If a war with nuclear weapons is likely, why it did not happen yet?
There are several key reasons why a nuclear war has not occurred despite the existence of nuclear weapons and ongoing geopolitical tensions:
Deterrence Theory and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD): The core idea behind nuclear deterrence is that the threat of devastating retaliation prevents a first strike. The concept of MAD posits that a full-scale nuclear attack by one nuclear power would inevitably lead to a retaliatory strike, resulting in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. This creates a powerful disincentive to initiate a nuclear war, as no nation would benefit from a conflict where all participants face unacceptable losses.
High Cost and Ineffectiveness of Nuclear War: Beyond the immediate devastation, the consequences of nuclear war include potential climate disruption (nuclear winter), widespread famine, and the destruction of essential ecosystems. The economic and social infrastructure required for recovery would be decimated, and humanitarian aid would be impossible to deliver effectively. These severe and long-lasting effects make nuclear war an undesirable and unthinkable option for any rational actor.
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Efforts: Throughout history, and particularly since the Cold War, numerous treaties and agreements have been established to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and limit existing arsenals. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is the most widely adopted arms control agreement, aiming to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, promote cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy use, and work towards nuclear disarmament.
Focus on De-escalation and Crisis Management: While the possibility of nuclear war remains, especially during periods of increased geopolitical tension, there's a recognized need for diplomacy and communication channels to manage crises and prevent escalation. Organizations and initiatives are dedicated to promoting de-escalation and working towards a world free of nuclear weapons.
Human Factor and Fear of Consequences: Ultimately, the decision to launch nuclear weapons rests with individuals in positions of power. The potential for such devastating consequences has likely instilled a degree of caution and reluctance to cross the nuclear threshold
It's important to remember that these are some of the key factors that have, thus far, contributed to the absence of a nuclear war. However, it's also acknowledged that humanity has come close to nuclear war on several occasions due to technical malfunctions or miscalculation.
We make a conclusion: MAD assures that nuclear war will never happen, so all the talk about it is just a smoke screen allowing military industrial complex to get rich. This is relevant to a possible nuclear war in Arctic also.
“Elite combat troops shred their physiques to look like Hollywood hunks. In the Arctic, that can kill you.
The cold eats away at soldiers, who lose on average 3,000 calories a day while on exercises in the Arctic Circle -- even while eating full rations and before they have taken part in any strenuous activity.
"The modern soldier goes to the gym, likes to look lean with washboard abs, so they don't have any fat on their muscles," said Swedish Army Sgt. Maj. Fredrik Flink, who leads winter-warfare courses for U.S. Marines and other forces in northern Sweden.
"After three days here, they are really worn down. That is the biggest problem we have," he said. "Basic things aren't sexy nowadays."
U.S. and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops are flocking to the European Arctic, where international tensions are simmering. Militaries haven't clashed in the high north in generations, and defense planners are puzzling through what war there would look like.
It is ugly.
"We are writing the book as it happens, based on almost zero experience," said Troy Bouffard, director of the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience at the University of Alaska. "This is a very strange set of circumstances."
The events in Ukraine has given the world a glimpse of future armed conflict. The Arctic is different. In Ukraine, killer drones swarm the skies and dominate the front line. In the Arctic, fuels freeze and batteries die suddenly. Drones in the high north run on jet fuel or diesel, and are equipped with deicing systems and robust propulsion to withstand Arctic winds. As a result, they are usually so large they need a trailer or a runway to launch.
Ships and aircraft require special lubricants and hardened exteriors. The ice provides cover for submarines but also poses operational challenges for navigation and communication. It is an area where Russia, with stealthy, ice-breaking submarines with long-range missile capabilities, has an advantage.
The northern lights -- a stunning natural phenomenon and Instagrammable tourist attraction -- interfere with radio signals, as charged particles from the sun interact with Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. Defending the high north relies largely on old-school methods: infantry in white uniforms, on skis and snowmobiles.
"Technology is picking up, and we're all learning quicker, but still, if you wanna hold ground, and if you wanna defend ground, you will rely on boots on the ground and your overwhites," Swedish Army Chief Maj. Gen. Jonny Lindfors said.
One of the greatest challenges is also the most basic: how to sustain troops in the harsh Arctic climate for weeks at a time. No one can predict how the cold will hit them until they are in it. Flink, the Swedish instructor, once led soldiers through a "lone wolf" exercise, teaching them to camp alone in subzero temperatures. One night, he approached a soldier who was walking in circles, stomping his feet, saying it was too cold to light a fire. He had forgotten how to use his army-issued, three-layer Swedish sleeping bags, two of which were still in his rucksack.
"We call it cold shock," Flink said. "They are not receptive to information."
Because Russia dominates the Arctic, the West can use the region to deter Russia by implicitly threatening its interests, such as shipping lanes and infrastructure, said Bryan Clark, director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute in Washington.
"There's an asymmetry there the West can take advantage of," he said.
In the event of a war, Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish troops would likely be backfilled by NATO forces flowing into the Arctic, including Americans based in Germany and Poland.
Key to NATO's war efforts will be Norway's Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, an elite force trained to operate deep behind enemy lines in units of half a dozen soldiers. They dig snowcaves large enough to conceal snowmobiles and skin reindeer to cook over an open fire. During a recent 100-day exercise, the unit's soldiers traveled over 1,500 miles and resupplied only once, one of its members said.
Nordic instructors teach NATO allies, including U.S. Marines, how to camp in the snow and hide without the cover of trees. They show them how to slaughter reindeer, catch fish to eat raw and adjust themselves to constant daylight in the summer, which can rob soldiers of sleep and a sense of time.
Newcomers to the Arctic need about a month to overcome the initial shock and to thrive in the cold, said Brig. Terje Bruoygard, commander of Norway's Brigade North, a 4,500-strong unit based north of the Arctic Circle. The trick to coping with the cold, he said, is to accept you can't fight it.
---
Combat Is Rarity in Arctic
The Arctic has rarely seen combat.
Western troops supported anti-Bolshevik forces against the Red Army in the Northern Front of the Russian Civil War from 1918. Finland fought the brutal Winter War with the Soviet Union for about 100 days beginning in late 1939. Arctic Norway and Finland were the scene of a three-week Soviet operation to drive German troops out in 1944.
After Nazi Germany invaded the northern Norwegian port of Narvik in 1940, British, French and Polish troops intervened in support of the Norwegians.
Today, most of NATO's Arctic territory is in North America, but its land borders with Russia are in Northern Europe. Sweden and Finland, in particular, have spent decades training for potential conflict with Russia.
The West is worried that Moscow could use the Arctic to launch an incursion into the Baltic region or Finland.” [1]
All the wars in Arctic were before the nuclear balance era. It is a nonsense today (see the start of this text). Humans have so small chance to survive there that Arctic nations have tradition: one human being is helping another, even complete stranger. Preparations to disturb infrastructure of survival and to kill somebody are outrageous here. Competition? Yes. A nuclear war? You are kidding me…
1. World News: Arctic Conditions Herald Very Cold War --- As tensions rise, Western planners are preparing for a subzero battlefield. Sune Engel Rasmussen. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 19 Aug 2025: A6.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą