Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

You owe your life to Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov

By Steven Meyer - posted Wednesday, 29 August 2012


Close calls

On 26 September 1983 Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov, then a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Soviet Air Defence Forces, was on duty when the Soviet nuclear early warning system reported incoming missiles from the United States. Petrov had just a few minutes to decide whether to awaken then Soviet premier Yuri Andropov who would, in turn, have to decide whether to launch a retaliatory strike.

For some reason Petrov decided this was a false alarm; which was what it proved to be. It was reported as a "technical problem." Armageddon averted.

Advertisement

In 1979 Zbigniew Brzezinski, then national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, received a 3 am phone call from the North American Air Defence Command, NORAD, advising him that the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, BMEWS, had detected multiple incoming missiles from the Soviet Union. Minutes later, while Brzezinski was mulling whether to awaken the president, NORAD phoned with a correction. It was all a mistake. Instead of seeing live data the on duty NORAD controllers had been viewing a training tape.

These are just two of the close calls that occurred during the Cold War. The world has come close to nuclear destruction more often than most people realise.

Imagine yourself in the position of Zbigniew Brzezinski or Lieutenant-Colonel Petrov. Imagine the terror if you can. I confess I cannot.

Russia and the US are on opposite sides of the world. During the Cold War alerts air defence commanders had the luxury of a few precious minutes to double check and make sure they did not start a nuclear war by mistake. How much time would Indian and Pakistani air defence commanders have; or Israeli and Iranian commanders? We are talking seconds rather than minutes in both cases.

What is likely to trigger a nuclear exchange?

Mad Iranian mullahs and Pakistani fanatics notwithstanding, it seems to me that the most likely causes of a nuclear war would be either a mistake or a miscalculation. What, after all, do you do if you believe the enemy missiles are seconds away? What do you do if your intelligence service tells you an attack is imminent?

Advertisement

If you truly believe you are about to be on the receiving end of a nuclear attack you have no choice but to launch immediately. It's your only hope of averting your own destruction. Perhaps if you strike first you can blunt the attack sufficiently to save something of your own side.

Such a situation is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

So what can be done? – The myth of nuclear disarmament

The usual answer to these issues is "nuclear disarmament".

But that misses the point of why some states acquire nuclear weaponry. Nukes are the great equaliser. With nukes a small state can deter a more powerful state, or combination of states, from attacking with conventional weapons.

It is likely that the state of Israel would not exist if it did not possess a nuclear strike capability. According to Seymour Hirsch it was the prospect of an Israeli nuclear attack on Egypt that motivated the Nixon Administration to rush supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur war of 1973. (See The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy).

Since that near miss it seems to have been the policy of successive American administrations to ensure that Israel always has an edge in conventional weaponry, that it need never again contemplate a nuclear strike. When a quarter of the world's oil pumping capacity is within range of your nuclear strike force you have the kind of influence that a small state surrounded by genocidal neighbours can gain in no other way.

What would an all-out nuclear war in the Middle-East look like?

I shall quote myself from a previous post.

Quite literally a hundred million plus deaths are inevitable. If Israel goes down Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria will cease to exist.

Believe it.

In the end the Israelis will push the button.

What do you think 200 airbursts can do?

Those that don't die immediately will die of disease and starvation. There literally will not be enough people to bury the dead. It will be impossible to get food and water and medicines to the survivors.

It will be the greatest horror the world has seen. In the space of a few hours more people will die than in both world wars combined.

I especially want to draw attention to the words:

"It will be impossible to get food and water and medicines to the survivors"

We have seen how difficult it can be to get relief supplies to people in earthquake zones. In the aftermath of a nuclear war it will be impossible.

Other flashpoints

A war between Israel and its neighbours is not the only likely locus of a nuclear exchange in the near future. Two other possibilities are Pakistan and India and Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have made it very clear that if Iran acquires nukes so will they.

Wikileaks shows how the Saudis have literally begged the Americans to defang Iran. (As quoted by Geoffrey Robertson, see below)

Who are the nuclear weapons states?

There are eight acknowledged states, China, France, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, UK and US.

