| September 2007 |
All work
copyright the
owner. No
reproduction
without
consent.
copyright the
owner. No
reproduction
without
consent.
ESSAY
The No Lone Zone
Nuclear Terror Then and Now
by Guy Immega
The Royal Canadian Air Force base at Zweibrücken was built in 1950 on a section of the former Siegfried Line, with
the crumpled remains of Nazi Germany's bunkers still in evidence. The tarmac of the RCAF 3-Wing airfield had a
yellow line that marked the "No Lone Zone". On one side was the air and ground crew barracks and, on the other, four
CF104 Starfighter jets waited on permanent standby--each with a 2000 lb nuclear bomb hanging from its belly.
Watched by guards carrying machine guns, each pilot and his crewman trotted over the line together, precisely in
step. If any man crossed the line alone, he would be shot dead immediately. In the 1960s, no single person could
start a nuclear war.
#
For RCAF pilots under NATO command in Germany, practice-bombing runs were frequent. On orders to scramble, a
pilot and his crewman crossed the yellow line together and ran to a special telephone in the hanger. As the pilot
noted the PAL code, the Permissive Action Link needed to activate the bomb, his crewman strapped special spurs to
the heels of his boots. They then ran together to the assigned Starfighter. The pilot opened the nose cone of the US
manufactured bomb and adjusted the timers and confirmed the yield setting: 20 kilotons, slightly more powerful than
the “Little Boy” A-bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. He had to be airborne in less than 15 minutes.
The pilot inspected the Starfighter, hit the engine start button and climbed into the cockpit. The F104 was the first
supersonic fighter jet and was basically a large jet engine with tiny sharp-edged wings--it looked like a flying rocket.
The plane was also not-so-fondly known as the "widow-maker" due to frequent fatal accidents.
The crewman fastened the shoulder harness while the pilot connected his G-suit and snapped the spurs on his
boots into special cables under the seat. The cables were there to automatically retract the pilot’s feet into the
ejection seat in case of an emergency bailout--so that his legs wouldn't be cut off when the explosive bolts fired and
pushed him into a 600-knot windblast. The pilot was literally shackled to the aircraft while he sat in the cockpit
awaiting orders to begin a nuclear bombing run. He and other pilots rotated this duty seven days a week, providing
continuous day and night nuclear strike capability against the Soviet Union.
At the front lines of the cold war, Starfighter aircraft were human-piloted nuclear missiles. The CF104 pilots, under
NATO command, were trained to deliver a tactical (not strategic) nuclear bomb via LADD, Low Angle Drogue Delivery.
The anticipated targets were battalions of Russian tanks invading West Germany and, from there, the rest of Western
Europe. The LADD procedure was to fly to a designated target in Eastern Europe within 400 nautical miles range.
The pilot navigated on a precise heading and, when he reached a predetermined reference point, rotated at 3.5 gee
acceleration and climbed at 45 degrees. An automatic timer released the bomb in a parabolic arc towards the target.
Soon after, a small drogue parachute deployed, lowering the bomb slowly towards the earth until a proximity fuse
detonated it at an altitude of about 1000 feet. Potentially, a hundred thousand people would die in that instant.
Once he released the bomb, the pilot rolled upside-down to power-dive to the altitude of the bomb burst, and then
race towards his home airfield at supersonic speed. If he was lucky, the back of the aircraft, including the tail,
fuselage and engine, would shield him from the radiation flash, and the wings would present the minimum area to
the blast shockwave, allowing him to escape the nuclear explosion alive.
#
Fortunately, no Canadian ever flew with a live nuclear weapon, although pilots sat on the runway with armed nuclear
bombs, waiting for orders to take off during the 1968 Czechoslovakian Crisis that ended the Prague Spring.
Canadian, German, British, American, French, Belgian, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, and later Polish and Czech forces,
all participated in NATO's doctrine of "limited nuclear warfare" in Europe. The NATO weapons stockpile in Europe
peaked at some 7,300 nuclear warheads in 1973 and, as of 2005, the United States had roughly 480 nuclear bombs
in Europe, more than double the number previously estimated by the media and non-governmental analysts.
In retrospect, Soviet tanks did not invade Western Europe--perhaps, in part, because of the nuclear deterrent.
