In the last week or so, following the massive (and continuing) American-Israeli assault on Iran, we have seen a major uptick online of articles about nuclear weapons and war.
Most of these seem to be panic-driven prophesies of pending doom.
Some are actually so contradictory as to be laughable. Consider an article about “7 States most likely to survive nuclear fallout.” That article lists Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Utah, and New Mexico. Just 7 out of 50! Shocking! And States with fairly low populations and in flyover country! But then another article posted just a few days ago includes this map, labeled “The most dangerous US states if WW3 breaks out.” This includes Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas: 4 of the 7! So much for expert scientists and talking heads!
The very same outlet has since published another article about the nine safest States to be in when a nuclear attack heralds World War III. Oddly enough, two of the States in that article are North Dakota and Montana! Utah and Idaho, listed in the first article as “safer,” are also part of the 9.
Other magazines and online sources have their own lists, of course. Again, so much for the experts! Admittedly, all are based on different factors, assumptions, and biases.
We here at TPOL are familiar with many of the states on the various lists, having lived or extensively traveled through them. We also know a wee bit about past and current military installations, critical industry, and wind patterns. And of course, we disagree with all of these lists, to some considerable degree. Targeting for nuclear warfare is just as complex as figuring out how to engage an attacking unit with rifles, pistols, machine guns, artillery, and such: we cannot assume that anyone choosing targets in the States will use our logic, or even be rational. Obvious targets such as missile silos, military airfields (especially those with strategic resources), and large or key military installations may not be as critical to an enemy as we believe. Each of those States have vital military installations, including scattered fields of missiles, and also critical sources of raw materials and manufactured goods. Sparse populations and rural or frontier conditions do not necessarily factor into the complex calculus.
More to the point, many of the articles are doom and gloom. One point that most fail to consider is that between 1945 and today more than 2,000 nuclear bombs have been lit off around the world. While many were done underground, many (especially the earlier ones) were on or above the surface. That amounts to a very slow-rate nuclear war, over eight decades. Clearly, much radiation, much fallout, has been generated by these. The world has certainly been impacted. But total destruction? Even if all 12,000 nuclear weapons are used?
An article published on Friday (6th March) on AOL claims that a “recent study has revealed that only two nations would endure a nuclear war.” Those two nations, according to AOL, are Australia and New Zealand. The rationale reads like a dozen (or a hundred) science fiction stories, books, and movies: blast, fallout, nuclear winter, destruction of the ozone layer, etc. It is a tale we’ve heard since well before the first (known) atomic bomb was triggered at Trinity Site in the White Sands of New Mexico in 1945.
The real question in our minds is just what is prompting this deluge of fearmongering articles about World War Three and nuclear missile and bomb attacks? Why are these often overblown claims being made? Is this a push by Trumpistas seeking to justify The Donald’s claims? Claims which are used as one of the reasons for attacking Iran. Or is it a dastardly plot by never-Trumpers to justify screaming that The Donald’s warring is pushing the world closer to Gotterdammerung? Perhaps it is another effort to push back against the increased production of nuclear power stations and associated mining and processing of radioactive materials. We know that fearmongering about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukishima have long been used to instigate opposition to nuclear power. And of course, deep revulsion to the use of the two atomic bombs on Heroshima and Nagasaki has been exploited to push against nuclear power. The fear of nuclear war in general has been a strong factor in pushing for the United Nations organization and hundreds of treaties, compacts, and military actions.
Of course, this could be just another case of panic and exaggeration on the part of multiple factions. These things are not unique to so-called Liberal or Conservatives advocates: we see that in the environist movement in general, and in libertarian politics. Fear sells, just like sizzle sells when you are running a BBQ place.
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
The Price of Liberty 
Nuclear war – fear, hype or something else?
In the last week or so, following the massive (and continuing) American-Israeli assault on Iran, we have seen a major uptick online of articles about nuclear weapons and war.
Most of these seem to be panic-driven prophesies of pending doom.
Some are actually so contradictory as to be laughable. Consider an article about “7 States most likely to survive nuclear fallout.” That article lists Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Utah, and New Mexico. Just 7 out of 50! Shocking! And States with fairly low populations and in flyover country! But then another article posted just a few days ago includes this map, labeled “The most dangerous US states if WW3 breaks out.” This includes Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas: 4 of the 7! So much for expert scientists and talking heads!
The very same outlet has since published another article about the nine safest States to be in when a nuclear attack heralds World War III. Oddly enough, two of the States in that article are North Dakota and Montana! Utah and Idaho, listed in the first article as “safer,” are also part of the 9.
Other magazines and online sources have their own lists, of course. Again, so much for the experts! Admittedly, all are based on different factors, assumptions, and biases.
We here at TPOL are familiar with many of the states on the various lists, having lived or extensively traveled through them. We also know a wee bit about past and current military installations, critical industry, and wind patterns. And of course, we disagree with all of these lists, to some considerable degree. Targeting for nuclear warfare is just as complex as figuring out how to engage an attacking unit with rifles, pistols, machine guns, artillery, and such: we cannot assume that anyone choosing targets in the States will use our logic, or even be rational. Obvious targets such as missile silos, military airfields (especially those with strategic resources), and large or key military installations may not be as critical to an enemy as we believe. Each of those States have vital military installations, including scattered fields of missiles, and also critical sources of raw materials and manufactured goods. Sparse populations and rural or frontier conditions do not necessarily factor into the complex calculus.
More to the point, many of the articles are doom and gloom. One point that most fail to consider is that between 1945 and today more than 2,000 nuclear bombs have been lit off around the world. While many were done underground, many (especially the earlier ones) were on or above the surface. That amounts to a very slow-rate nuclear war, over eight decades. Clearly, much radiation, much fallout, has been generated by these. The world has certainly been impacted. But total destruction? Even if all 12,000 nuclear weapons are used?
An article published on Friday (6th March) on AOL claims that a “recent study has revealed that only two nations would endure a nuclear war.” Those two nations, according to AOL, are Australia and New Zealand. The rationale reads like a dozen (or a hundred) science fiction stories, books, and movies: blast, fallout, nuclear winter, destruction of the ozone layer, etc. It is a tale we’ve heard since well before the first (known) atomic bomb was triggered at Trinity Site in the White Sands of New Mexico in 1945.
The real question in our minds is just what is prompting this deluge of fearmongering articles about World War Three and nuclear missile and bomb attacks? Why are these often overblown claims being made? Is this a push by Trumpistas seeking to justify The Donald’s claims? Claims which are used as one of the reasons for attacking Iran. Or is it a dastardly plot by never-Trumpers to justify screaming that The Donald’s warring is pushing the world closer to Gotterdammerung? Perhaps it is another effort to push back against the increased production of nuclear power stations and associated mining and processing of radioactive materials. We know that fearmongering about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukishima have long been used to instigate opposition to nuclear power. And of course, deep revulsion to the use of the two atomic bombs on Heroshima and Nagasaki has been exploited to push against nuclear power. The fear of nuclear war in general has been a strong factor in pushing for the United Nations organization and hundreds of treaties, compacts, and military actions.
Of course, this could be just another case of panic and exaggeration on the part of multiple factions. These things are not unique to so-called Liberal or Conservatives advocates: we see that in the environist movement in general, and in libertarian politics. Fear sells, just like sizzle sells when you are running a BBQ place.
Share this:
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.