Stephen Colbert's plan to string a microscopically thin razor along our entire border is brutal, indiscriminate, dangerous... and smarter than the nuclear defense we now have.
Here is how I learned of his secret plan to defend America. A few weeks ago, I was a guest on his show, The Colbert Report. I came away convinced that Stephen Colbert is as smart as he looks.
He described his plan to me in graphic detail. It is best appreciated by watching his presentation, but here is how the conversation went:
COLBERT: So you're against all weapons?
CIRINCIONE: No.COLBERT: What about a microscopically thin razor wire that is erected at neck level all around the United States? So as our enemies try to come in - "Like, there's no one guarding the border! Let's run in!" But the razor wire just goes [makes choking noise and pantomimes garroting of enemy].
CIRINCIONE: That absurd, brutal defense is actually more rational than what we do now.
Really? Killing thousands of innocents at the border is more rational than what we do now? Yes.
Let's review:
The Colbert National Defense Posture
Colbert was straight-faced when he proposed his micro-wire defense, so let's indulge his strategy for a second. Say we spend $20 billion to string up the wire defense around the United States. The wire cannot discriminate between innocents and evildoers, and instead kills tens of thousands of men, women and children. Terrorists simply find an easy way around the wire to attack the United States. As a result of our "defense," thousands of innocents have died, our strategy is directly responsible for their gruesome deaths, and the U.S. gets attacked anyway.
The United States' Nuclear Defense Posture
The United States spends at least $52.4 billion a year maintaining a nuclear arsenal of some 10,000 nuclear weapons. 2000 of these hydrogen bombs are poised on the tips of long-range missiles and bombers ready to launch at a moment's notice. One miscalculation or accident with just one of our bombs would destroy a city, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.
Worse, Russia could make the same error with their 13,000 nuclear weapons. If one of their missiles is fired our way, or if terrorists get and use just one of these weapons, an American city is obliterated.
Wait, it gets worse. What if Russia makes another early warning blunder like they did in 1995? Then, Russian military officials mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a US submarine-launched ballistic missile with 8 nuclear warheads. They thought they were under attack. For the first time in the atomic era, the Russian military opened up the "nuclear football" -- the remote control for Russia's thousands of nuclear warheads -- and told then-President Boris Yeltsin to push the button.
Fortunately, Yeltsin did not believe them. But what if that same mistake repeats again, and this time, with relations tense, the Russians launch even a fraction of their arsenal? Goodbye Colbert Nation.
Postures in Review
Both the Colbert strategy and the current U.S. nuclear strategy are insane. Both are immoral, expensive, and dangerous to American security. At least the dreamt-up Colbert strategy would kill a lot less innocent people.
This is why a growing bipartisan group of national security experts see nuclear weapons as a security liability, not an asset. (I doubt they considered the Colbert strategy.)
Put Nukes on Notice
Colbert agrees. In his interview with me, he agreed to reduce from today's 23,000 weapons to a little over one hundred:
COLBERT: Okay, so let's get it down to only being able to destroy the world once. I think anything above that you're being greedy.CIRINCIONE: I will take that deal.
COLBERT: Good, at least we agree on one thing - to destroy the world once.
Previously on his show, Stephen promised Jordan's Queen Noor to support the Global Zero plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons. Reducing the roles, missions, and numbers of existing arsenals is a step in the right direction.
Stephen should now harness the power of the Colbert Nation to put nuclear weapons on notice. He should list nukes on his "On Notice Board" alongside such malicious forces as grizzly bears and, arguably, above Canadian Iceholes. Bring this threat down.
Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione
I'd like to offer up a cogent argument for putting nukes ahead of Canadian iceholes on the 'on notice' board. And, I will ... just as soon as one comes to me, sometime after things are settled on the ice here during the next couple of weeks.
Seriously, a few more guest spots with Stephen and you'll have him and the Colbert Nation eating out of your hands ... with a boost to the movement to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
I don't know if it is possible to completely eliminate nuclear weapons, human nature being what it is. But that doesn't mean we can't significantly reduce the incredibly wasteful spending for nuclear weapons. America needs to stop wasteful military spending, and this is as good a place to start as any, so I support you.
"Make my job difficult."
--Jon Stewart regarding the 2004 Presidential election
Two nuclear weapons have been used in wartime. Every last arguement you make about their effectiveness is based on circular logical fallacy stemming from lack of data where you would be able to frame the arguement in emotional terms to always make yourself right.
The fact is that even a limited nuclear war would end civilization. Period. Scientific fact.
We have no idea what these more powerful weapons would/could do.
I grew up in "The Cold War". I was told to "duck and cover" in case of nuclear attack. It was always one of my recurring nightmares.
People today seem to think it's "safe" and could somehow be limited to a certain area....like when the right wing talked about reducing the Middle East to "a sheet of glass"( all for the loss of a couple of buildings on US soil) and thought they could buy property cheap there after 100 years!
I'm glad you brought this up. On the Colbert Report I said that as few as 100 nuclear weapons could destroy the world. Here's why:
Climate scientists in 2007 did an update of the 1980's "Nuclear Winter" study using the latest data and computer models. They found that:
"“Smoke emissions of 100 low-yield urban explosions in a regional nuclear conflict would generate substantial global-scale climate anomalies" for a decade or more.
The nuclear explosions and firestorms in modern cities would inject black carbon particles higher into the atmosphere than previously thought and higher than normal volcanic activity. Blocking the Sun’s thermal energy, the smoke clouds would lower temperatures regionally and globally for several years, open up new holes in the ozone layer protecting the Earth from harmful radiation, reduce global precipitation by about 10 percent and trigger massive crop failures. Overall, the global cooling from a regional nuclear war would be about twice as large as the global warming of the past century “and would lead to temperatures cooler than the pre-industrial Little Ice Age.”
In short, most food crops would fail. Billions could die. So, yes, Amber, even a small nuclear war could end civilization.
Outside of two weapons detonated august 6
What two weapons were detonated on august 6th ? Give me a year, please.
I believe that the reliability of the systems and their delivery vehicles has progressed to the point where it doesn't make sense to hold such inventories any longer. In fact, as the threat of domestic and international terrorism rises around the world, I think the fewer of these weapons exist, the safer we all are.
Nuclear sub's could have been excluded to make this work as you would understand why I won't bother the long detailed explanation for the uninitiated in this field...
Instead he talks to complete nuclear disarmament which is not even a long term possibility at this time or maybe ever...
That would still leave the US with 5,000 or more warheads all of it's hydrogen and our subs as fail safe but instead he talked jive pie in the sky mularkey as usual...
Russia's arsenal which is not all in actually Russia as you know worries me even more of course but they would have jumped at this I believe as the cost is even more burdensome for them...
Of course may are not aware or realize Red China has now joined the nuclear sub club as well thanks to those shoppers at Wal-Mart...and this changes the nuclear equation greatly...
Just on economic terms a 50% reduction is the way to go let alone the safety and moral considerations...
As a registered nuclear survivor, twice not once, but twice exposed and radiated and having had 2 bone cancer operations so far as a result, can't tell you where or why, I pray for your success and efforts in this regard...
If the U.S.A had developed nuclear weapons in 1939, do you think Japan would have attacked Pearl Harbor ? If Poland had nuclear weapons, do you think Germany would have attacked them ?
Please give me the name one nuclear armed country that has been attacked or invaded by another country. I'll give you the answer, No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded. It's not hypothetical, it's recorded history.
Your disdain for hypothetical scenarios is ironic. Do you realize that most of the arguments for eliminating nuclear weapons are based on, what could, or what might happen ? That's fine. But, I would take you more seriously if you told the author of this article that hypotheticals aren't the best way to get his point across.
Now, nations that posses atomic weapons are, The United States of America, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea. Which of those countires has been invaded since aquiring nuclear weapons ? The answer is Israel. Yes, some people reading this will mention Kargil. But, seriously, an invasion force of 5,000 against 1,000,000,000 ? That wasn't an invasion, that was a terrorist attack. About Israel, I will say that no one was sure that they had nuclear weapons. But, when Israel threated to use them, the USSR ended support of conventional arms support to Egypy and Syria. So, the mere threat of using nuclear weapons prevented the escalation of the conventional war
The Invasion of Poland took more than a month. That is more than enough time to annihilate Berlin to Munich. History is not on your side.
It took a war to be able to create such horrific devices. That's the way mankind has been advancing for thousands of years.
One reason would be because scientists wanted proof they were correct about atomic theory.