“The mind can go in a thousand directions,
But on this beautiful path,
I walk in peace.
With each step, the wind blows.
With each step, a flower blooms.”
– Thich Nhat Hanh
Since the atomic explosions of nuclear weapons over Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and countless other lesser known nuclear explosions in testing of nuclear weapons — the cherry blossoms of Japan have come to symbolize the silent yet deadly nature of nuclear radiation exposure as a cause of mass human death & destruction.
White is the funerary color in Japan, as in the white pinkish glow color of the cherry blossom flowers of the Sakura season of stillness, beauty and reflection … when after the early pink colours of the Cherry tree blooms ascent to life, they become increasingly white and fall like a rain of white butterflies fluttering like little white souls down to earth.
Happy Sakura, happy Spring, and happy Easter, and forgive me for being a bearer of sad tidings, but in the midst of our discourse — we have the Good News of our Resurrection, so let us be peaceful and meditative as we unravel our Gospel of Peace and Salvation in a few segments of my upcoming book, titled: “90 Seconds to Midnight.”
I wrote these thoughts as a collage from now to that day, when me and my colleagues who are actively building the “Noblhouse” of Nuclear Defenses, will turn theoretical Physics into Applied Physics, through our advanced and evolved understanding of Nuclear Explosions.
We seek top solve this giant problem because we seek to redress the effects of the Atomic weapons criticality and Nuclear chain reaction during the nanoseconds at the beginning of a nuclear explosion.
Indeed, we examine all fusion nuclear energy events, in order to harness, arrest and redirect all of that energy and mass, accrued at the moment of the nuclear explosion, through the massively critical black hole, acting as an electricity arrestor during a lightning strike of atmospheric cloud electricity, coming down from the charged clouds above.
Exposure Radiation, Irradiation, and DeRadiation all need to be harnessed right aways, because we have come to learn that we are again fast approaching Armageddon and the Nuclear Doomsday, as the Atomic Scientists have pushed the Nuclear Doomsday clock forward to 90 seconds before midnight…
So here we are, at 90 seconds to midnight, and as the Atomic clock inches forward to our eventual destruction, disappearance and delisting as a viable species in our planet — perhaps we need to have a serious noodling of our intentions for our Civilization and for the continued existence of the Human species.
From my perch, as a disruptive innovator and a serious strategic game changer — I now sow the “seeds of change” through the entrepreneurial mechanisms that motivate Innovation, Capital, People, Powerful syndicates, Governmental Treasure and Statecraft, to shift to a New Equilibrium, blessed with the Moral Compass of Ethical Leadership, Reverence for Life, Humility, Science, Statesmanship, and Faith induced Strategy for the continued existence of the Human family.
In science, technology, and business, “disruptive innovation” is a goal. But the same innovations that start in the Physics departments of our Academia, go to the fast track Military applications, to the DARPA, to the Pentagon, to the DoD, or to the general & never lasting sphere of our National Security apparatus, a space where the most destructive of the very disruptive innovations are commercialized for both dual-use and double-edged weapons production, but are most devastating as “First Strike” weapons.
And thus even the most Pacifist of our defensive weapons — not only can they go from civilian defenses to military applications, but they can also present new fangled opportunities to endanger the very Existence of Human beings upon this Earth. There is no stopping innovation, nor should there be. But it’s important to ask if innovators can create transformative technologies while not imperiling their country’s national security. In other words, can they be more mindful scientific stewards without compromising advancement?
And what can today’s disruptors learn from yesterday’s innovators?
Answering those questions requires reflecting on historical instances of disruptive technologies in military and civilian innovation and invention of fresh brain products & perspectives that solve real problems and hopefully promote our Existence on this Earth.
Because as it turns out some of the scientists behind some of those dual use technologies did not intend to be disruptive. Alfred Nobel is the quintessential example. Nobel was curious, a “barefoot empiricist,” the type of scientist who learned by hands-on experimentation through trial-and-error. In 1847, a French chemist had discovered nitroglycerin, used as an antidote for angina. Nobel began studying the chemical’s homeopathic virtues but also recognized its volatile properties and ultimately developed the explosive and detonator that countries used in ways that he regretted. The Swedish innovator nursed his remorse by creating five Nobel Prizes, one a peace prize that would be awarded in Norway, a country that had previously demanded that its union with Sweden dissolve.
In 1897, two years after Nobel drafted his will that would create the Peace Prize, British physicist J.J. Thomson discovered the first subatomic particle when he observed streams of electrons deflected by electric and magnetic fields, implying they were comprised of negatively charged particles. The discovery unlocked the field of subatomic particle physics that led to Bohr’s model of the atom, the discovery of isotopes in the early 20th century, quantum mechanics in the 1920s and 1930s, and fission in 1938. These steps culminated in the making of the atomic bomb, which left its lead scientist guilt ridden. At the first detonation of the bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos laboratory that built the first two bombs, is said to have recalled a verse from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
As with nitroglycerin, atomic physics had salutary civilian applications. Nuclear medicine is crucial in diagnosing, staging, and treating cancer. But as with Nobel, Oppenheimer did not need a crystal ball to know these discoveries could also lead to destruction. Scientists Lisa Meitner and Joseph Rotblat found off-ramps, well before the culmination of the bomb. Meitner did not join the Manhattan Project and Rotblat left, once it was clear the Germans would lose World War II, before they developed the nuclear bomb. Rotblat later joined Albert Einstein in arguing publicly for arms control and creating an organization called the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs that would later win a Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts on nuclear disarmament. Rotblat’s resistance did not, however, stop the atom or hydrogen bombs from being built, or prevent an arms race in which the United States and Soviet Union built enough nuclear weapons to kill each other’s Citizenry many times over, and extinguish Human Civilization.
These historical examples raise vexing questions about technological imperatives. Once a technology becomes feasible, is it also inevitable regardless of its anticipated adverse consequences? Just because something is attainable technologically, does it mean it should be attained? And most important, what would a scientific conscience look like in a world of technological imperative, as technologies become larger than just one innovator and become part of a broader competitive ecosystem?
Surely there must be a better way than sleepwalking into harm, existential or otherwise.
Innovators can start by asking the right questions. “Deciding what not to do” Steve Jobs said, “is as important as deciding what to do.” This means asking what should not be done or how something can be done more ethically, sustainably, transparently, and responsibly, rather than focusing entirely on whether, or how fast, it can be done technologically. One of the common features of technological buyer’s remorse is that innovators did not seem to anticipate how their creations could be misused or how political actors could capture and use their innovations in new and unplanned ways. So the first step in ethical innovation is gaming out the possible consequences and misuses of the innovation. As people in the intelligence community say, it’s important to think like a terrorist and imagine not just the garden-variety intended uses or behaviors but the vulnerabilities — and not just of the current iteration, but also of version 20.0 of the technology.
