Dyer's point is simply this: Increasingly since 1945, our basic premise that nations have a "right" to be divided has become increasingly untenable, from a simple standpoint of probabilities. No matter how good is your balance, you will eventually slip, and when the nuclear balance slips, poof!, no more humanity. The razor's edge on which the survival of our species is balanced was easier to comprehend in say 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis, or even more so in the 1970s and 1980s when the Russkies and the Yanks were actively bristling at each other. Now that the Soviets have lost control of a few of their sateillite states, the same "WAR IS OVER! Lets go home!" mentality that made the Korean war possible has struck humanity once again. Because the American public were SO thoroughly sick of militarization, the US military experienced one of the most precipitous downsizings of any force every in all of human history immediately after WWII, and this meant that the US deterrent all over the world was quite minimal; this was exactly why the North Koreans, backed by the Chinese and Soviets thought they could get away with annexing South Korea. They knew that US ability to protect its client states in Asia using conventional strength was extremely low, and they gambled that the US would NOT play its trump card, the bomb.
People did not LIKE the "Cold War" at all. It made them very uncomfortable, so it is no surprise that the media, the politicians, the activists, EVERYONE, were more than happy to pretend that the threat of global thermonuclear war simply vanished when "the Soviet Union collapsed." Problem is, the risk is probably even greater NOW than it was then, because the USSR has fallen into even greater shambles. Most of the arsenals are still there, and most of the military leaders are still there. Even a lot of the Old Guard of political leaders are still there. The only thing that has changed is that, the USSR had to back down from its propaganda war, because it was finally obvious to everyone that it was a sham, and that it was in economic shambles.
Prior to the "end of the Cold War," because everyone on both sides was extremely attentive to the risks, everyone on both sides was well-paid, and much attention was being paid to their organization and command, at the PEAK of the Cold War, the actual risk of global thermonuclear armaggedon was probably lower then than it is now, despite all the posturing, and propaganda that came out of both sides, and consequently focused the world's attention on the threat.
Thus, the real risk ever since about 1950 or so, has never been that the core of military or political leadership in any of the nuclear club would actually START a nuclear war, although that risk was not trivial. The major risk was always that either a false alarm would spark one, or that somehow, someone truly malicious and mad would gain the ability to launch one or two, and thus get the domino effect of reprisals going. The greater coherence, and strength of the USSR in 1986, no matter how belligerent it may have TRIED to seem, was thus a much better assurance that nuclear war would not start than is the more divided, weakened, and socioeconomically handicapped Russia of today. It is more likely that a radical could gain control of a weapon, or that a false alarm could occur in an inefficient, weak, economically depressed, and divided nation.
The risk that an "unintentional" nuclear war, or one that started based on a false alarm or a misunderstanding could occur was, in short, probably lower in 1986 than it is today in 2005! Moreover, with Russia experiencing considerably more political change, the chance that some radical might get control of one or two weapons, even if only VERY temporarily, is probably greater in 2005 than in 1986. Launching only one ICBM or SSBN may seem like a fairly minimal threat to the survival of humanity, but the point is that, once the sword comes out of the sheath, the opponent is beholden, not only to draw his very quickly TOO, but to disable his opponent before it is too late. Even if a radical group gained control of a silo, launched an SSBN, and then Putin got on the phone to explain the terrible mistake, would Bush believe him? How would Bush know that Putin was not simply lying? Or, would Bush or someone of his ilk decide that if New York is going to be taken, then Moscow and St. Petersburg ALSO have to go! It is not difficult to imagine the ensuing tit-for-tat string of reprisals that could ensue if a Chechnyan group managed to gain control of a Russian silo, or a Chinese or Al Qaeda team managed to get control of an American silo. For someone crazy enough to be a terrorist, it is also not difficult to imagine that they might actually think that engaging in this tactic would actually further their self-interest? Are you sufficiently terrified yet!?! Can you say living on borrowed time?
The chance that rational, self-interested leaders would actually start a nuclear war has probably always been fairly low, at least since the Soviets got their first one, and the potential for a tit-for-tat string of reprisals existed. It is amazing really that the US did not get a big-head and start using its advantage between 1945 and 1949 or whenever it was that the Russians demonstrated that they had the bomb as well. I guess it was just lucky that Truman did not bear much resemblance to Hitler, Mao or Stalin, all of whom STARTED major wars or pogroms (WWII, Korea, the Great Leap Forward, etc.). It is chilling to consider isn't it, how lucky humanity was that the first people to get their hands on the bomb were the relatively more restrained ones?
