|
We might see nukes, but either in a terrorist situation or, more likely, in a single-theater conflict like Pakistan/India or Israel/Arabs. What'll happen then is that somebody'll throw a nuke, the devastion will be horrible, the radiation will kill or sicken hundreds of thousands 1000-2000 miles downwind, and the rest of the world will fall on the two combatants and shut 'em down.
Nukes aren't really meant to be used; they're large-scale weapons meant as a deterrent only. If you actually use them, it means you're crazy or all conceivable diplomacy has failed. That's why efforts by the Bush administration to start developing smaller nukes for the battlefield and tactical targets are ill-advised: it's not so much a policy problem as a cultural problem, because it blurs the line between what's acceptable and what isn't. Right now, no nukes are acceptable in normal operations. But suppose _some_ are, of a certain size used in a certain way. Then where do you draw the line between proper and improper use of nukes? People -- the public, the military, diplomats, terrorists -- get the hazy idea that _some_ nukes are okay in some situations, and pretty soon they're being used more and more casually until something really nasty and unexpected happens. Not good.
|