‘No nukes’, ‘ban the bomb’ – they’re ridiculous assertions, aren’t they? I mean, without another major world power to contend with, the threat of a significant nuclear exchange has passed into memory. Mind you, that doesn’t mean that all nuclear weapons should be dismantled, only that their numbers should be culled to a ‘reasonable’ figure – such as, say, enough to end all life on earth twice over rather than ten times over.

Nuclear possession is a hot topic right now, but not because of their existence. The question at hand is who has the right to possess them and who doesn’t – and included in that is the possession of civilian nuclear capabilities which, though meant for peaceful purposes, could pose a threat if meddled with by ‘the wrong sort’. In short, a warped sense of entitlement steeped in the belief of moral superiority dictates who gets to be in the nuclear club. That’s a rather ironic truth given that twenty-five years ago we considered the Russians to be immoral and a nuclear threat.

The concern then are those that are have the potential to pose a threat because they lack the desire to embrace what the world’s foremost powers have determined is nuclear equanimity. The irony, of course, is that it isn’t an impartial principle. Israel, for example, has lied for decades about its nuclear program, has stolen nuclear secrets from the United States, refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, and yet is given a free pass. The Indians have also refused to sign the NPT, but that hasn’t stopped the United States from aiding their nuclear program.

So what constitutes a potential nuclear villain and what doesn’t? At present, the Iranians are public enemy number one despite the fact that they haven’t the capability to produce the amount of fissionable material required to conduct a test, let alone possess a nuclear weapon. I’ve been over the Iranian nuclear issue countless times, so use the search engine to read what I’ve written in the past if you’re interested.

Next on the list are the North Koreans, who, unlike the Iranians, have conducted a nuclear fission test. That said, it remains entirely unclear if they even possess a single operable nuclear device. While the intelligence relied upon to provide answers regarding North Korea primarily comes from the CIA, Chinese intelligence should not be overlooked with regards to China’s observation of the situation and their regional concerns. Given China’s global economic strength and dominance in Asia, the possession of a device by the North Koreans does not align with their interests – something that is widely overlooked.

If one nation should be of concern it’s Pakistan. Political instability coupled with a military shadow government that is, itself, fractured, and well armed tribal militias throughout its wilder Provinces makes its possession of nuclear weapons disconcerting to say the least. But that leads us back to square one – which is why the possession of nuclear weapons is viewed as important in the first place.

It’s important to remember something rather crucial. Were a terrorist organization to get their hands on a nuclear device it would represent an overwhelming irony. For no matter how terrorism is defined, the use of a nuclear weapon is, without question, the highest form of terrorism ever conceived. History can only provide two examples of that fact, and in both cases terror is precisely what their use wrought on a scale so unprecedented that to even dare compare it to 9/11, for example, would be pointless. True, Japan and the United States were at war. True, 67 Japanese cities had been firebombed in one of the most devastating displays of total war in history, but even given those facts, the use of the bombs of Japan changed everything – superseding even the realities of warfare.

On the morning of August 6th, 1945, 60% of the 80,000 people that were killed that day died immediately – they were the lucky ones. Of that number, the majority of the rest died by being pulverized by debris tossed like matchsticks by the weapon’s down force or being crushed. In the years that followed, the repercussions were no less grievous, as thousands more succumbed to the effects of radiation poisoning. In the end, some 300,000 people have ultimately died because of the effects of that single bomb.

And that was just Hiroshima.

The impact of the use of that nuclear device had immediate and lasting repercussions the world over. In the wake of its use an equation was born that, to this day, remains relevant: one to one equals zero – the equation of nuclear deterrence.

Of course, that equation doesn’t really matter to those deemed ‘bat shit crazy’ enough to use a nuclear weapon. But even that does not alter the fact that were a weapon used by a rogue state, or a terrorist group, that the nuclear response unleashed upon those deemed responsible would be far greater – even if it meant the deaths of innocents. Flat out – were a militant group in Pakistan to get their hands on a device and use it, be it against a target in Afghanistan or India, prudence dictates that the response be overwhelming. In short, Pakistan would be lit up like a Christmas tree and in response the Pakistani government would respond by using nuclear force against India.

Over the long centuries of our so called ‘civilized’ existence, conventional warfare has produced victors. Unfortunately, in the nuclear age, there is no such thing. If the goal of a terrorist group was to use a weapon to ‘terrorize’ it would be a ‘victory’ short lived. For within hours of such a device being used the location of those deemed responsible would be replaced by a barren nuclear wasteland. That, in itself, flies in the face of what men like Osama Bin Laden look to achieve. Because acts of terror only work if they produce results that do not include the outright decimation of those masterminding them for whatever purpose. 9/11 succeeded as it exposed the neo-imperial reality of the United States, plunging the nation into two foreign wars that have since killed countless innocents, besmirching the principles of the country itself (and that’s not even delving into unlawful detention, rendition, and torture). If a nuclear device had been used on 9/11 the US reponse would have been to ensure that a large portion of Afghanistan glowed in the dark for the next fifty years and the ‘War On Terror’ would have ended before it even began.

If the Cuban Missile Crisis taught us anything it’s how quickly things can get out of hand and how even supposedly ‘decent’ men can advocate the use of force in the face of nuclear warfare. While President Kennedy and those close to him strived to find a way out of the situation, men such as General Curtis LeMay were providing figures of ‘acceptable’ loses as they pushed for the President to invade Cuba thereby ensuring a chain of events that had but one conclusion. Men like LeMay viewed the situation from a rather interesting perspective – that because the United States possessed more nuclear weapons at the time they would do more damage to the enemy than the enemy could do to them. In LeMay’s mind that amounted to a ‘tactical advantage’. Of course, LeMay conceded that millions of Americans would be killed in the process, not to mention those that would die during the subsequent nuclear winter produced and all of the other aftereffects of nuclear war, but that took a backseat to the always dreaded ‘appearance of weakness’. In the end, an anxiety riddled Khrushchev would win the same struggle in Moscow with his military fanatics that Kennedy won in Washington under similar circumstances. The Kennedy Administration thankfully provided Khrushchev with enough of an out that he wouldn’t lose face, as a deal was struck between the two regarding the placement of offensive arms in Cuba and Turkey.

Given what occurred that fateful October, had Kennedy lived to see a second term he very well might have made significant inroads with Khrushchev. Unfortunately, that possibility ended in Dallas on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963.

Conventional warfare, asymmetric warfare, conventional terrorism – all have one thing in common, they are not nuclear war. The possession of nuclear weapons, even if reduced in number, became a necessity the second that Hiroshima was bombed. No matter the strengths of other weaponry or tactics, nuclear reality remains fixed. To use nuclear force is to invite destruction, no matter the circumstances.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones” – Albert Einstein.