Even France, which has one of the smallest arsenals in the nuclear club, has enough firepower to decimate two or three "potential rivals," killing potentially about 3 to 5 times as many as all who died in WWII in the span of about 5 minutes, and that probably wouldn't even dig into their strategic reserves! Moreover, some recent estimates about nuclear winter indicate that, even such a relatively small amount of nuclear fireworks very well might spark off the nuclear winter process, a downward spiral from which no human beings might EVER escape. This is to say nothing of India and Pakistan, where the death toll could be much, much worse, or the US and Russia which still to this day have an absurd overkill capacity to literally destroy all civilizations, and all of humanity not just one another. Dyer gives an example of plans that were actually WRITTEN down in both Soviet and US military documents, for "flexible response" protcols that involved the use of "limited" tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a surprise conventional attack that was overwhelming. Without even digging into the thousands of ICBM, and SSBN missiles, some of which carry 10 or 15 warheads, each of which could have scores of times more destructive capacity that Fat Man or Little Boy, a single "limited" tactical package, involving short range missiles, air-dropped bombs, and artillery shells, could effectively wipe out the majority of the enemies military forces in any particular region in Central Europe, kill several million civilians, and destroy vast tracts of landscape, towns and villages. In short, by the 1970s, even a "limited" nuclear war, would have been so incredibly destructive, that it would have been over almost as soon as it started, because most of the conventional forces in the vicinity of the theatre of war would very readily be eliminated by only a few of these "limited tactical packages" of which both sides possessed literally scores! These weapons were not just thrown in the trash heap in 1991 when the Berlin Wall fell! They are STILL in the arsenals of MANY armies all around the world! And this is to say NOTHING of the absurd level of destructive power in the strategic arsenals of the major nuclear powers, which has the potential to destroy literally every major city on the planet!!
So if we wanted to make Dyer's point a little less sweeping, we would conclude that there are multiple layers to the proposition.
The nations which currently have nuclear weapons should be actively thinking about, discussing, and initiating the long-term sociopolitical processes of unifying, so as to make the use of nuclear weapons moot. Sadly, this would seem to be even a step beyond the unification of Canada-US, which is a much smaller leap frankly, given the minimal differences between those two nations, their decades of friendliness, and general social similarities. Keep in mind, Franklin D. Roosevelt, an American President, was a socialist long before Trudeau, or the current Canadian government. Reacting to the US as if the current rightish-wing bloc were representative of the broad themes of American society would be about as logical as reacting to Canada as if the Bloc Quebecois were representative of that nations broad themes. In fact, the real differnencest between American and Canadian, between liberals and conservatives, and yes even between Israeli and Palesitinian I reckon, are truly minute compared to the far outliers in the political spectrum (Hamas, Krushchev, the Ba'athists, etc.). People just like to exaggerate how THEY, and THEIR party are so different from THOSE GUYS, because it is a key to "divide and conquer." Unfortunately, this does not really help anyone, when the differences are truly negligible, and there is more to be gained for EVERYONE with such minimald differences by being on the SAME team as opposed to being divided.
The point: because there can be no winning a nuclear war, and because the existence of ANY nuclear weapons in the hands of any one nation, will always result in every other nation wanting to have them, resulting in inevitable arms races, the presence of even a relatively small number of nuclear weapons on Earth represents a grave threat to the very survival of ALL humanity (read every single individual, every single nation, and every single social groups SELF-INTEREST). Unfortunately once Pandora's box is open, it cannot be closed. We cannot UNLEARN the knowledge of how to make thermonuclear bombs and the projectiles on which we can convey them to targets on the other side of the planet. Even if we COULD unlearn it, we would not want to, because there are so many beneficial extensions and applications of this military knowledge. The Genie is out of the bottle, so the only solution is to make friends with it, i.e., to make the social basis on which nuclear wars might ever occur, non-existent: unify. Thus, Dyer's point, all nations which either have nukes, or have the capacity to have nukes, need to unify, because it is no longer in their self-interest NOT to unify. Moreover, while today, there are only a handful in the nuclear club, in the long run, EVERYONE can, and probably WILL have a bomb or 600, so in the long run EVERYONE needs to unify, not just the major players of today.
While the most dire need is for the unification of say, Russia with US, or Pakistan with India, obviously these are even more unlikely, and unbelievable eventualities than is unification of Canada with US. So why would Canada-US national unity be a positive step in teh right direction? Because it would set a precedent, and if it were done for the right reasons, it would inspire humanity. Before you can run hurdles you have to be able to sprint, and before you can sprint, you have to be able to run, and before you run, you have to be able to jog, which requires first learning how to walk, which requires first learning how to crawl, which first requires being able to sit up on all fours, which first requires being able to roll over! We can think of Canada-US unification as being the very first step in this developmental process of humanity, i.e., the infantile personae of HUMANITY, finally recognizing that it had better start putting a little effort into at least making the first move, learning how to roll over. Looking at it this way, the eventual feat of humanity being immune to the threat of international thermonuclear war (terrorist use of them will not be reduced by unity between separate nations unfortunately) because we are all one big happy group, in which we recognize our shared self-interest, much like the developmental distance between a world class hurdler and a new born learning to roll over, can be seen to be a LONG way in the future, even if we DID start to acknowledge the need to eventual run world class. If that new born is not nurtured, and cared for, he will never even situp, let alone run the hurdles world class.
![[pimp]](/images/smilies/pimp.gif "Pimp [pimp]")