Moreover, no bombs were dropped and nobody died--nuclear war was not started. Interestingly, Robert McNamara,
US Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968, recently admitted that the stated US and NATO policy of a nuclear response
to conventional weapons attack "was wrong" and that he privately advised President Kennedy to never authorize the
use of nuclear weapons (by releasing PAL codes). McNamara was worried about the likelihood of escalation and
"unacceptable losses" of 10-20 million US citizens.
In the 1960s, during the time the Canadians at 3-Wing were on LADD duty, the Vietnam War eclipsed the threat of
nuclear annihilation--at least in the public mind. For young people, the sterile realities of the cold war paled in
comparison to compulsory conscription for an unjust jungle war. Although in 1964 US presidential candidate Barry
Goldwater wanted to use atomic weapons against North Vietnam, his hawkish stand undermined his campaign and
he was never taken seriously thereafter.
#
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Cold War was officially declared over. Still, a deadly residue
remains. Despite substantial disarmament, both Russia and the United States each maintain nuclear arsenals of
over 5000 active warheads. Neither country has the resolve to forgo its options for Armageddon.
In addition to the two superpowers, the United Kingdom, France and China, each with hundreds of active warheads,
are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Outside the NPT, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel are thought to have tens of active
warheads.
At least fifteen other countries have previously started and later abandoned development of nuclear weapons.
Any sane person of good will must ask if it is worthwhile, or even morally acceptable, to develop nuclear weapons. A
partial answer is provided by the example of NATO tactical nuclear bombs in Western Europe in the 1960s. The threat
of nuclear retaliation against a Soviet tank invasion was a significant deterrent to aggression. In this case, nuclear
bombs were and are not just defensive weapons to be used to repel an attacking enemy. Instead, the mere passive
possession of nuclear weapons allows a weaker political state to stalemate a belligerent neighbor.
Much has been written about why a nuclear war cannot be won, as Robert McNamara concluded. Even retaliation can
only bring Pyrrhic victory of the most bitter sort. So, while it makes some sense to possess nuclear weapons, it is
never logical to actually use them. Ironically, for nuclear weapons to be a credible deterrent, your opponents must
believe that you are irrational, perhaps crazy enough to launch them. That is no impediment in today's political
climate.
As a current example, the United States is now establishing new antimissile bases in the Czech Republic and
Poland, supposedly to shoot down missiles launched at the United States from Iran and other “rogue states.” It
should come as no surprise that Vladimir Putin views the Polish antimissile bases with alarm. Washington
abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was in force for thirty years, from 1972 until 2002. Now, the United
States and NATO are operating in countries previously within Russia's sphere of influence. Moscow objects strongly
to US missiles being based in the two former Warsaw Pact countries. In the post-Cold War era, the United States
has taken a condescending attitude toward Russia, wounding its national pride. The Russian people, and its
leaders, feel insulted and angry.
In June 2007 Putin said, "It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in
Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond. What kind of steps are
we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe." Putin's threat, possibly mere
saber rattling, begs the question of where Russia's missiles are currently pointed.
Putin has said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." Clearly,
Putin, an ex-KGB agent, wants Russia to return to its previous glory of being the political leader of half the planet. But
now he is showing signs of megalomania by saying, "Of course, I am a pure and absolute democrat. The tragedy is
that I am alone. - After the death of Mahatma Gandhi, I have nobody to talk to." His implied claim to a unique moral
superiority, on a level with the saintly Bapu, could be used to justify any atrocity. As of mid-2007, Putin is wildly popular
in Russia for his nationalist views, with a 71 percent public-opinion rating. Perhaps a new, even more lethal, Cold
War has already begun.
#
Nuclear terror is also an option for Islamic and other radicals. While rogue states, such as Iran, may laboriously build
conventional nuclear weapons, it is far easier and quicker for terrorists to construct a "dirty bomb," also known as a
radiological dispersal device (RDD), which uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive isotopes over a wide
area. There are vast stockpiles of nuclear waste potentially available to terrorists, especially in the former Soviet
Union. The first RDD terror attack was carried out in November 1995 by a group of Chechen separatists, who buried
a caesium-137 source wrapped in explosives at the Izmaylovsky Park in Moscow. Fortunately, it was not detonated.