The second step toward ethical and sustainable technological advance is to design some guardrails. The challenge is to figure out what guardrails mean short of banning a technology, which is neither practical nor terribly feasible. Some observers might suggest examining how a combination of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Wassenaar Arrangement on export controls, and the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls helped limit nuclear proliferation and the diffusion of sensitive military technologies. But these arrangements took decades to conclude, and were very targeted to nuclear weapons and specific to dual-use tech. That success story will be hard to replicate.
Contrary to popular proposals of Nuclear Ban Treaties that serve as examples of the type of thinking that engineers should do “ex ante” or before the event, rather than locking the barn door, after the horse has bolted…
And the same holds true, because we have been so careless about Nuclear weapons and their imminent use in this present day war of our own choosing, instigating and even commencing hostilities. Today, it is the threat of launching “theater nuclear weapons” in the Ukraine war, that makes the clock tick faster towards midnight, and is placed by the Atomic Scientists at 90 seconds to midnight — closer than at any other time in History to ending our Civilization along with our own lives, families, and dreams.
Mind you — your feelings about which side of the war you are on — do not significantly matter here, because they do not alter the balance of power nor the equation of inevitability. We hang by a thread, and we don’t even know it…
Because as long as you understand that this war was started by the United States and NATO — you are able to read the remainder herewith, with clear eyes and a cool head, seeing the perspective of reality.
Unfortunately and certainly mistakenly, we miscalculated, we accepted a foul “bill of sale” from an disreputable “tart” our CIA, and thus we bought this “tarred baby,” a tarted up fraction’s private war, and we have to deal with this foolish exercise in titanic Hubris.
And that is a fact of Life.
And yet, we still want to claim the immoral mantle of this debauchery, hoping to win some small concession in the battlefields of Ukraine — even though facts on the ground militate against us.
We stupidly started this war, with the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, in Scandinavia, and in Ukraine, through the CIA coup-removal of the Democratically elected president of the country, through the CIA led Maidan uprisings, through the enlistment of the First Clown as PRESIDENT, and through the whole operational fiasco, scripted & instigated by Hillary and her Neo-Con consorts, and the long unsavory list of neo-Nazis of Ukraine suppressing the Russian speaking territories and waging war against their own citizens with an army of fascists led by a real Clown. A petty clown, a comedian, an actor and a less than serious man, who has neo-Nazi sympathies and is also a stooge of the Neo-Cons of our government.
Funny, yet deadly serious business is afoot.
And when our President Biden in his geriatricaly limited mental acuity, approved of, and ordered the blowing up of the NordStream Russian gas pipelines to Europe, at the Danish island of Bornholmn — you would really expect the other shoe to drop.
Intuitive reflexive response came from the other side, as ought to have been expected when the Russian premiere in his State of the Nation address on February 29th — issued one of his most explicit warnings about the danger of nuclear war in Ukraine.
He unequivocally spoke about the Russian strategic nuclear forces “being in a state of full readiness” and able to hit all their targets in the West.
If you are keen on discounting the imminent and present danger — just consult the recently leaked, Russian military files from 2008 to 2014. This treasure trove of Kremlin intelligence was leaked recently to the Financial Times.
Product of espionage or not — these Kremlin Nuclear Files, unequivocally dictate that Russia’s threshold for first use of Nuclear weapons, is far lower than Western military experts had earlier always assumed.
Assumption always makes an ass out of you so the 29 classified Russian military documents that were leaked prove the ass-umption, because they include discussions of war-gaming with live nukes, portray the use of theater nuclear weapons as an everyday occurrence, and also identify operational thresholds for first use of tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons.
It is notable, that when commenting on the secret Russian documents, Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin, said: “They show that the operational threshold for using nuclear weapons is pretty low if the desired result can’t be achieved through conventional means.”
Coming on the heels of a suggestion by French President Emmanuel Macron that the option of sending NATO ground forces into Ukraine was under discussion within the alliance, the leaked documents on Russian nuclear first use; seem both timely and significant.
On the other hand, in previous statements about Russian military doctrine for deterrence and possible nuclear weapons unleashed — many Russian officials have stressed that nuclear weapons would only be used in response to a nuclear attack on Russia or its allies, or in cases of threat to the survival of the regime and nation posed by a war with conventional weapons.
An official response to the leaked documents, came from a Kremlin spokesperson who ruefully commented: “The main thing is that the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is absolutely transparent, and is spelled out in the doctrine. As for the documents mentioned, we strongly doubt their authenticity.”
Regardless of the authenticity of these documents, references to the possibility of Russian nuclear first use in Ukraine cannot be treated as idiosyncratic, or as a departure from the usually restrained Russian leadership’s turtle-like-speed precedent.
Premier Putin himself has, on numerous occasions since the beginning of Russia’s war against Ukraine in February 2022, reminded NATO and the world that the nuclear option remains available should Russia choose to use it. He has also noted, in this regard, Russia’s superior numbers of non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons compared to the US tactical nuclear weapons deployed in other NATO countries.
Of course — Numerical Superiority means very little in the beginnings of a nuclear war, because once unleashed and commenced, nuclear war has absolutely NO WINNERS>
Observers of varying backgrounds have put forward explanations for Putin’s saber rattling, with some of them suggesting that the Russian president uses nuclear threats, to achieve some current or future tactical edge in his country’s continuing face-off with Ukraine, the United States, and NATO.
All that faulty reasoning however, cannot erase the present day REALITY>
Reality: Any Russian first use of tactical nuclear weapons would create unprecedented conditions that could easily lead not just to a regional Russian territorial advantage, but to a wider nuclear war, that would decimate the United States, England, France, Russia and shortly thereafter, all the rest of the world.
So what has brought us to this awful Armagedonnian stage?
Well, … since the Ukraine war in 2022, a variety of commentators have put forward quite a few explanations for President Putin’s propensity for nuclear saber rattling: First off, some people contend that the Russian Leader Mr Putin is bluffing. This is the argument of the First Ukrainian Clown / President Volodymyr Zelensky, who feels that Putin’s nuclear diplomacy is designed to intimidate NATO into backing off from its support for Ukrainian sovereignty and independence. Others in and outside of Ukraine are more fearful of attacks with conventional weapons on Ukrainian nuclear power plants — and the residual effects of such strikes on public health, infrastructure and climate — than an actual Russian nuclear weapons first use.
