'Dipo. J. Akintoye
March 28, 2018
The Prospects of a Trumpian Thermonuclear Apocalypse in a 21st Century World
It is a popular theory that mankind has always been fascinated, and at the same time, concerned by the worrying possibilities of extinction by means of disastrous events of cataclysmic magnitude. The odds of global warfare involving the utilization of nuclear armaments have undeniably increased, and are now closer to reality since the advent of Donald Trump’s Presidency than at any other era in history including the Cold War period.
The occurrence of a thermonuclear war in present times would have a cumulative effect on the world on a scale, so devastating that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would seem like child’s play. What makes this so alarming is the sheer quantities and scales of nuclear weapons available to the world powers, which have been designed to do the most extensive damage possible in the event of such a war. A nuclear explosion is typically succeeded by great physical, biological and environmental damages, as witnessed in 1945 during WWII. The bombs generated such immense explosive power, magnetic pulse and heat that reduced both target cities to wastelands. The soil and water were contaminated radioactively, and the air became significantly toxic (Atomic Bomb Museum, 2006). The more troubling radioactive fallout soon followed, whereby the people suffered severe personal injuries from the gamma rays and high-powered neutrons, and then later succumbed to Acute Radiation Syndrome – a group of signs and symptoms emanating from the effects of exposure to radioactivity. Some of the early symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, radio-dermatitis, epilation, petechiae, oropharyngeal lesions, internal bleeding among others (Atomic Archive, 2015). Late stochastic effects such as carcinogenesis and genetic mutations have been observed and are being monitored in survivors. “Tsar Bomba”, the biggest thermonuclear bomb ever made and tested by the Soviet Union in 1961, had a nuclear yield of 50Mt, believed to be the explosive force equivalent of 3,800 Hiroshima’s “Little Boy” (Army-Technology, 2014).
The total number of nuclear warheads in existence today is believed to be about 16,000, distributed among only nine countries including USA, Russia, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, China and North Korea. Of the quantity of nuclear arms stated, the US and Russia possess over 7000 warheads each, while North Korea owns less than 10 on the other end of the spectrum reportedly. While many of these weapons are either reserved for storage or undergoing disassembly due to disarmament pacts, considerable amounts are currently deployed by the nuclear powers for strategic reasons and are capable of going fully operational at a moment’s notice (Ross, 2016). Surprisingly, the chances of nuclear war are not based on proliferation by the upper powers but are precipitated upon the mysterious and illegal conditions by which DPRK's nuclear programs developed. The USA, as a global superpower in conjunction with the UN formulate policies in order to rein in the diplomatic and military excesses of South Korea’s most proximal neighbor and eternal nemesis. Over the years, threats of nuclear attacks have issued forth from the ever bragaddocious successive leaders of the dynastic hermit regime towards the US and/or South Korea; such threats had been treated in diplomatic circles in the past, as the uncultured drivel of a rabble-rouser.
The erstwhile Obama administration and previous Presidents have up till now, dealt with the NK problem with what has so far proven to be an effective combination of economic sanctions, espionage and diplomatic overtures, the dangling of the carrots usually coming before the big stick. Aids in the form oil and food were commonly offered as bargaining tools in exchange for denuclearization and non-proliferation. While it is true that NK has often violated or totally abandoned the terms of such treaties, the fact that past administrations were able to restrain Pyongyang's nuclear overreach and avoid military engagements involving nuclear weapons is regarded as a successful foreign policy in many quarters (Goldman, 2017). Any foreign policy position that stipulates or is geared towards the absolute avoidance of global or regional war is a victory.
Enter Donald Trump, the 45th President of the USA, a man whose only foreign relations experience was either in business or beauty pageants. Trump’s absolute lack of experience in governance is only overshadowed by his inadequate temperament and obvious character flaws. A lot of worries were expressed prior to his election as President regarding whether he would be able to effectively discharge the highly demanding duties of the office. As the figurative leader of the free world, a lot of responsibilities rest upon the shoulders of the one who bears the mantle of that office in: ensuring the peace and prosperity of the Homeland; being able to adapt and educate himself on all matters of governance; and providing impeccable leadership in the global sphere. Mr. Trump has failed woefully in all of those aspects, as his antagonistic and narcissistic attitude threatens to drive the U.S and the rest of the world to the brink of a nuclear apocalypse with North Korea. He has engaged Kim Jung Un in highly untenable rhetoric, promising to unleash the full force of the US Armed Forces in an infernal hail of “fire and fury” upon Pyongyang, and lackadaisically referring to him as “Little Rocket Man” (Trump, 2017). It is a clear indication of Trump’s international outlook: the belittling of other foreign leaders, as inconsequential in world matters, which suggests his ignorance of policy and lack of exposure to its significance to world peace.
Pyongyang has replied in kind by conducting several tests of a nascent miniaturized hydrogen bomb, causing the heightening of tensions and nuclear preparedness standards in the region, and openly threatening the pulverizing of US territories of Guam and Hawaii by ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), warning that such an attack would be precipitated by reckless military moves or exercise of power by the US (Ripley, 2017). The people of Hawaii woke up to emergency warnings of “ballistic missile threat inbound…” on January 13th, 2018, creating major panic and great unrest among the populace. Although, it later turned out that the alarm was false and was only due to human cum operational errors in the emergency warning system, the fear of being the target of a nuclear attack was too real for the people (Wang; Lyte, 2018). The relative proximities (about 2000 to 7500 miles over the Pacific) of both American state and territory to Pyongyang must have further exacerbated their perceived terror.
As far as the USA is concerned, the greatest, most consistent threat of a nuclear attack against the country has come from North Korea, the reclusive, extremely isolationist regime in Pyongyang dubbing itself a giant killer by means of nuclear destruction. The rhetoric coming out of Pyongyang has heretofore been based on threats of the annihilation of South Korea, and by extension, America. The then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Mattis, reportedly referred to North Korea's nuclear program in 2017, as "the greatest threat facing the U.S today" (Martin, 2017).
In light of the nuclear importance of North Korea, it is alarming that the President of the US has chosen, whether by design or gross ineptitude, to maintain the posture of antagonist and instigator with regards to the possibilities of global nuclear war. Saner heads must prevail upon Trump in order to bring him back to the path of “strategic patience” (Obama, 2015), and approach the North Korea issue with better temperament, better judgement and qualitative analysis. The goal is to avoid a military engagement unless absolutely necessary. While it may be true that the Mad Dog of Pyongyang might initiate attacks on South Korea and American territories on a whim, current events suggest it would be more than likely President Donald Trump’s incompetence as a world leader that might actually push the world off the precipice of a thermonuclear endgame where there are no winners (Fischer, 2018).
References
Fischer, J. (2018). Why Trump still threatens world peace. Retrieved from https://global.handelsblatt.com/opinion/trump-still-threatens-world-peace-881948.
Goldman, R. (2017, August 17). How Trump’s Predecessors Dealt With the North Korean Threat. Retrieved August 17, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/asia/trump-north-korea-threat.html
Martin, D. (2017, October 29). Defending the U.S. from North Korea's nuclear threat. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/defending-the-u-s-from-north-koreas-nuclear-threat/
Radiation Injuries. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp22.shtml
Ratnam, G. (2015, February 5). White House Unveils Call for ‘Strategic Patience’. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/05/white-house-to-unveil-call-for-strategic-patience-russia-ukraine-syria-iraq-china-asia
Ripley, W. (2017, October 15). North Korea revives Guam threat ahead of US-South Korea drills. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/asia/north-korea-guam-threat/index.html
Ross, E. (2016, January 6). The nine countries that have nuclear weapons. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-nine-countries-that-have-nuclear-weapons-a6798756.html
THE FIRST ATOMIC BOMBS: "Little Boy"and "Fat Man". (2006). Retrieved from http://atomicbombmuseum.org/2_firstbombs.shtml
Wang, A., & Lyte, B. (2018, January 13). ‘BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII,’ the alert screamed. It was a false alarm. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/01/13/hawaii-residents-get-ballistic-missile-threat-messages/?utm_term=.5bea7a8ec05c
