UNWANTED FUTURE

Talks about a nuclear war crossed the critical level, after which comes the understanding of awe. Well, we have always been aware of the danger, but it seemed it has always existed somewhere there, in a parallel universe from fantasy novels, horror movies and computer games, despite all the crises and local wars. Or it was left in the distant 1945, when the Americans bombed Japan, and in the infamous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Basic components of warfare

Yet now, at the end of 2022, we are talking about a nuclear war as a possible option for our future. We should note that it is our common future, because in the event of a large-scale nuclear war, borders, nationalities and political affiliations would no longer be of any value to the survivors. It is also a paradox that most people who hear about the nuclear threat every day on social networks or on television have little understanding of the principles of nuclear weapons (NW) or their capabilities. For example, many people are afraid of radiation, contamination and the development of radiation-related sicknesses, whilst imagining how they would hide in shelters and bunkers. But they do not understand that nuclear weapons have such a serious destructive power that after the shock wave and thermal radiation nobody will ever get sicken of radiation desease.

Russia and the West continue the exchange of accusations of inflated nuclear war. Understandably, the main reason of this hostile rhetoric is the war in Ukraine. Statements are sometimes returned, sometimes refuted and sometimes distorted. This verbal confrontation has so far been the main element of the information war. But behind it we can see some real missiles. In search of a recent starting point some point to the statement voiced by the Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 24. According to Russian media, he warned the countries "that might be tempted to interfere in the ongoing events, or attempted to obstruct or threaten Russia, the response would be immediate", leading to consequences that "they have never seen before in their history". Eventually, Washington could not ignore such warnings. After some long contemplation and pondering period, President Biden responded that Putin was perhaps not joking when he said about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. The Russian media responded by pointing out that no one in Russia, including Putin, had ever even mentioned nuclear weapons. Sounds unconvincing, of course. Especially after President Putin’s public reminder for the White House about Hiroshima and Nagasaki made in early October, when he referred to the incident as a ‘precedent’. The term ‘precedent’, which is the basis of almost the entire American judiciary system, has a truly mesmerising effect on any Westerner. Therefore, it is most likely that it was chosen by the Kremlin speechwriters not by accident. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, and British Prime Minister Liz Truss also had time to discuss the subject. Even famous American entrepreneur Elon Musk joined the chorus, making everyone, right up to the generation of zoomers, who do not watch the news but actively consume TikTok and Twitter content, nervous.  Former White House national security adviser John Bolton stirred the pot when he said that Vladimir Putin would be a "legitimate target" if Moscow used nuclear weapons in Ukraine because the Russian leader is the key decision-maker.

In late May, Ramesh Rajasingham, head of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) of the UN Emergency Humanitarian Coordination Directorate, commented on the risk of a nuclear conflict. According to him, the previously unthinkable prospect of a conflict involving nuclear weapons has now become very real.

Apocalypse scenarios

Models and scenarios of war between Russia and NATO using nuclear weapons have long been developed by many expert centres and think tanks. Their reports very often focus on the limited use of nuclear weapons. There are also many scenarios of how mankind will survive after the war. For example, a group of American scientists from the Princeton University, who described in mid-September yet another scenario of a nuclear war between Russia and NATO, believe that it would kill more than 90 million people, making the lives of the rest very difficult. Incidentally, apart from the specific use of nuclear weapons, there is a risk that either side would use a so-called dirty bomb, which is essentially a radiation dispersal device. Unlike a nuclear bomb, which releases powerful nuclear energy, such a charge only disperses radioactive material, contaminating more territory and people. The main risk here, of course, is that radiation, unlike many chemical weapons, has no colour or smell.

Furthermore, we should keep in mind that the nuclear threat now also comes from the Zaporozhye NPP, which is not so easy to disable, but there are risks nonetheless. Moreover, Vladimir Putin, as if casually, let slip that the ‘wind rose can turn in different directions’.

Alternative threat

From the opposite end of the globe, the nuclear agenda continues to be pushed by North Korea and the US, as well as South Korea and Japan.  On October 4, North Korea test-fired a new medium-range ballistic missile over Japan for the first time since 2017, activating the Japanese air-raid warning systems. North Korean state media reported that the military exercise was conducted as an inevitable response to a large-scale mobilisation of the US and South Korean naval forces, including an aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine.

This is already a permanent crisis, which the former US President Donald Trump once tried to somehow resolve, but failed. Now Pyongyang resumed missile tests. This time, however, experts say that the North Koreans launched a previously untested missile over Japan for the first time, indicating a considerable degree of confidence in the engine. There are fears that Pyongyang will soon conduct a seventh nuclear test as well.

It is also worth mentioning about the nuclear crisis in Iran, which is going through a period of turmoils, and the long-standing conflict between the nuclear-powered countries like India and Pakistan. Finally, there is the Taiwan issue. With all these threats and risks, will mankind be able to stop to preserve itself and the planet? Why all these talks then, which describe daily a global nuclear war as something quite possible?

Meanwhile, we can look at the problem from a positive perspective. What would happen if all the nuclear weapons on earth suddenly disappeared? Would people be less likely to fight each other? Or maybe, on the contrary, if the deterrent to nuclear weapons disappeared, would there be new threats to use the available means at full throttle?

Unfortunately, we are well aware of the misery that conventional weapons can cause, although wars are not waged overtly, but are localised, hybrid, go on indirectly. And this process can continue for a very long time, especially since it is a great chance to improve various innovations in UAVs, cyber warfare, laser weapons, and quantum technologies.

Do nuclear weapons protect us from greater madness and destruction or vice versa? This is a question which is very difficult to answer, because none of the sides has clearly defined their red lines, crossing which would make the use of nuclear weapons possible. You do not know what your opponent has in mind, and vice versa. The game goes on.