A differing explanation for Russian president’s nuclear threats, is that they constitute a probe. Russian leadership is, as it were, taking the temperature of the United States and NATO, to see their reactions. This presents a dilemma for American and NATO European leaders. If they overreact to Putin’s intimidation, they appear fearful and potentially vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. If they simply ignore his comments about nuclear war, they may come across as lacking in awareness of the risks of escalation as fighting continues.
Another perspective on Putin’s nuclear rhetoric, sees it as a response to Russia’s political and military setbacks since the war began in February, 2022. The initial objective of Russia’s so-called Special Military Operation was the prompt defeat of the Ukrainian armed forces and the abdication or surrender of its government, replaced by a Russian puppet regime. Instead, Russia found itself bogged down in a protracted war that has been extremely costly in both personnel and resources —hence the threat of nuclear weapons use, if the situation worsened. Putin has been dissatisfied with the performance of Russian armed forces on more than one occasion, and the weird attempt at a putsch by the erstwhile Wagner group created a temporary sense of chaos in the military chain of command. Wagner has since been scattered to the winds, and Russia’s military position relative to Ukraine has improved in the aftermath of the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive of the summer and the fall of 2023. Moreover, Russia’s superior numbers of available and potential military personnel and war-supporting industrial resources, relative to those of Ukraine, create the potential for an endless stalemate with outcomes favorable to Russia. But the situation remains uncertain, and so the nuclear saber-rattling continues.
Admittedly Putin’s nuclear diplomacy asserts, that he is laying the predicate for escalation to “nuclear first use” if unexpected battlefield reverses threaten to destabilize Russia’s operational-tactical position for the defense of important objectives. NATO support for Ukraine provides that county not only with military hardware such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, long range missiles and antimissile systems, and the like, but also with the “software” of warfare, including C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) assistance with navigation, warning, special operations, and strategic deception. On more than one occasion, Ukrainian brainpower has outmaneuvered Russian muscle. But the Russians are learning fast and have upped their game significantly since the embarrassing blunders of 2022. Moreover, Russian armed forces have demonstrated in training exercises superior understanding of the extreme complexity of modern airland battle and its potential risks and costs. They are also aware of the difficulties in operational-tactical maneuver on a nuclear rich battlefield.
In my mind, the most probable interpretation of Russian Leadership’s propensity for “No Fear” of first use of atomic weapons in the battlefield, is that it reflects the clearly rational nationalistic reasoning of the Top Russian Generalship, along with their Military and leading Political deciders; that the gradual management of escalation toward favorable outcomes by the manipulation and escalation of the nuclear exchange risk — is accorded a top placement on the menu, because the West is squeamish and unable to accept, let alone risk and deal with a single atomic detonation in its soil.
Accordingly when classic French chefs take to boiling the proverbial frog before he jumps out — they do so by gradually increasing the temperature of the water in the pot, to the point where the frog is incapacitated and boils to death. This is the technique that would surely render the bellicose chickenhawk squad of political-boys, Macron, Biden, Sunak, Scholz, and the rest of the baby chicks, to fall in step for the prep-line of reasonable accommodation with Russia, right after a demonstration of a “nuclear first use” of the detonation of an atomic weapon in the wilderness of Western Ukraine’s fertile soil, as close to Poland and Germany as possible. And of course this will surely happen on the exact moment that the seasonal direction of the winds and the rains — will assuredly carry the radioisotopes to the German-Polish stoop.
Then as a single point of coercion that has been structured and extended so far, from the lowest point of this conflict that we stupidly started — the spectrum of choices edges-up to the crossing of the threshold from conventional into nuclear war. Same outcome of the boiling frog, albeit with the intensity of ambient Radiation that will “school” the West to not be as adventurous with other people’s blood, DNA structural anomalies, and inevitably massive losses of lives — as those brass plated chickenhawks, hiding under their desks deep inside the Pentagon, have done, for far too long already.
Being an American vampire is not a Hollywood story, but a Pentagon stupidity born & bred out of the State department’s Neo-Con wet dreams of world domination, and the weed smoking foolish boy’s trust in the American Exceptionalism, sitting pretty on the inside of the Atlantic & Pacific moats.
This is not a scenario for the faint of heart, but as a serious Russian analyst Sergei Karaganov’s essay, “A Difficult but Necessary Decision,” has long argued — is simply a realpolitik script, that a Russian tactical nuclear first use somewhere in Europe might be the necessary “stick” to shock NATO back into its senses. And the subsequent irradiated rains on Western Europe, will provide the lull after the storm, that will serve as the “carrot” to lead the Western Europeans like good horses, to concede to Russia’s suzerainty over Ukraine. And because of the Europeans’ continued need to keep doing their yoga, their Swedish massages, their advancing queer Europeans’ sexual quest for more queerness, transgenderism, and cross-dressing in their militaries; their squabbling over idiotic agricultural quotas, their economic central planning, their endless and rather pointless debates, Germany’s 2.0 supremacy over the rest of Europe.
Forget about, the European sad beltching in Strasbourg, Brussels & Berlin, about the methane coming out of both ends of the multitude of European cows, and some people too, continuously belching, farting and pooping at will, in the fields of Europe.
Let us not forget about the Europeans’ continued discourse over eating their radioactive yet uber-organic foods, their radioactive yet Uber-healthy sausages, their glowing, yet uber-crisp pome frittes, their multicolored chippies, and their glow-in-the-dark sauerkraut, and their basic call for trying to survive with plenty of growing blood cancers, tumours, and skin diseases.
Somehow, methinks that the simple use of nuke in Ukraine — will surely dissuade the baby frogs, the chickenhawks, the Seig-heil brigades of NeoNazi Germans, and their ilk in Poland and the Norway-Swedish combine — to return to their domestic duties, clean outside their front door, and shut the fvck up, about threatening and poking the “Bear” or mixing themselves up in whatever happens in that family feud, that Ukraine and Russia have engaged into, much like a belligerent clownish child fighting against it’s own Mother, for a few years now…
According to noted military theorist Dmitry Adamsky, Russia offers a cross-domain cocktail of conventional war-fighting and nuclear deterrence options. Crossing the nuclear threshold would most likely occur when Russia felt that its nonnuclear escalation options have been exhausted, and its nuclear rhetoric had thus far proved futile.
Signs of that have come on board already, ever since Russia pulled back from the Start Treaty earlier this year…
Even then, prior to actual nuclear first use, a “muscle-flexing” phase of gradually increasing “strategic gestures” will be used to communicate resolve and capability to climb the escalation ladder, Adamsky writes.
So it comes as “No Surprise” that my piece, alludes not just to the story of the race to build the bomb but also to the subsequent debate over whether to go beyond the development of fission weapons to create the “Super” or hydrogen bomb, based on nuclear fusion.
Notably, J. Robert Oppenheimer fiercely opposed the development of the Hydrogen-bomb, not on moral grounds, but because he hoped that the Baruch plan might work and he did not want to hinder that possibility for long term atomic detente Peace, after the war. In his and the other critics’ view — the H-bomb’s capacity for nearly unlimited explosive power, rendered it useful only for the mass murder of civilians. The concern—that the H-bomb development hinders international control of atomic energy, as it failed to respond to the first Soviet atomic test of August 1949, raises the ante for “arms talks.” Yet by then, all knew that negotiations were a lost cause, owing both to the US’s commitment to keep on charging and thus stay ahead in the nuclear arms race.
This is the key role that the H-bomb played in the expansion of the US nuclear weapons program. The early 1950s American development of the so-called tactical nuclear weapons, that is, weapons intended not to be dropped on cities but rather employed against targets of military relevance, is why we have come to worry today, about Russian military threats of using nuclear weapons to alter the course of the war in Ukraine.
And even more worrisome is the fact that the heavily nuclear weaponized & armed with “battlefield theater nukes” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, will respond in kind, is what became known as “nuclear plenty”
In the wake of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — the US common view was that the weapons’ only purpose was to inflict mass casualties on civilians by attacking cities.
Operational testing and development of H-bomb and theater nukes, went ahead at flank speed, and coincided with the presentation at the United Nations by Bernard Baruch of the US plan for preventing a nuclear arms race. Based on the Acheson-Lilienthal Report, Baruch’s plan eliminated the provision for international control of uranium deposits and emphasized instead the punishment of countries that sought to use atomic energy for military purposes. Baruch insisted that the United States maintain its monopoly on nuclear weapons until intrusive inspection procedures had assured that no other countries possessed them — clearly a nonstarter for the secretive Soviet Union.
The failure of international negotiations to control further developments of Nuclear weapons, tactical, strategic and theater, along with the H-bomb’s completion — brought back the US military’s attention to accelerating US production of fissile material and developing bomb designs that would use it more efficiently.
============
The US General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), oversaw three major expansions of atomic production facilities in 1949, 1950, and 1952. The Sandstone series of nuclear tests in April and May 1948 — follow up of the 1946 Operation Crossroads — had demonstrated the success of new designs of smaller, more efficient nuclear weapons than had previously been available. At this point, US strategy for a potential war with the Soviet Union — including a feared invasion of western Europe — focused entirely on attacking Soviet cities with atomic weapons.
Could nuclear weapons though play a more direct role in defense ?
The “long-range objectives” for the Pentagon’s Research and Development Board of Nuclear Energy weapons systems, recommended in August 1948 that nuclear weapons be developed for use on a battlefield.
Norris Bradbury, Oppenheimer’s chosen successor as director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, accordingly, submitted a request in October “that a complete small weapon be readied for test early in 1951.”
He relayed an order to the Sandia Laboratory, responsible for the weaponization of nuclear devices. Sandia was already at work on the “Mark 4” bomb, which consisted of an improved version of the Mark 3 “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki. The Mark 4 was the first US atomic weapon to go into mass production and eventually came in a variety of yields, including one kiloton (1,000 tons of TNT equivalent), considered at the time small enough to use for tactical purposes.
In 1949, following the shock of the first Soviet nuclear tests, the US redoubled efforts to promote tactical uses for atomic weapons. A seriously fast crash program to develop the hydrogen bomb promoted by Edward Teller and Lewis Strauss, then-chair of the AEC, in favor of “bringing the battle back to the battlefield” was inaugurated. The October 1949 report of the AEC’s General Advisory Committee, where Oppenheimer and his colleagues came out against the Super, included a section on “tactical delivery.” The committee recommended to the AEC “an intensification of efforts to make atomic weapons available for tactical purposes, and to give attention to the problem of integration of bomb and carrier design in this field” in ways that could have had contributed to the postwar atomic arsenal for use in the battlefield.
Oppenheimer had “become convinced that nuclear weapons had a tremendous field for tactical application, in fact, in the long run, probably the most promising field of all.” Oppenheimer’s promotion of such tactical applications put the proponents of the larger H-bomb on the defensive — to the point where they started singing the praises of hydrogen bombs for battlefield use. AEC chair Strauss, for example, wrote to President Harry Truman in November 1949 that “unlike the atomic bomb, which has certain limitations, the proposed [hydrogen] weapon may be tactically employed against a mobilized army over the area of the size ordinarily occupied by such a force.”
Oppenheimer had made it possible for the United States to pursue both fission and fusion weapons for any possible use by securing the expansion of production of atomic materials and advocating more efficient weapons. But if Oppenheimer thought he could defeat the “Super” (H-bomb) by promoting tactical nuclear weapons, he was quickly disappointed. His fellow enthusiasts for battlefield nuclear weapons, including General Gavin, came out in favor of the H-bomb.
When the Korean War broke out in June 1950, Gavin worked with Gen. Kenneth Nichols to urge the Army’s chief of staff to recommend to President Truman “that we use nuclear weapons against the North Korean forces.”
General Nichols role during the Manhattan Project and later, as general manager of the AEC, along with general Gavin, both famous for their efforts to remove Oppenheimer’s security clearance in 1954, believed, that “the situation in the summer of 1950 offered us a number of well worth-while tactical nuclear targets, if we had had the moral courage to make the decision to use them.”
Oppenheimer made his views on the tactical use of nuclear weapons public in a speech to the New York Bar Association in January 1951, where he said that given “the extent of our investment in the atomic field — we cannot ignore what the atom can do for military purposes.” When he was then asked the question of using or not the atomic bomb, in the Korean War, he said, that he had raised the issue of “atomic weapons in warfare” and “their use against military targets” and declared that atomic weapons “are an integral part of military operations,” but should be used “only as adjuncts in a military campaign, which has some other components, and whose purpose is military victory.”
Although Oppenheimer seemed to favor the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a future war, his remarks were sufficiently ambiguous as to leave unclear his views on their relevance for Korea. General Gavin wrote a piece entitled “Tactical Uses of the Atomic Bomb,” which originally appeared in the Combat Forces Journal, where it appeared as if Gavin’s views were perhaps not shared by his superiors, but that “it is conceivable that the situation might present itself in a different light, when, in the course of military operations, a very large concentration of enemy troops might be forced to assemble in a limited area.”
The Korean War gave rise to fears of “another Korea” in Europe: a Soviet invasion across the inter-German border. Here, the proponents of tactical nuclear weapons found their most promising scenarios. Between the spring and fall of 1951, the California Institute of Technology, where Oppenheimer had worked before the war, hosted a large top-secret government study called Project Vista. The study focused on ground and air tactical warfare in European defense. Although Oppenheimer was not among the more than a hundred specialists who participated in the research, he was invited to draft one of its key chapters and to brief General Dwight Eisenhower, NATO’s supreme commander, on its findings. Vista’s recommendation to develop a range of atomic weapons suitable for use on a European battlefield proved highly threatening to the US Air Force, whose Strategic Air Command sought a monopoly on nuclear warfare. Air Force officials joined the H-bomb proponents, including Teller and Strauss, to help secure Oppenheimer’s downfall in the 1954 security clearance hearings.
Whatever happened afterwards, it was not Oppenheimer’s moral qualms about nuclear weapons that incited such strong opposition against him, because it was his singular challenge to the city-busting strategy of the Air Force, and his advocacy of widening the range of uses for atomic bombs in the battlefields around the world.
And it was in that respect that he succeeded, because during the Cold War, the United States deployed thousands of nuclear weapons for use in Europe, and the Soviet Union quickly followed suit deploying many more thousands of weapons across all of the Warsaw pact…
The end of the Cold War led to vast reductions in the US and Soviet arsenals. But the Russian invasion of Ukraine has again raised the specter of nuclear war. Reported US plans to integrate new B61-12 nuclear weapons onto US- and NATO-operated tactical aircraft in Europe — to be used on the battlefield, just as Oppenheimer envisioned nuclear weapons could be used — will only make matters worse. The paradox of tactical nuclear weapons—clear already in the 1950s—remains the same today: Their use will destroy what they are intended to defend. And probably very much more.
Today, a Russian decision for the “First Use” of conventional theater nuclear weapons use, in their war tactics, or even the strategic nuclear escalation without reference to the possibility of a Russian-Chinese coordination of tactics and strategy in an episode like the Cuba crisis — is unthinkable.
Or is it?
Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons against NATO members that deploy forces to Ukraine in his annual State of the Nation address in the Kremlin palace in Moscow, on Feb 29 of 2024, where President Vladimir Putin delivered his televised annual state-of-the-nation address on Thursday to the Russian people, updating them on the State of the Russian Union, the war in Ukraine, Moscow’s nuclear capabilities, the Russian economy and relations with the West.
The more than two-hour-long speech contained one of Russian President Putin’s most explicit nuclear warnings yet, against the West when he proffered this unequivocal piece of resolute advise towards the Eastwards expansionist NATO after the thoughtless remarks by French President Macron, that he would send French troops to fight against RUSSIA in Ukraine.
“All this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilization. Don’t they get that?”
Perhaps, President Putin’s state-of-the-union speech, serious retort & reference to French President Emmanuel Macron suggesting that NATO should not rule out deploying foreign troops to Ukraine and enlarging the war ought to be seen in light of how the folly of sending troops to Russia, played out for Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler at the height of their respective power… Less than 10% of these invading armies ever returned back to their homelands.
Trying to reel back the NATO aggressive remarks of the current French egomaniac, the collected leaders of other Western powers, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and senior U.S. officials, quickly rejected the possibility of sending any troops towards Russia, especially because in his state of the union speech, President Putin, wholly dismissed the idea that Russia would spread the conflict into other European countries, calling it “nonsense,” but he added that “tragic consequences” would occur if NATO troops were to become involved in the war.
Still, my question remains:
Are we approaching another Cuban missile crisis moment?
Are we double dealing with our collective misfortune, in our reckless brinkmanship of expansion into the backyard of the Russian Federation, right smack inside the House of the Rus peoples of Kiev, & the ancient seat of Russian Tsars of a Thousand years past?
As one who has read the fundamental history books knows — of course the Russian people will no more tolerate this NATO incursion into their traditional territories, than we accepted the existence of Nuclear weapons in Cuba during the JFK administration, or the Russians accepting to surrender their Capital to Napoleon in 1812, or to Hitler in 1942. Still some rather entrepreneurial NATO shysters couldn’t fail to spread a red flag propaganda warning, that Russia would test the alliance’s collective defense clause (Article 5) within the next few years, falsely claiming that if that were to occur — Russia might seize NATO territory in one or more of the Baltic states, and then stare NATO down, so that they back down and walk backwards from their gains of the previous three decades — for fear of Nuclear First Use, by Russia in retaliation to NATO’s aggression.
This is also borne out by the recently leaked trove of Russian classified intelligence papers that somehow strangely were revealed by the Financial Times after President Putin’s speech, and they showed that Russia’s threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons is way lower than previously estimated, stated, or publicly revealed.
Obviously this is critical information, because tactical nuclear weapons are designed to be used on the battlefield and are quite smaller than the so-called strategic nuclear weapons, such as the nuclear warheads that are placed on the cone-heads of the intercontinental ballistic missiles known colloquially as ICBMs. However, today’s tactical nuclear weapons or theatre nukes, are far greater in megaton power, and release far more energy than the Strategic Nuclear Weapons that the United States dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to conclude the Second World War.
As confirmatory evidence goes, the Russian Nuclear treasure trove of intelligence based on the 29 secret military files that were created between 2008 and 2014; Russia would consider launching a nuclear strike, if there was any enemy incursion on Russian soil, or if 20 percent of its strategic ballistic missile submarines were destroyed, or if their Ukrainian ambitions were threatened by foreign troops — among other triggers. The documents show that Russia has rehearsed launching tactical nuclear weapons against a major power at a conflict’s earliest stages, with no serious provocation or prolonged negotiations.
“Russia’s “strategic nuclear forces are in a state of full readiness” and can hit all of their targets in the West” according to President Putin. These include the hypersonic nuclear weapons that Putin first mentioned in 2018. Last year, Moscow also transferred tactical nuclear weapons to neighboring Belarus in a move that shifted the region’s security status, and further increased the number of members of the Nuclear Club. Add that to the two other nations where Russian Nuclear weapons are also deployed, and the fact that in recent weeks, all reports indicated that Russia may have deployed a low earth orbit nuclear Satellite, to be employed as a space weapon that could destroy Western satellites, target spaceships, and bring down high flying ICBMs.
Additionally, the ultimate test of “First Use,” is the military use of battlefield “theater nukes” in regional wars, which makes the concept of strategic detente and the tactic of US deterrence for defense requirements against a simultaneous Russian / Chinese / Iran / Belarus / North Korea, etc, regional aggression — assume a semblance of closely held hyper dystopian reality.
Because indeed a greater need for forward-deployed forces and power-projection capabilities than hitherto existed has caused the thoughtless NATO expansion in the offensive zone close up to Russia’s strategic territorial existence. The final report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States warned that US objectives must include “effective deterrence and defeat of simultaneous Russian and Chinese aggression in Europe and Asia using conventional forces” and that, if existing conventional forces were inadequate to this objective, US strategy would have to be adjusted to increase reliance on nuclear weapons “to deter opportunistic or collaborative aggression” in the other theaters of Conflict and Competition in arms…
One should be cautious, however, in estimating the sizes and capabilities of future Russian and Chinese nuclear forces. Nor can it be assumed that the current rapprochement between Russia and China will be everlasting, or apply to all issues of military significance. China and Russia have a history of border conflicts and Cold War disagreements, and China’s world historical view is ways apart from Russia’s strategic view.
William Alberque, director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank, has provided a concise description of the possible roles for non-strategic nuclear weapons in Russian military strategy: “deterring unwanted conflicts; coercing adversaries; shaping the battlefield for planned conflicts; controlling escalation within conflicts to protect the Russian homeland; preventing outside powers (the United States & Western Europe) from intervening in its conflicts; and ensuring that it prevails in war.”
Notwithstanding this rationale, the decision to move from nuclear deterrence to nuclear first use in Europe or Asia would be a world-changing historical marker — and not at all indicative of progress, but rather hastening the inevitable MIDNIGHT strike, because the firebreak between non-strategic and strategic nuclear warfare, has never been tested under exigent conditions, and indeed, part of the deterrent efficacy for tactical nuclear weapons lies in their potential coupling to strategic nuclear war.
Obviously, Russian president Putin’s assertive nuclear rhetoric is a nationalistic stunt, a strategically helpful military ruse, and also a very real-political maneuver that is both terribly dangerous, when applied in the battlefield as part of the General Staff’s arsenal, but also a jingoistic false flag operation, when seen through the eyes of a smart operative understanding deceit…
Unfortunately the US response has also been of the “First Use” variety, ever since well before the Hiroshima – Nagasaki bomb drops.
America’s Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) for General Nuclear War — which was devised in the 1960s, is more of a recipe for the “End of the World” than a reasonable hope for any type of Victory against our adversaries.
And that is the official military process to be followed blindly by our men in uniform — but it is also a disastrous scenario that explicitly shows how a single battlefield nuclear launch can escalate into a Nuclear World War III, at dizzying speed.
And that is exactly what Nuclear War is: One bad assumption, one shot, one retaliation, and it’s unstoppable. Today’s posturing of the Biden administration in Ukraine, coupled with the “fire and fury” rhetoric from the President to the high STRATCOM commanders and deputy commanders who prepare the New Sequence of the Strategic Arsenal, as they also seen speaking on C-SPAN about the dangers therein, makes you wonder:
My god, what would happen if deterrence failed ?
Once began, the terrifying process that nuclear war is, it becomes abundantly clear that in its bare essence, it is an unstoppable sequence of events, that once it starts it almost certainly will not stop.
And if this understanding makes You want to move to Mars with Elon, or to the Antipodes risking life with the Ozzies and the sheep … I can’t blame you a bit.
Because it doesn’t take but one weapon to set off a chain reaction to unleash the current arsenal, which is forward deployed in launch-on-warning positions and could be fired in as little as a minute—15 minutes for the submarines. There are enough weapons in those positions right now that when unleashed, they will surely destroy half the earth, and then usher a nuclear winter that would kill the remaining 5-7 billion people, who survived the first wave attacks.
So the question that begs to be asked is this: Are there too many nuclear weapons in existence right now ?
Absolutely.
Have we made progress?
The all-time high in 1986 was 70,481 nuclear weapons…
But more to the point, there are today thirteen nuclear-armed nations, not just two or three superpowers. And that presents a lot of randomness, uncertainty and doubt, that really create the serious unease we all feel right now, and allows huge room for an accidental, an incidental or a well planned and orchestrated nuclear catastrophe.
As an example North Korea and Iran do not announce any of their missile tests, whereas most other countries do. North Korea has launched 100 missiles since January 2022. And now you realize what happens to the US nuclear command and control apparatus in the seconds and minutes after a launch is “discovered” by the advanced super satellite system we have.
Maybe, you can imagine what goes on in those command centers, because the “watchers” know that North Korea has a totemic decision making system, that allows them even less flexibility to find cause or correlation in order to interrupt let alone stop the Sequence of Doom in the event of an actual Nuclear attack initiated by friend or foe…
As for theocratic Iran — the belligerence of their talk is ample evidence of what is afoot, and their procedural Command structure is so faulty that they have shot down their own citizens in their own airplanes, before attempting to verify the identity of the potential threat, or the need to pull the trigger against any target they are ordered to shoot down…
As for American nuclear weapons — when deterrence fails, it all unravels, in seconds and minutes — not hours, not days, nor weeks and months.
Last time in Hawaii when the threat of a missile came — all we had was twenty minute to midnight.
Richard Garwin, who is now 95 is arguably the most knowledgeable person about nuclear weapons on the planet, and he probably knows more about policy over the long lens of history because he was 23 years old when he designed the first thermonuclear bomb.
In the “Ivy Mike” test, it exploded with 10.4 megatons of power — about 1,000 Hiroshimas. Garwin said to me that his biggest fear was now, and always had been, the madman theory you referred to. He used the French phrase Après moi, le déluge — after me, the flood — referring to this idea that a maniacal, egotistical, narcissistic madman leader could launch a nuclear weapon for reasons no one would ever know.
And to counterattack North Korea, the US would need to send missiles over Russia, which has a very unreliable early warning system. However, the technological and redundancy limitations of the Russian advance warning systems is just as terrifying as any other part of the Nuclear escalation problem, because detection, identification and response are all woven intricately so it’s almost as if we would want to reach out to the Russians and give them far more advanced detection, identification and response technology so that they will not launch a Nuclear First Strike under false pretenses, or respond in kind with a responsive nuclear launch, because of a faulty alarm system, a misidentification, or because of a tragic serpentine ouroboros, & colloquial error.
There have been many opportunities to have a dialogue with the Russians — but we always blew them as unreasonable, from a position of a warm & comfortable Complacency, such as when Russian President Putin inquired about joining NATO, back during the Clinton administration. Obviously, we have to really lean upon our leaders to think about communicating with other, and not demonizing all others, and carrying on with the most unproductive practice, that of the constant saber-rattling. , because I hope that this essay demonstrates in appalling detail how horrific nuclear war has been and how more devastating the next one would be. And we know from the “Proud Prophet” war games that no matter how it begins, it always ends in nuclear apocalypse.
“Proud Prophet” was a classified series of war games President Ronald Reagan ordered in 1983. Civilian and military planners convened for two weeks to run through scenarios that could spark a nuclear war and see how they played out…
The fact that Proud Prophet was declassified is interesting, because Nuclear war games are among the government’s most jealously guarded secrets. Just to see what a couple pages of the declassified war game Proud prophet look like — 95 percent is redacted. It’s literally a couple of headers and a few numbers.
But when something like that gets declassified, it becomes very valuable to the people. An individual like Paul Bracken — a civilian professor at Yale who participated in Proud Prophet — can now speak about it in general terms. He wrote in his own book that everyone left very depressed, because no matter how the nuclear scenario begins — if NATO is involved or not involved, China is involved or not — it always ends the same way, the most terrible way, because America has a “launch on warning” policy.
“Launch on warning” policy simply means that we do not wait to absorb a nuclear blow, before we respond in force with nuclear weapons, therefore, once an enemy missile is on the way towards our shores, and there is secondary confirmation from ground radar that it is indeed coming — then, the president is asked to launch a counterstrike immediately. The President asking about his options, he says: “How do we know it’s a nuclear weapon?”
We do not.
That is a fact.
How do we know it’s a nuclear weapon?
The answer could well be something like this: it could be a biological weapon.
So it logically follows, that no one launches a ballistic missile at the United States unless they’re expecting a counterattack.
So now you are looping into the Orwellian world of: “This is deterrence.”
Deterrence will hold. Don’t you dare launch at us or else … this scenario will play out and you and your Country will revert to the Stone Age. A reasonable scenario which becomes part and parcel for why the counterattack is required, per the deterrence doctrine. There is no room for saying, well, maybe we’ll wait and see.
Once you break deterrence, everything else goes out the window.
Correct. The deputy commander of STRATCOM, Lt. Gen. Tom Bussiere, had an unclassified discussion with insiders, and the quote is along the lines of “when deterrence fails, it all unravels.”
General Kehler was not speaking hyperbolically when he said: Thousands of years of civilization — all extinguished in a few minutes.
Paul Nitze, a former defense secretary and later presidential adviser, called the policy “inexcusably dangerous.” Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden wanted it scrapped. So why is it still in place?
William Burr, who runs the National Security Archive at George Washington University, where many of those quotes and documents come from, since his organization, made them accessible to journalists, was one of the biggest hawks across the length of the Cold War. To have a guy like that go on the record and say this is inexcusably dangerous says a lot.
Multiple presidents have campaigned on the promise that they will change this dangerous policy, but then they become president and you never hear of it again. That speaks to the kind of secret-keeping that is dangerous and can be changed. This is an issue everybody should know about. Because only in knowing about it, makes any change possible.
As evidence, we can look to The Day After battle, which is known in the State Department, in the White House & deep inside the Pentagon’s inner circles, as the Reagan Reversal policy of 1983, because back in 1983, then President Reagan, watched the ABC movie The Day After. The movie is a fictional account of a nuclear war between America and Soviet Russia, and half the country watched it. Interestingly, behind the scenes, ABC got a lot of pressure not to air it. Well, one very important American watched it: Reagan had a private screening at Camp David. His chief of staff tried to suggest that he shouldn’t watch it, but he did. And he wrote in his diary that he became “greatly depressed,” and he picked up the phone and called then–Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and the two leaders communicated — which is really the only solution for any of this.
Because of those communications and because of their conference and because of the treaty, the insane nuclear arsenal has been reduced to the approximately 12,500 we have now, which is a considerable reduction. The president’s position prior to seeing “The Day After” was a much harder, more saber-rattling approach. He changed his position and became much more dovish.
“Launch on warning” puts extraordinary pressure on a president. The scenario is pretty harsh on the President who is usually really clueless about it all, since he hasn’t even rehearsed. Nobody told him he’d have just six minutes to choose from a Denny’s breakfast menu of existential options in response to what may or may not be an incoming nuke. It’s hard to believe the Pentagon doesn’t put every new president through a series of war games.
And that’s coming from multiple secretaries of defense and national security advisers — people in a position to advise the president on a nuclear counterattack. The secretary of defense felt the weight of it all, when he spoke about visiting missile silos, submarine bases, and nuclear command bunkers, because once you go to places like that, your entire perspective changes. And that is why Defense Secretaries were willing to go on the record, and say that You really get the sense that things are precarious once situations like that begin, unscripted actions follow, entropy takes hold, and spotty decisions follow that take the decision matrix out of anyone’s control.
And now we find ourselves in the precarious position where our continued existence depends on our intransigence, on our internal communications and processes, and on our deep understanding of what is a Nuclear First Strike, and how it leads into Nuclear War and Nuclear Winter in a seamless continuum of consequentially falling dominoes; because the game of Nuclear Extemination is our own invention along with the exact same actions of our adversaries…
Perhaps the silver lining here is that we are dealing with adversaries who fear us, just as much as we fear them — and that is a good starting point for understanding one another, because our Safety is their Safety and vice versa, and as our Nuclear Defense systems originating with those of the NOBLHOUSE organization, become the safety outriggers of the Ship of State — all of our Nuclear and Atomic Weapons arsenals, stockpiles, and atomic installations, will start losing their shine, their importance, and their value for all adversarial Nations.
Then we can reap the peace dividend of the Two Trillion Dollars, not being spent on faster, better, killer nukes — but being utilized to fight Poverty, offer Health, and bring up Children that will live lives free of Nuclear nightmares.
And that would be a good day to be alive.
But in the real world we have options, choices, and alternatives, and the tow most distinct scenarios are Win or lose for Humanity.
My writings, in describing these alternative scenarios, will surely inspire and captivate you, as the readers, and my book shall be a testament to the power of human resilience and cooperation. Remember, the clock is ticking and it could just as easily tick away from midnight, where a brighter future awaits, or it can keep on ticking inexorably forward.
Let us take care to direct the movement of the clock away from Midnight and towards the sunny uplands of tomorrow.
I hope “90 Seconds to Midnight” becomes a bestseller with your help — so please keep reading here the segments of the book, spread the word by mouth or mouse, preorder a copy, and as soon as we go to print — I shall deliver you a signed first edition copy along with a digital one. PM me with here at Comments with your name, email address & number, to be counted as early readers, and adopters of Humanity’s Mission to Exist.
Yet for now, the two most likely visions of the future as I visualize our Common Destiny are these polar opposites and it will take a lot of specific and forceful organization to
Vision One:
The Dystopian Future has a 90% chance of becoming our reality … seeing as we already are at 90 seconds to Midnight.
The world teeters on the brink of catastrophe as nuclear tensions escalate between superpowers. The Atomic Scientists’ Clock inches closer to midnight, signaling the impending doom of human civilization. Nuclear weapons exchanges devastate the globe, causing widespread destruction and radioactive contamination. The consequences are dire: 7 billion lives lost, and the human species faces extinction. The once-thriving world descends into chaos, and the clock strikes midnight, marking the end of humanity.
Goodbye & Goodluck.
Vision 2:
The Hopeful Future has a 10% chance of becoming our reality, because we put all of our money, our attention and our thoughts on the dismal, dystopian, & apocalyptic future.
So I invite the whole world to turn their eyes and minds away from Catastrophe and focus on Rebirth, Regeneration and Life ever-after for our Humanity.
Please focus on positive outcomes because wherever your mind goes, that’s where your energy goes and your thoughts become actions, things and realities…
So, please follow me here down the garden path … full of Spring blossoms.
In a remarkable turn of events, World leaders come together to address the nuclear threat. The NoblHouse nuclear defenses are installed in all the major cities, towns and both Civil & Military infrastructure installations, all across the World.
A rethink occurs amongst all of our Military and Political leaders. Congresses, parliaments, summits, and Civil Society organizations hold open public meetings where the Doves outweigh, outnumber, and out-win the Hawks.
Democratically elected governments change their composition to reflect the New Thinking, and all of our diplomatic efforts intensify, with nuclear limitation talks yielding positive breakthroughs. More NoblHouse nuclear weapons safety measures are deployed, and nuclear explosion arrestors are developed everywhere in order to prevent catastrophic detonations. Disarmament efforts lead to the gradual reduction of atomic weapons stockpiles. Countries work together to secure a future free from the shadow of nuclear war. The clock reverses its course, moving away from midnight, and humanity breathes a collective sigh of relief, as the threat of nuclear annihilation recedes.
As the clock recedes from midnight, the world witnesses a new era of cooperation and progress. Scientists and engineers redirect their focus towards harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, driving innovation and sustainable development. The threat of nuclear winter lifts, and the environment begins to heal. International relations strengthen, and diplomacy triumphs over the saber-rattling of the past.
Humanity awakens to a new dawn, where the specter of nuclear war no longer haunts every decision. Generations to come inherit a world where scientific discovery serves the betterment of all, not the destruction of some. The atomic scientists, once keepers of the clock, now dedicate their expertise to advancing human knowledge and well-being.
In this future, the world recognizes the devastating consequences of nuclear conflict and works tirelessly to prevent its recurrence. Historical lessons learned, humanity forges a path towards a brighter, nuclear-free horizon. The clock, once a symbol of impending doom, now stands as a testament to human resilience and the power of collective action.
As the years pass, the world witnesses a remarkable transformation. Former nuclear weapons facilities are repurposed as hubs for sustainable energy innovation. Scientists who once worked on weapons development now collaborate on groundbreaking projects in renewable energy, advanced medical research, and cutting-edge technology. The global economy flourishes as resources are redirected towards progress, not destruction.
The legacy of the nuclear age serves as a cautionary tale, reminding future generations of the devastating consequences of scientific discovery without moral responsibility. Museums dedicated to the history of nuclear weapons display stark reminders of the past, while educational institutions emphasize the importance of ethical scientific inquiry.
In this future, international cooperation has become the norm, and diplomacy has replaced the threat of force. Conflicts are resolved through dialogue and mutual understanding, and the concept of war seems anachronistic. Human beings, nations, tribes, & peoples, have rediscovered their shared humanity, recognizing that common progress and collective prosperity are intertwined with peace and cooperation.
The world has transformed into a beacon of hope and cooperation, where nations work together to address global challenges. The United Nations has evolved into a more egalitarian, robust, and effective organization, freed of corruption, and really capable of resolving conflicts and promoting sustainable development.
The International Court of Justice has become a powerful tool for holding nations accountable for their actions, ensuring that justice and human rights are upheld.
As the years go by, the world witnesses unprecedented progress. Poverty and hunger are eradicated, and education and healthcare are universally accessible. Catastrophic climate change is stopped, and even reversed through concerted global efforts, while sustainable energy sources energize people’s lives, and power the economies of all the various countries of our planet. The world has become a true global community, where diversity is celebrated, understanding transcends borders, and multinationalism brings beauty, peace, and joy to all.
In this future, humanity has rediscovered its sense of wonder and curiosity, driving science, exploration, and discovery, that benefits all humanity.
Space exploration has become a global effort, with nations working together to establish a human settlement on Mars.
The mysteries of the universe are being unlocked, and humanity is no longer bound by the constraints of a single planet.
As humanity explores the cosmos, we discover new worlds and civilizations, fostering a new era of intergalactic cooperation and understanding. The universe, once a vast and intimidating expanse, has become a frontier of endless possibility and discovery. Humanity has transcended its terrestrial bounds, becoming a truly cosmic species.
On Earth, the legacy of the nuclear age has been relegated to the history books, a cautionary tale of a bygone era. The world has moved beyond the destructive impulses of the past, embracing a future where science and technology serve the betterment of all humanity.
The world has entered a new era of enlightenment, where scientific discovery and technological advancement are harnessed for the greater good. The once-ominous Atomic clock tower now stands as a beacon of hope, its faceplate replaced with a gleaming portal that symbolizes the gateway to a brighter future.
In this future, humanity has transcended the petty squabbles and conflicts of the past, uniting under a shared vision of progress and prosperity. The divide between nations, races, and ideologies has been bridged, giving rise to a global community that celebrates its diversity and promotes understanding.
As we look out into the cosmos, we realize that our journey has only just begun. With the nuclear shadow of the past lifted, humanity can now boldly explore the vast expanse of the universe, driven by curiosity, wonder, and a shared sense of purpose. The clock that once threatened to strike midnight now stands still, a relic of a bygone era, as humanity forges a new path forward, guided by the light of hope and the promise of a brighter tomorrow.
In this future, the clock that once threatened to strike midnight has been dismantled, its components transformed into a symbol of hope and resilience. The atomic scientists, once keepers of the clock, now serve as guardians of a new era, ensuring that humanity never again teeters on the brink of self-destruction.
That truly should be our Future…
Good luck and God Speed for our continued Human Survival.
Yours,
Dr Churchill