The impact of a dirty bomb is difficult to assess. It is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) and, compared to a
conventional nuclear explosion, very few people will be killed. However, the psychological terror of a dirty bomb could
have enormous political and economic impact. Other forms of dirty RDD weapons, such as crashing a plane into a
nuclear power plant, could generate Chernobyl-like fallout, although this is less likely for a US-style Pressurized Water
Reactor. Recently, former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko, unknowingly either ate, drank or inhaled polonium-210; an
assassination of a targeted victim with a nuclear poison. New forms of RDD terrorism could be invented in the future.
Interestingly, some people feel that terrorism is more threatening than the prospect of nuclear war. Suicide bombers
do not present identifiable military targets and there is no political state that can be deterred by the threat of an
overwhelming retaliatory response. The War on Terror is at best a misnomer and at worst a political slogan, since it
is neither a cold nor a hot war--but rather a policing and security action. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon seemed to demand a military response. But the invasion of Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda, except
as a breeding ground for more Islamic radicals, some of who may be planning RDD nuclear attacks on the United
States.
The current War on Terror also generates many moral ambiguities. Should military force be used against rogue
states that may have developed atomic weapons, even though the United States (hypocritically?) maintains its own
stockpile of nuclear missiles? Are economic sanctions justified, even though they primarily hurt the poorest people?
Is a reliable supply of low cost oil, which is essential to our economy, worth the cost of foreign wars? Is it right to
suspend both the Geneva Conventions for captured combatants and the justice system for suspect citizens? In the
vast and diverse landscape of America, the Department of Homeland Security cannot possibly insure the safety of
every aircraft, bridge and power plant, no matter how sophisticated its bureaucratic tools are. Will we sacrifice the
rights and freedoms of an open society, designed to protect us from tyranny, for an illusion of safety and security?
Philosophical questions aside, we should remember that RDD terrorism actually presents a small threat, compared
to an all-out nuclear war. Nothing is as deadly as multiple warheads on ICBMs. The prospects of nuclear winter and
extinguishing of human civilization are still real. We need to feel confident that the same restraint exercised in 1968 is
still alive today--that unleashing of apocalyptic weapons is still something that cannot be done on the whim of a single
man, whether he wears an ushanka or a cowboy hat.
The No Lone Zone
Nuclear Terror Then and Now
by Guy Immega
The Royal Canadian Air Force base at Zweibrücken was built in 1950 on a section of the former Siegfried Line, with
the crumpled remains of Nazi Germany's bunkers still in evidence. The tarmac of the RCAF 3-Wing airfield had a
yellow line that marked the "No Lone Zone". On one side was the air and ground crew barracks and, on the other, four
CF104 Starfighter jets waited on permanent standby--each with a 2000 lb nuclear bomb hanging from its belly.
Watched by guards carrying machine guns, each pilot and his crewman trotted over the line together, precisely in
step. If any man crossed the line alone, he would be shot dead immediately. In the 1960s, no single person could
start a nuclear war.
#
For RCAF pilots under NATO command in Germany, practice-bombing runs were frequent. On orders to scramble, a
pilot and his crewman crossed the yellow line together and ran to a special telephone in the hanger. As the pilot
noted the PAL code, the Permissive Action Link needed to activate the bomb, his crewman strapped special spurs to
the heels of his boots. They then ran together to the assigned Starfighter. The pilot opened the nose cone of the US
manufactured bomb and adjusted the timers and confirmed the yield setting: 20 kilotons, slightly more powerful than
the “Little Boy” A-bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. He had to be airborne in less than 15 minutes.
The pilot inspected the Starfighter, hit the engine start button and climbed into the cockpit. The F104 was the first
supersonic fighter jet and was basically a large jet engine with tiny sharp-edged wings--it looked like a flying rocket.
The plane was also not-so-fondly known as the "widow-maker" due to frequent fatal accidents.
The crewman fastened the shoulder harness while the pilot connected his G-suit and snapped the spurs on his
boots into special cables under the seat. The cables were there to automatically retract the pilot’s feet into the
ejection seat in case of an emergency bailout--so that his legs wouldn't be cut off when the explosive bolts fired and
pushed him into a 600-knot windblast. The pilot was literally shackled to the aircraft while he sat in the cockpit
awaiting orders to begin a nuclear bombing run. He and other pilots rotated this duty seven days a week, providing
continuous day and night nuclear strike capability against the Soviet Union.
