The Nuclear Option Paradox

 October 1962. 60 years ago almost to the day, the US military was on high alert. I stood with just a few other team members, but also with humanity, on the brink of eternity. Our task was to assure that 16 H-bombs, in the bomb bays of 16 aircraft, could be airborne and reach 16 different targets located somewhere in the Soviet Union. Similar activities were unfolding around the globe. The President’s job was to make the decision about whether and when to unleash our arsenal, while those of us in the Strategic Air Command (SAC), were to carry out the air leg of our land, sea, and air triage response. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed, and a nuclear war was avoided. But these visuals will be forever etched in my mind as the “boots on the ground” element of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Following WW ll the US engaged in a nuclear “arms race” with Russia in which we each built about 10,000 weapons before we came to our senses and realized that we were in the throes of a dooms day rendezvous with everyone’s extinction hanging in the balance. During that entire period, 40 more close-calls with nuclear war were also dodged. We can only guess about how close we came each time to ending civilization and humanity as we know them. Although we signed a treaty in the 1980s and reduced the number of nuclear war heads by about 50 percent, we still have not found a solution to this issue. It is not clear today if all participants in nuclear activities know that there is a big difference between a dilemma involving a difficult choice, and a paradox with a choice that defies logic.

MAD: The Mutually Assured Destruction Paradox. There are now 9 nations with nuclear arsenals housed in air, land, and sea missiles, silos, tubes, and in aircraft. The probability of issues arising that could lead to a nuclear war that would unleash them are not merely 7 times greater than they were between the US and Russia. They are exponentially greater. Add another nation, and the probability of errors in judgment or mechanics jumps by the thousands. Move up to 15 nations, and the risk probabilities could be off the charts. The important part of those estimates is that we need to understand that we must bring them down to zero. There are no winners, only losers, in a major nuclear exchange. Period.

Nuclear war is not a sane option. Murphy’s Law alone alerts us to the logic of compound errors: “If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.” Moreover, the likelihood of errors and false signals is considerably higher today than ever. In addition, many key persons seem to believe that nuclear war itself is no longer a death warrant for humanity. Payloads easily refute than notion. Today’s nuclear bombs are tens of thousands of times more powerful than were those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. In reality, the irretrievable factor makes us closer to that tipping point of no return then ever before. Our time is far better spent in learning how to avoid a nuclear war than in creating one. These lessons fall heaviest on those who have the direct responsibility to make war.

First, we need to understand that 1,000 nuclear warheads raining down on the US and Europe, while 1,000 more rain down on Russia mean the destruction of all those countries, their inhabitants and much more. It also means large scale radioactive fallout, and a very long nuclear winter around the world. At this point I invite the reader to click here and watch a simulated nuclear exchange between the US and NATO on one side, and Russia on the other. See for yourself what MAD really means. The ultimate death toll is unknowable. Life as we know it, however, could be set back by thousands of years. Casualties would mount for decades to come. There can be no winners, only losers.

Second, we need sane, rational, honest, intelligent leaders in all nations in charge of their nuclear arsenals. Scores of psychiatrists, for example, have told us that Donald Trump is far too irrational to assume the task of head of state with access to the nuclear codes (see The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump). His 57,000 documented lies reinforce their diagnoses. We need to listen to the experts, and not to tyrants and their ideologues. Kim Jong Un is another example of an irresponsible tyrant. And now we know that Vladimir Putin is also a member of that triad.

Despite Putin’s rambling ex-post facto manifesto, his threats to use nuclear weapons following his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, his wanton and ruthless killing of innocent men, women, and children in Ukraine all demonstrate that he is unfit for world leadership. Like Donald Trump he seeks power and personal enrichment. But he is delusional if he believes that his aging nuclear arsenal, c. 1980, can eliminate the US and NATO, both of which have far better guidance and tracking systems. Still, we need other safeguards.

No First Strike. I am not ready to die as collateral damage for any dictator, and for certain, I am not irresponsible enough to vote for one. Nor should anyone be so ignorant and irresponsible.  But preventing a nuclear holocaust is not an issue for political debate or manipulation, nor is it an issue for a ballot box resolution. For starters, every nuclear nation needs to sign a “no first strike” pact that gives humanity a bit of assurance that we are not mere pawns in the power play of any irrational national leader. Second, each nuclear nation needs to submit hard safeguard evidence that demonstrates to qualified scientists and engineers that they have built-in mechanisms that can and will prevent a first strike option. Third, the names, whereabouts, and mental acuity of the key persons by nation with nuclear code access, must be on record with the United Nations, and re-certified at least annually to the satisfaction of an international UN nuclear tribunal. And fourth, the world needs the assurance that all nuclear nations meet on an on-going basis to work toward a sounder, safer resolution for the use of nuclear weapons by all nations.

The reigning in of the Nuclear Paradox requires more than barrier safeguards and trust. It requires a commitment to the cessation of hostilities, to non-aggression pacts, and to the demonstration of mutual respect for life and the survival of humanity. We need to reward valor and commitment to these principles, and renounce violations immediately as they are revealed.

It has been written that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Many persons of goodwill have been identified as the source of that statement. The author is less important, however, than are the thoughts, the images, the history, and the possibilities surrounding this subject. We dare not let rogues, power, or greed supersede the obligations we have to one another. The reasons are clear: If we are to survive, we must first demonstrate that we are worthy of survival. We need all nations to commit to a new resolution, a new beginning. We need to safeguard access to and assure the safety of nuclear weapons—the means to our own destruction. Otherwise, we might soon become a cosmic relic, a cold example of irresponsibility in silent orbit around our sun, with only ourselves to blame.