South Africa had assembled six nukes but the National Party Government dismantled them and acceded to the non-proliferation treaty before handing power to the African National Congress much to the latter's dismay. Many within the ANC truly thought they were going to take over a nuclear armed state. On the other hand the US had made it clear to the Apartheid Government that they would not countenance Gaddaffi's friend, Nelson Mandela, acquiring nukes and were prepared to bomb South Africa's nuclear facilities. They had built an airbase in neighbouring Botswana for this purpose. They probably also paid senior members of the outgoing National Party regime hefty bribes to dismantle South Africa's nuclear strike capabilities and agree to a rigorous inspection regime.

Israel has never admitted to having nukes but its nuclear arsenal is the worst kept secret in the world.

Japan is acknowledged as a "virtual" nuclear power. While it probably has never actually assembled a bomb it has all the parts ready. Most analysts believe it could deploy a formidable nuclear strike force in a very short period – perhaps in less than a year.

Given the close ties that existed between Taiwan and Apartheid South Africa I am inclined to think that Taiwan too is a virtual nuclear power though perhaps not as "bomb ready" as Japan.

I think a similar argument could be made for Saudi Arabia given its links with Pakistan.

Iran is quite obviously working to acquire nukes as fast as possible.

I do not think much can now be done to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Focus on Iran versus Israel – The Mad Mullah theory

Since many people believe the most likely protagonists in the next nuclear war will be Iran and Israel I shall discuss this situation briefly.

The "mad mullah theory" states that the mullahs who rule Iran are irrational to the point where they cannot be deterred from engaging in a nuclear war. For religious reasons they may feel impelled to attack Israel thus creating the conditions for the emergence of the "hidden Imam." A leading proponent of this theory is Geoffrey Robertson, QC who calls the emergence of a nuclear armed Iran one of the "gravest problems" that will face the international community in coming years.

I am not sure. The Iranian mullahs are certainly a murderous lot ready to sacrifice the lives of gullible young men and women in pursuit of their mad agenda. They have carried out liquidations on a scale that compares with some of the worst excesses of Stalin. Their pursuit of nuclear weaponry is bankrupting Iran.

Here is Geoffrey Robertson's description of the liquidation of groups of political prisoners in Iran in 1988:

They were hung from cranes four at a time, or in groups of six from ropes hanging from the front of the stage in an assembly hall...

By mid-August 1988, thousands of prisoners had been killed in this manner by the state – without trial, without appeal and utterly without mercy.

But, on the other hand, the mullahs have shown a healthy regard for the health and welfare of their sacred selves. Sending young men to fight and die is one thing. Risking your own nuclear vaporisation is another.

My hope is that we do not have to put these conflicting theories to the test.

So what can be done?

I do not think Israel is capable of delivering a knockout blow to Iran's nuclear program using conventional weapons. I also do not think the Israelis will use nukes unless they feel immediately threatened. That leaves the US. I have no idea what the US will do.

Terrorist Nukes

I doubt if any terrorist organisation has the ability to develop nuclear weaponry on its own. Could a terrorist organisation steal bombs?

The obvious weak point is Pakistan. The security services of that country are riddled with fanatics who may be tempted to help terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda steal a bomb – especially if the temptation is reinforced with cash.

Similar comments apply to a future Iranian bomb.

One problem with terrorist nukes is that the targeted state does not have a return address. Where did the bomb originate?

Rumour has it that the Israelis have warned Iran that should it acquire nukes the Israeli Government will act on the assumption that any nuclear weapon that detonates on Israeli soil originated in Iran.

What of Australia?

Indonesia has ten time Australia's population and a rapidly growing economy. In the not too distant future Indonesia, not Australia, will be calling the shots in this region.

I suspect it is the future strategic challenge posed by Indonesia, rather than fear of China, that causes Australian governments of whatever complexion to give such a high priority to an alliance with the United States.

I find it hard to believe that Australian governments have not considered the possibility of developing nukes should the alliance with the US falter while Indonesia's military power grows.

In some ways Australia's position is not dissimilar to Israel's.

So what now?

Given the proliferation of nuclear weaponry I think nuclear wars in the future are inevitable. Right now the most likely "icebreaker" is a war in the Middle-East, probably between Iran and Saudi Arabia. However I would not discount other possibilities.

We live in a very dangerous world.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

14 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Steven Meyer graduated as a physicist from the University of Cape Town and has spent most of his life in banking, insurance and utilities, with two stints into academe.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Steven Meyer

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 14 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy