Pretending we can survive and win a nuclear war is not just wrong, it's dangerous
As much was we all worry about global warming, we sometimes forget that the worst kind of human-made climate change would be a nuclear winter. That's why recent remarks made by General V.K. Singh, Chief of Army Staff, are so troubling. In an interview run by Asian Age on Sunday,Gen. Singh said:
"Even if there is a (nuclear) strike in a particular area, we have developed a capability to move a certain force level ... which will not get affected (even if) the area is contaminated."
The Asian Age, to its great shame, seems to have accepted the General's words uncritically. Here's what they wrote about the General's remarks:
This is significant given that Pakistan has been trying to build more nuclear war heads to negate the Indian Army's traditional edge in conventional forces. This also means a nuclear attack will not cripple the Indian Army or stop it launching retaliatory operations.
|Hiroshima Dome, 1945|
I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that any army on the planet has the technology to walk through a nuclear wasteland and fight. And even if they did, what would be the point? Even a small nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would likely kill millions, if not hundreds of millions, directly. The resulting contamination and climate affects would kill many more. In that scenario, can anyone imagine wanting to send our army to occupy another country? Sorry, but I think our soldiers would be needed at home to save anyone who could be saved.
In October '09, I argued that well-tested hydrogen bombs and major increases to our defense budget would not make us safer. Neither will preparing our soldiers to march through nuclear deserts.
However, if leaders in the government or the military are committed to fighting after a nuclear war, they might want to see if they can jump start this recently canceled US defense program. (Follow that link, it's funny.)
For more radioactive posts, check out our toxics page.