3 thoughts on “NYTimes: Let’s End the Peril of a Nuclear Winter”

  1. Nuclear weapons (like any weapons) are a deterrent ONLY if:
    1) potential adversaries actually believe such weapons may be used against them, AND
    2) the risk of said use to said adversaries is found to outweigh the perceived gain of acting anyway.

    Short of Russia launching a thousand warheads in our direction, I doubt ANYONE IN THE WORLD honestly believes the USA will ever use so much as one nuke ever again — EVER –as long as we remain under the current system of government. Since #1 is thus negated, #2 never becomes part of the equation.

    Incidentally (and as I’ve pointed out before), the words the NYT uses are English in derivation, but their meaning as written must not be confused with that arrived at by a traditional English-speaking interpretation according to the parent language.

    Anyone that can say with conviction that “we should celebrate the recent agreement with Iran,” while in the same breath asserting that said agreement “may keep Iran from producing a nuclear weapon” is either certifiably insane — which I sincerely doubt, given the Left’s long-running & very successful rise to power in the US — or is simply not using the same language the rest of us are using, rendering any attempt to interpret accordingly doomed to failure; whether due to the madness of the author or through the incorrect translation of terms by the audience makes no difference.

  2. To clarify, “2) the risk of said use” above should be read to mean “the effect(s) of said use.” If the risk of use is zero, then the effects mean nothing. Likewise, if the effects do not outweigh the gains, then a certainty of “risk” still means nothing.

    Under the first point, if the US won’t ever retaliate with nuclear force, then there’s no reason to include it in the risk matrix. Under the second, if the adversary’s actual goal is to simply to cause a nuclear conflagration (for religious or other purposes, e.g.), then a nuclear retaliation is possibly a net gain, rather than a “risk.”

  3. Evidently the word ‘deterrent’ is not in their vocabulary. From the schoolyard bully who trolls around with two buddies to keep would-be heroes from trying him one-on-one, to open carry laws, to big dogs, to nuclear arsenals, there are many deterrents everywhere. Somebody who may have something to lose on a violent confrontation thinks twice about picking a fight with another.
    In spite of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the fact that a nation can have one means that they have developed enough industry, technology and economic power to realize they could lose a lot in a nuclear war. Both sides would be losers.
    Iran wants to deter Israel from attacking them (and vice versa); ditto India and Pakistan. The USSR/Russia and the US have lived with ‘their fingers on the buttons’ for generations, yet neither one has once pushed the button since the possible devastation that can be wrought was demonstrated on Aug 6th and 9th of 1945.
    Nukes are deterrents.
    The only thing we should really fear is a country with nuclear resources that is led by a fanatic government that is willing to give their lives (and everybody else’s!) for their cause – whatever it may be. That is why we need to be ready in case ISIS or some similar group takes over a country with nukes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.