The Iranian blustering and North Korean bargain hunting spree has put the question of Nuclear Disarmament in many peoples minds once again. And once again people are suggesting that if we really want nuclear weapons to not spread and to stop being a threat then we must do our part and disarm ourselves to show 'good faith' if nothing else. It puts me in mind of the great "Star Wars" kerfuffle. While there was, and still is, some effort being expended toward some projects of that type we can all be very thankful it hasn't actually worked.
At the time, there were a number of computer scientists and the like openly stating that such a system as could defend any place completely from attack by ICBMs was simply impossible to build. The computer software would be very complex and no complex software has ever been written 100 percent error free and, because of the nature of what the software would have to do, there would be no way to test it sufficiently to remove the 'bugs'.
The argument went as follows; Because the only way it could be particularly useful at all was if it was sure to be 100% effective, and because such complex systems simply are never 100% the first time, (or the second or third) and because it could not be tested to any really significant degree, the plan was doomed from the start. Having done some programming and even more software testing, I have to say that the argument is probably valid, but it maybe a little hard for most people to see.
But the problem becomes clearer if you look at it like this:
It takes perhaps 4 or 5 good nuclear bomb hits to effectively take a large country like the U.S. completely out any considerations of economic and/or military power in the world, so, assuming the country to be attacked cannot retaliate because they have relied on 'defense', all that is needed to beat them is to get 4 or 5 missiles through and the attacker wins. If the defense system is 99.9% effective the attacker sends 5000 and wins; if it is 99.99% effective the attacker sends 50000 missiles and wins. As you can see, only perfection in the defense will do for complete security.
What nobody ever pointed out, in anything I read, is what a disaster it would be if it worked.! Why? Just look at the following scenario:
The 'Star Wars” system is perfected and in place around the world (remember Reagan's promise). It is impossible for anyone , person or country, to get a hostile missile up into the air and back down again Nuclear peace at last!???? Everybody gets rid of their nuclear missiles because they can not use them. Of course they were never going to use them except as a retaliatory weapon anyway, but now they don't even need them for that. No retaliatory strikes possible so the missiles are not necessary.
Whoa! What was that last sentence? “ No retaliatory strikes possible.......”
That means that I, the long term planner and rightful inheritor of the world, can defeat the “Great Satan” and survive the conflict intact. All I need to do is build dozen suitcase bombs and secret them around New York, LA, Houston, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and say Chicago, then set them off and the “Great Satan” is ruined and can't do anything to me, even if they knew who I was, because they threw away their ability to retaliate as they die!. Now I dare an attack!
As distressingly nihilist as Mutually Assured Destruction sounds, it is still all that keeps friends and enemies working together to see that nobody starts the deadly chain reaction. And given that, a successful 'Star Wars' defense system might well be the worst thing that could happen in the world of nuclear politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment