Here a Nuke There a Nuke Everywhere a Nuke, Nuke: Nonproliferation Ø

Nonproliferation? Ha!! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Nonproliferation

INTRODUCTION QUESTION: CAN THE UNITED STATES DEFEND AGAINST A NUCLEAR STRIKE BY NORTH KOREA (or anyone else)?

That question is from an article here in the Daily Mail in the UK.

Assuming that North Korea can fire a nuclear missile that can reach the US, although most experts say it may take 5-10 years from now to do that – it would be able to reach CONUS in around 30 minutes. The mostly likely missile would be their Taepo-dong 2 (Korean: 대 포 동 2) which is thought to have a range of between 6,200 and 8,000 miles, enough to hit CONUS East coast.

Despite having the most powerful military in the world, the U.S. probably could not defend against a missile attack from North Korea. To date, DOD has spent some $40 billion on the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (GMD) which is designed to stop a nuclear warhead in flight. Each GMD interceptor is 60 feet tall and has a 150-pound “kill vehicle” on its tip.

During a nuclear or missile attack, the interceptors would be fired out of underground silos in either or both Alaska and California and would travel through the air at four miles per second and would destroy the missile by crashing into it mid-flight though there are no explosives on board the interceptors – simply a “head-on” crash as it were.

It is still not clear if that system would work since tests have yet to be successful despite decades of similar programs and at least $84 billion being spent on missile defense over the past decade alone.

The GAO reported in 2015 that the GMD system “has not demonstrated flight testing enough that it can defend the homeland against the current missile defense threat, which includes North Korea.” Rebuttal to GMD reports and articles here.

Ballistic missile defense is a very difficult problem, probably one of the most difficult problems that we have right now. Our defense community is saying that we have some capability and it's being designed and optimized to deal with the kind of threat you would get from a North Korean style attack, but it's still a hard problem even with the successes and failures. Facts on two very effective U.S. anti-missile systems: THAAD and PATRIOT (PAC-3).

Now as the late great Paul Harvey used to say: “Now the rest of the story.”

These nine countries had nukes as of April 2004. Each figure includes the approximate number of both tactical and strategic bombs (nuclear and thermonuclear, or the big and really humongous ones) some may not be up to date – but the message is clear nevertheless: There are enough to end mankind and life on Earth:

Country	Warheads
United States	10,455
Russia	8,400
China	400
France	350
Israel	250
United Kingdom	200
India	65
Pakistan	40
North Korea	8
TOTAL	20,168

There are at least eight “wannabe” countries that badly want nukes:

(1) Egypt, (2) Libya, (3) Syria, (4) South Korea, (5) Taiwan, (6) Iran, (7) Serbia, and (7) Montenegro. Imagine that? How did we reach this point today in history? Simple: Nuclear proliferation, i.e., nonproliferation basically has failed – now nukes are in vogue or so it seems and nobody gives a damn or so that seems also. Refer to the NPT (Nonproliferation Treaty).

Examples:

•  China wanted a bomb because it stopped trusting the Soviet Union.

•  India wanted a bomb because it had bad blood with China.

•  Pakistan wanted a bomb because it had bad blood with India.

•  Israel built nuclear weapons for protection against the Muslim states.

•  Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran, and Iraq decided they needed the security of mutually assured destruction vis-à-vis Israel.

•  North Korea wanted one and now has a few vs. everybody else.

So, what about Taiwan versus China, or the Philippines versus Mindanao insurgents? We can keep going like this for a long time. The harder one looks, the more pairs of and even-smaller opposing parties pop into view throughout the world, each a potential Petri dish for this kind of mad thinking: We wants nukes to protect ourselves – in short: It’s truly is a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and this movie has only one ending: Bye, bye mankind and planet Earth (melodramatic you say — nope, not one bit).

Still want more? Consider this: The United States may soon begin building a new generation of nuclear bombs called bunker busters. Designed to destroy concrete bunkers buried deep inside the earth, they may also be “small enough” for actual use in battle. In preparation for that, Congress has lifted America's self-imposed moratorium on testing and Nevada nuclear testing sites have been revamped so they will be ready for use in 18 rather than 36 months.

Meanwhile, shadowy sub-state groups we call terrorist organizations are interested in small nuclear weapons too. This makes the collapse of the Soviet Union a problem after all, for in addition to the bombs already deployed, Russia has enough highly enriched uranium and plutonium for at least 60,000 more bombs – just like real estate slogan says from time-to-time: It’s a seller’s market.

The thousands of scientists in charge of these lethal stockpiles work for low salaries and sometimes get no paycheck at all. And organized crime syndicates exert tremendous power in the Russian economy. Shadowy arms dealers surely see opportunities here. It's always about the money...!!!

We used to hear: “Get rid of nukes.” Nowadays we hear: “Where’s ours?” Nuclear world war is more real today than ever – it has increased, not decreased – and the only question is: How did we the entire world allow this to happen?

One or two here, one or two there, and soon, well, it surely would be Armageddon with one huge final big bang in reverse…!!!