Readers read about "the" bomb. Because leaders love it, hate it, fear it or want it ...

(To David Rossi)
15/04/19

Have you wondered how long the Second World War would have lasted if the United States of America had not dropped "ometto" and "ciccione" respectively on Hiroshima (in the photo, on the left) the 6 and Nagasaki (in the photo, on the right) the 9 August 1945, at the price of 150-250 thousand dead? I only say that the battle of Okinawa, for the conquest of a small island south of the Japanese archipelago, kept almost 300 thousand fighters engaged - in addition to 400 thousand support units - at the price - crazy! - of almost 150 thousand between dead and missing between the 1 ° April and the 22 June 1945. The invasion of Japan would most likely have cost at least another two years of war and an unimaginable number of deaths.

How many years would have elapsed in Europe between the end of the 1939-45 war and the Third World War? Perhaps the USSR would not have forced the Allies' hand during the 1949 Berlin crisis, if it had not been afraid of the use of the American atomic weapon, at a time when Moscow was not yet equipped with it?

And how would the Suez crisis degenerate - but also the Hungarian, almost contemporary one - without two superpowers with nuclear weapons?

What, then, of the very concept of superpower, if France and the United Kingdom in the 1956 had joined their (conventional) forces to keep up with the threats of Moscow (nuclear-free)?

Here, this modern sword of Damocles, placed at the head of the survival of mankind as we understand it for several centuries, had this effect: it prevented the aggressiveness of modern nation states and, later, of the Socialist Republics from leading to a whole century of war wars. Is it merit? No, it is not: it was not a question of human progress, but of a tactical choice, waiting for the anti-weapon technology to render (almost) also the atomic one. Then, whoever lives will see!

Before reading the readers' comments, I would just like to remind you that - only with machetes and white weapons - in the 1994 (the year of the death of Senna and the Pasadena final, not 200 years ago!) Nearly one million people died in less than three months in the Rwandan genocide. The twentieth century, even in Europe, could have been so ...

Reader Bendini makes a very interesting historical-strategic analysis.

The theme is, like the type of armament, extremely delicate. From the modest angle of my analysis perspective, the first argument concerns the historical path of this type of weapon: arisen and operative at the end of the Second World War and developed in the following years, in the bipolar world born from the ashes of that conflict, it contributed to a period of relative peace with respect to the global conflict: my detention limited to the two giants (USA and USSR) in my opinion created the conditions of the MAD and therefore this period of relative peace. In reality, it is simplistic to attribute peace to the nuclear devices of the two superpowers because other conventional military factors were determined as economic factors. In any case, I would argue that it could be argued that the bipolar mode in relative balance between two blocks facing each other consciously of MAD has produced this relative peace.
With the collapse and the destructuring of one of the two blocks, we had a decade of American unilateralism that began a period of slowdown from the 2003-2010 to the present day: US-style globalism has not been able to impose itself ever since. with a moral suasion and, the operations of pure strength (from Afghanistan 2001 onwards) have increased more and more: in this perspective, the possession of nuclear weapons, for a small country that must resist the giant of turn becomes a guarantee of survival.

Certainly the spread of these weapons also poses problems of control but it is also true that, already during the duopoly, Pakistan and then India were endowed with nuclear weapons: therefore the question is who establishes the legitimacy of the possession of such weapons. But above all: the duopoly and unilateralism have ceased and therefore the emerging country will tend to have defense devices capable of guaranteeing it decision-making autonomy not only with respect to the USA but to every other international actor endowed with strength superior to its own. In the growing multipolarity, therefore, their diffusion is destined to increase while their lethality will be proportional to the ability to intercept them and render them harmless for their objective. I would therefore argue that missile interception capabilities (medium and short-range ICBMs) will make the difference between nuclear and perhaps non-nuclear weapons holders.

Free thought has more than founded fears.

The spread to many states of the atomic weapon is very dangerous. The Cold War was founded on mutual destruction between two opposing but well-defined global blocs. The proliferation of the atomic bomb could no longer allow preventive mutual control and after ... it will be too late! The keys to such weapons must be in the hands of very few global players. An unforeseeable future awaits man unfortunately, unfortunately.

Reflection of Moraks: how not to love the bomb?

The ATOMIC !!!! The most peaceful weapon in the world, in my opinion seriously eligible for a Nobel Peace Prize; the only weapon in the world that has saved more lives and has disappointed Mum Morte.

Born in one of the most critical phases for the human bipeds that trample the planet, it began by ending a war, that of the Pacific that could have created many more victims. Then the ATOMICA always kept the neighborhood bullies good, Russians and Americans, who tried everything and more in order to kill each other; the Cuban missile crisis in the lead, there was very little lack there, but always she, the holy ATOMIC deterrent, made them think.

Reflect: if there hadn't been atomic warheads to frighten everyone, knowing the human race surely there would have been the third and perhaps the fourth world war. Another example: in one of the countless squabbles between Israelis and Iranians, the nuclear conflict was touched several times, then miraculously the projections of possible victims of both sides were spread in case of attack: 4 / 5 millions of Iranians and one million Israelis, miracle !!! Santa ATOMICA has made him desist and pacify instantly. After this premise for a personal admiration for an energy system in the military and civil version, we come to us.

Everyone has the super Bomb. In my opinion, only Americans really know how to use it; the reason is that they are the only ones that have 10 nuclear aircraft carriers cruising around the world. The question becomes difficult, take France: he tried to get the nuclear Aircraft Carrier, but things don't seem to have gone very well. The United States instead let you in the water the new series of boats with twice the atomic power of the previous Nimiz classes and the brand new "Ford" class; who knows why so much oversized nuclear energy; What do our "Kelly" friends hide from us (nice and friendly diminutive to define Americans)? Reflection: if the management of the aircraft carriers is so difficult, let's try to think about the management of missiles and submarines. The much feared and feared nuclear proliferation is not that it is hiding some other kind of development attempts? There are no new candidates for the "Nuclear club" and those who are there are well aware of what even a small nuclear collision would mean or dirty the world of radiation. So if we haven't "led" until now why do it now?

The only serious fear is that some genius will find the system to decontaminate vast territories, human beings or things from radiation, thus allowing someone to be able to push the button, so "then it is cleaned"; then yes, nuclear would start to scare. Until then SUPER ATOMICA always protect the human race from its madness and give us weapons for the evil Aliens.

Andrea S. says something interesting about the risks of proliferation ...

Nuclear weapons: neither with them nor without them. I would say we can certainly say so.

Every simulation that includes an escalation that goes up to the theoretical use of the nuclear arsenal, ends with a firm warning not to use them, in political, economic, environmental, but also military terms in an absolute sense. But this, probably only on the part of those who, despite having a certain technical and strategic superiority (at sea, on land, in the sky and today also in space), cannot afford, however, even a stroke on their country, advanced and populated with technologically and economically relevant high-density urban areas (too much to lose, even politically, compared to marginal gain), against a lower technical-strategic enemy and poor, often a dictatorship of one or a few men who decide the fate of all , without filters or controls, willing to play with everything for everything, which ultimately wait for nothing but an opportunity like the one hypothesized, to consolidate and establish itself in the eyes of the world.

Removed the impasse of the MAD between US and USSR is reconfigured with the Russians who are doing everything to make it clear to the Americans that things are and will stay like this for a while between them, which then at the conventional level is discussed again, China he will soon join the duo, in full, without actually changing anything. In reality, the greatest unknown is represented by medium nuclear powers such as India, which could go so far as to consider the nuclear option in a nuclear escalation against Pakistan (also but not only), given that civilian human losses could be more acceptable, compared to to those of trained personnel and technical equipment (often imported), typical of a weary and uncertain conventional campaign against a structurally weaker but tactically well-organized enemy, well-equipped, and able to resist and even counterattack. This reasoning can apply to other countries outside the political-military control of the USA, Russia, and China, such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and some others. It is possible that even South Africa will end up with a nuclear tactical arsenal, paradoxically to be used practically against itself.

To be clear, Israel is the opposite of this scale of evaluation: it has neither territory nor expendable population. The real problem is represented, consequently, from Iran and from Saudi Arabia: a nuclear confrontation between them is more likely than anybody else, a conflict that would then inevitably expand to the respective strategic allies. The same situation could occur in Latin America in the medium to long term, if the US does not implement active military control policies on the region: Venezuela could try to copy the example of North Korea, prompting Brazil to do the same, considering that Brazil is not South Korea and has no US military presence to act as a deterrent, nor would it want to.

In Europe, the nuclear ambitions of France and the UK are now nothing but a waste of public money.

Unless ... We must assume that Algeria and Egypt, (with Turkey already giving up its next new autonomous nuclear power) can get to have nuclear weapons. If this is the case we will be in trouble, but really big (especially us Italians).

We gladly give the floor to a lady, Tatiana, even if we do not share everything.

Before talking to you about my thoughts about women regarding the nuclear weapons competition, I would like to reflect on a possible hypothetical game since I am passionate about football, assuming a macabre but realistic encounter between: BOMBE ATOMICHE vs BARACK OBAMA.

