nations could hit targets anywhere in the world, but regional salvos might be more likely.”

• “Today’s weapons could exact greater death and injury than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Simulations performed for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of a one mega-ton payload detonated above Manhattan show that millions would die from the resulting explosion, mass fires and radiation. Other cities worldwide would fare just as badly.”


• “The U.S had embarked on a 25-year program to replace thousands of aging W76 nuclear warheads, which military officials say could be degrading. Proponents claim that the substitute weapon- the Reliable Replacement Warhead RRW) is essential to maintaining the U.S stockpile as a credible deterrent. Critics argue that RRW is a waste of billions of dollars and could goad other nations into a renewed nuclear arms race.”


The pro’s and cons for the replacing the U.S stockpile are both realistic sounding and as far away from each other on a scale as possible. On one hand we can replace our stockpile and this will “goad” other countries into a nuclear arms race. Or there is the idea that if we don’t replace the aging warhead than we are at risk of loosing the credibility of deterrence; which is essential to keeping a nuclear war at bay. The middle ground it seems was The Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction limits of Russia and the U.S to a maximum of 2,200 “operationally deployed warheads by 2012. Another scary scenario concerning the idea of deterrence with a substantial nuclear armory in the day and age of terrorist threats is that it won’t influence their use of nuclear weapons. Scary, what I took from this article is that instead of pouring so much of our nation’s energy and resources into a continually escalating battle, why not instead focus more on our nations defense system.