My
original title “The now possible nuclear apocalypse” was just too much of a
downer so I went with the swamp title instead. I get to the swamp part right
after Armageddon.
NOTE:
Ever since the election I have been receiving Russian internet traffic
at my blog. Before the election and my writing any political pieces I had zero
traffic originating from Russia or any of the Baltic States. Zero.
Nuclear
contamination can last for thousands of years. Life in some areas is simply not
sustainable. Look at how much damage just one nuclear reactor messing up can
cause. Chernobyl. 1,600 square miles contaminated from one accident. Millions
of people affected by radioactivity that spread far beyond the area. A
financial cost in the billions of dollars. The Fukushima reactor damage is
another ongoing nuclear disaster that has also cost billions of dollars and is
contaminating the ocean. In all instances involving nuclear materials clean up
and decontamination will go on for generations. And we’re talking about nuclear
accidents not weapons.
People
seem to have forgotten that the new Russian friend/s of our President Donald
Trump as well as a significant portion of our population have thousands of
nuclear weapons at their disposal. Most of them are pointed at us. They have a
thousand or so ready to go immediately that are targeting our cities and
military installations. To make matters worse their leader, Vladimir Putin,
approved invading another country and was successful in pulling it off right in
front of the world.
People
also seem to have forgotten about the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
doctrine of the cold war mechanics are still active. In other words if two
sides get involved everybody dies. No winners. And I mean everybody! The entire
world goes. If one nation like France, India or Pakistan just set off their
nuclear weapons in place the same result would be accomplished. It would just
take the rest of the world longer to succumb.
The
Russians now have a drone submarine that can carry a large multi-megaton
nuclear warhead. The sub goes fast enough to outrun torpedoes. It would
detonate offshore. The tens of millions not killed instantly in the blast would
die of radioactivity within a short amount of time.
The problem
with the MAD doctrine is it only works if its conclusion is accepted. If the
head of a nuclear power thinks that they can use nuclear weapons and not set
off a large retaliatory response that becomes a problem as well. In other words
they do a strategic preemptive strike.
Let’s
say the Russians use six of their drone subs against us simultaneously. Their
subs get a free pass to our territorial waters. Two for the east coast. Two for
the west coast. One for the Gulf coast around Texas City. One for Hawaii. If a
multi-megaton nuclear device were set off in Puget Sound they would probably
see the glow in San Diego if there was a San Diego left.
If their
timing was right, like during an inauguration, they would get most of our
leadership. A decision would have to be made quickly to respond or not. Somebody
in the line of succession is supposed to be in a secure location but I’m not
sure that a 100 megaton blast would leave too much in the way of
communications. Having the successor airborne would be a nice alternative.
But if the attack came without warning and
there was no indication of identity who would they hit? Tens of millions of
people dead. Both coasts devastated. The Russians and Chinese claiming
innocence or blaming terrorists. Who is in charge? Do they commit what is left
in retaliation? It’s really hard to predict. Nothing else would really have to
happen at that point. The world would be in a hold pattern.
For a
long time I have believed that concentrating our government in one place just
serves to make the place an attractive target.
There
has been a lot of talk about draining the swamp when it comes to Washington.
How about leaving the swamp? In this age of technology and electronic
communication why is it necessary to concentrate people physically in the same
area in this era of big screen TVs?
We elect
people and send them to Washington. They make trips back to keep in touch with
their constituents but they become part of the environment that they are
surrounded with on a daily basis. They often buy their million dollar plus
homes there. They can keep token accommodations in their home states. They can
rent a room in a friend’s house and satisfy residency requirements.
Congress
could be convened electronically. Regions could be created that would serve
several states. Initially military installations could be converted to provide
secure meeting facilities for various regions.
Meetings
would still be convened at the Capital for those that wanted to continue
meeting there. That would be one of the regions. A Senator or House member
doesn’t have to physically touch people in order to meet with them. This might
complicate things for lobbyists and those from financial institutions who like
to schmooze and party with elected officials. There could be an increase in the
number of lobbyists that would be needed to cover the various regions.
On a
very positive note it would bring elected officials home or at least closer to
home. Close enough to drive home on weekends and hob nob with local people.
They could mingle more with the hoi polloi. They would be more accessible to
those that they serve.
Civilian
meeting places could be built as well. They could be constructed with suites
suitable for elected officials that couldn’t make it home overnight. They could
build their million dollar homes in their home states. They would be creating
jobs where it counts for them.
Most
importantly our leadership would be spread out with there being less chance of
large numbers being wiped out during an attack.