Let's start from B.ATOMICHE image immediately from bad, born in the late thirties caused Hiroshima and Nagasaki about 250.000 victims, then nothing militarily explosive; to add, however, that the various cannon "bombette" between direct and indirect victims a good deal of deaths have also made them and certainly is not over, radiation here and emerge every day.

BARACK OBAMA called "the good" so good that even before they left they had already been named Nobel Peace Prize ... .. I still can't understand the reason. In my opinion he was very resentful of this.

BO "But how !? All American presidents are bullshit and feared, and I? The Good?"

I believe that it hurt him deeply, and he immediately went to correct it, bombing not a country like the ATOMIC amateur had done but seven; the real data of the victims we will never go to know them but seen the combined mess in: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia to not then add the various Arab springs (a devious and sinister name like those who conceived them and which still they are producing death).

In light of the facts, in your opinion, who deserves the cup of "massacre of humanity"?

We are experiencing a new nuclear rearmament of weapons that nobody wants to use and that only serve to be respected. Wasn't the fear they raised in previous decades enough? Probably not, women and men are more afraid of a proliferation of Obama vouchers that really are devastating for the human race rather than some nuclear device that today only serves to pacify.

From Washington paid by tycoon Donald I am really good Trump.

Hats off to the reader Samuel R .: really a well-structured analysis!

To answer the question I will quote a passage by Edward N. Luttwak1: "The transformation of nuclear capabilities, during the early 1950s, occurred in two ways. On the one hand, the destructive potential of large hydrogen bombs, which also included a retaliation of the same kind. On the other hand, the incorporation of weapons of this type in every specialty of the armed forces that transformed an imminent non-nuclear defeat into a nuclear collision, canceling all the successes achieved so far by the winner "2. To understand Edward's twisted words one must immediately understand that nuclear weapons are not made to win a war, but for a Pyrrhic victory. It is the only way to avoid this and to solve these problems. But how can this be done?

The first solution is given to us by President Donald J. Trump, who in 13 in January 2018 proposes a new "Nuclear Posture Review", thus wanting to reduce the size and power of nuclear weapons by installing a "low- yield "(low yield) usable and perhaps more acceptable in conventional wars. In this role also Italy plays with the present - but non-existent for the Italian State - B61 bombs that are currently usable with the Italian Tornadoes. But according to an acquaintance of mine, an ex-worker of the (...) will be renewed B-61-12 LEP, so bombs with the same appearance but with reduced destruction capacity.

The second problem can be solved by creating an impenetrable missile shield avoiding mutually assured destruction. A problem which was met by President Vladimir Putin who, seeing the impossibility of defending himself from a counterattack, wanted to exploit his atomic potential in another way. A striking example is the Poseidon nuclear torpedo, which does not directly attack the target and creates a radioactive tsunami that cannot be stopped against it, or E-bombs capable of sending enemy electronic systems out of control.

Concluding the future of atomic weapons lies in the possibility of making them less armament by making it more acceptable and exploiting their secondary destructive potential.

Even reader Michele C. sent us a very well written and interesting article!

From the 1945, indeed from a little earlier, the atomic weapon represents the total weapon. And then it became the forbidden dream of every head of state (or almost).

Owning an atomic bomb, pardon ... The Bomb is not a simple status symbol, but represents the perfect business card to "enter the coolest clubs".

Let me explain, let's take Kim Jong-Un, the North Korean president is the perfect example: putting aside the propaganda, the strong man of Pyongyang, certainly bloody dictator but still very intelligent / clever, he realized perfectly that the Atomic weapon will certainly not give him immortality but allows him to sell his skin dearly, that is if the US tried to unseat him as with Noriega in the 1989 Kim Jong-Un would hold the final affront: the US hyperpower would be victim of a atomic attack !!! Clearly the retaliation would be devastating but the fact would remain that the United States would suffer an atomic attack.

For the first time the people would realize that the king is naked!

The US would for the first time not those who inflict death and suffering but the victims of a devastating attack, a dangerous sign of weakness especially now that tension is growing in the Pacific Ocean and the allies could be asked if all in all the United States may they be so invulnerable ...

useless to be under any illusions, the number of countries with nuclear weapons will increase because they realize that this allows them to be able to deal as equals with much more powerful countries and is the extreme form of insurance to preserve a serene old age.

All that remains to be seen is whether the country along this road manages to keep this dangerous genius out of a jar (of Pandora) oops ... from a bottle ... or the evil genius will enslave its masters .

1Romanian naturalist economist, political scientist and essayist, known for his publications on military and foreign policy, expert in international politics and strategic consultant to the US Government.

2Edward N. Luttwak. The excessive weapon in Strategy: The logic of war and peace. Rizzoli. Milan. 2001. Page 294-296.

Photo: web / US Air Force / US Navy