At the front lines of the cold war, Starfighter aircraft were human-piloted nuclear missiles. The CF104 pilots, under
NATO command, were trained to deliver a tactical (not strategic) nuclear bomb via LADD, Low Angle Drogue Delivery.
The anticipated targets were battalions of Russian tanks invading West Germany and, from there, the rest of Western
Europe. The LADD procedure was to fly to a designated target in Eastern Europe within 400 nautical miles range.
The pilot navigated on a precise heading and, when he reached a predetermined reference point, rotated at 3.5 gee
acceleration and climbed at 45 degrees. An automatic timer released the bomb in a parabolic arc towards the target.
Soon after, a small drogue parachute deployed, lowering the bomb slowly towards the earth until a proximity fuse
detonated it at an altitude of about 1000 feet. Potentially, a hundred thousand people would die in that instant.
Once he released the bomb, the pilot rolled upside-down to power-dive to the altitude of the bomb burst, and then
race towards his home airfield at supersonic speed. If he was lucky, the back of the aircraft, including the tail,
fuselage and engine, would shield him from the radiation flash, and the wings would present the minimum area to
the blast shockwave, allowing him to escape the nuclear explosion alive.
#
Fortunately, no Canadian ever flew with a live nuclear weapon, although pilots sat on the runway with armed nuclear
bombs, waiting for orders to take off during the 1968 Czechoslovakian Crisis that ended the Prague Spring.
Canadian, German, British, American, French, Belgian, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, and later Polish and Czech forces,
all participated in NATO's doctrine of "limited nuclear warfare" in Europe. The NATO weapons stockpile in Europe
peaked at some 7,300 nuclear warheads in 1973 and, as of 2005, the United States had roughly 480 nuclear bombs
in Europe, more than double the number previously estimated by the media and non-governmental analysts.
In retrospect, Soviet tanks did not invade Western Europe--perhaps, in part, because of the nuclear deterrent.
Moreover, no bombs were dropped and nobody died--nuclear war was not started. Interestingly, Robert McNamara,
US Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968, recently admitted that the stated US and NATO policy of a nuclear response
to conventional weapons attack "was wrong" and that he privately advised President Kennedy to never authorize the
use of nuclear weapons (by releasing PAL codes). McNamara was worried about the likelihood of escalation and
"unacceptable losses" of 10-20 million US citizens.
In the 1960s, during the time the Canadians at 3-Wing were on LADD duty, the Vietnam War eclipsed the threat of
nuclear annihilation--at least in the public mind. For young people, the sterile realities of the cold war paled in
comparison to compulsory conscription for an unjust jungle war. Although in 1964 US presidential candidate Barry
Goldwater wanted to use atomic weapons against North Vietnam, his hawkish stand undermined his campaign and
he was never taken seriously thereafter.
#
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Cold War was officially declared over. Still, a deadly residue
remains. Despite substantial disarmament, both Russia and the United States each maintain nuclear arsenals of
over 5000 active warheads. Neither country has the resolve to forgo its options for Armageddon.
In addition to the two superpowers, the United Kingdom, France and China, each with hundreds of active warheads,
are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Outside the NPT, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel are thought to have tens of active
warheads.
At least fifteen other countries have previously started and later abandoned development of nuclear weapons.
Any sane person of good will must ask if it is worthwhile, or even morally acceptable, to develop nuclear weapons. A
partial answer is provided by the example of NATO tactical nuclear bombs in Western Europe in the 1960s. The threat
of nuclear retaliation against a Soviet tank invasion was a significant deterrent to aggression. In this case, nuclear
bombs were and are not just defensive weapons to be used to repel an attacking enemy. Instead, the mere passive
possession of nuclear weapons allows a weaker political state to stalemate a belligerent neighbor.
Much has been written about why a nuclear war cannot be won, as Robert McNamara concluded. Even retaliation can
only bring Pyrrhic victory of the most bitter sort. So, while it makes some sense to possess nuclear weapons, it is
never logical to actually use them. Ironically, for nuclear weapons to be a credible deterrent, your opponents must
believe that you are irrational, perhaps crazy enough to launch them. That is no impediment in today's political
climate.
As a current example, the United States is now establishing new antimissile bases in the Czech Republic and
Poland, supposedly to shoot down missiles launched at the United States from Iran and other “rogue states.” It
should come as no surprise that Vladimir Putin views the Polish antimissile bases with alarm. Washington
abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was in force for thirty years, from 1972 until 2002. Now, the United
States and NATO are operating in countries previously within Russia's sphere of influence. Moscow objects strongly
to US missiles being based in the two former Warsaw Pact countries. In the post-Cold War era, the United States
has taken a condescending attitude toward Russia, wounding its national pride. The Russian people, and its
leaders, feel insulted and angry.
In June 2007 Putin said, "It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in
Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond. What kind of steps are
we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe." Putin's threat, possibly mere
saber rattling, begs the question of where Russia's missiles are currently pointed.
Putin has said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." Clearly,
Putin, an ex-KGB agent, wants Russia to return to its previous glory of being the political leader of half the planet. But
now he is showing signs of megalomania by saying, "Of course, I am a pure and absolute democrat. The tragedy is
that I am alone. - After the death of Mahatma Gandhi, I have nobody to talk to." His implied claim to a unique moral
superiority, on a level with the saintly Bapu, could be used to justify any atrocity. As of mid-2007, Putin is wildly popular
in Russia for his nationalist views, with a 71 percent public-opinion rating. Perhaps a new, even more lethal, Cold
War has already begun.
#
Nuclear terror is also an option for Islamic and other radicals. While rogue states, such as Iran, may laboriously build
conventional nuclear weapons, it is far easier and quicker for terrorists to construct a "dirty bomb," also known as a
radiological dispersal device (RDD), which uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive isotopes over a wide
area. There are vast stockpiles of nuclear waste potentially available to terrorists, especially in the former Soviet
Union. The first RDD terror attack was carried out in November 1995 by a group of Chechen separatists, who buried
a caesium-137 source wrapped in explosives at the Izmaylovsky Park in Moscow. Fortunately, it was not detonated.
The impact of a dirty bomb is difficult to assess. It is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) and, compared to a
conventional nuclear explosion, very few people will be killed. However, the psychological terror of a dirty bomb could
have enormous political and economic impact. Other forms of dirty RDD weapons, such as crashing a plane into a
nuclear power plant, could generate Chernobyl-like fallout, although this is less likely for a US-style Pressurized Water
Reactor. Recently, former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko, unknowingly either ate, drank or inhaled polonium-210; an
assassination of a targeted victim with a nuclear poison. New forms of RDD terrorism could be invented in the future.
Interestingly, some people feel that terrorism is more threatening than the prospect of nuclear war. Suicide bombers
do not present identifiable military targets and there is no political state that can be deterred by the threat of an
overwhelming retaliatory response. The War on Terror is at best a misnomer and at worst a political slogan, since it
is neither a cold nor a hot war--but rather a policing and security action. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon seemed to demand a military response. But the invasion of Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda, except
as a breeding ground for more Islamic radicals, some of who may be planning RDD nuclear attacks on the United
States.
The current War on Terror also generates many moral ambiguities. Should military force be used against rogue
states that may have developed atomic weapons, even though the United States (hypocritically?) maintains its own
stockpile of nuclear missiles? Are economic sanctions justified, even though they primarily hurt the poorest people?
Is a reliable supply of low cost oil, which is essential to our economy, worth the cost of foreign wars? Is it right to
suspend both the Geneva Conventions for captured combatants and the justice system for suspect citizens? In the
vast and diverse landscape of America, the Department of Homeland Security cannot possibly insure the safety of
every aircraft, bridge and power plant, no matter how sophisticated its bureaucratic tools are. Will we sacrifice the
rights and freedoms of an open society, designed to protect us from tyranny, for an illusion of safety and security?
Philosophical questions aside, we should remember that RDD terrorism actually presents a small threat, compared
to an all-out nuclear war. Nothing is as deadly as multiple warheads on ICBMs. The prospects of nuclear winter and
extinguishing of human civilization are still real. We need to feel confident that the same restraint exercised in 1968 is
still alive today--that unleashing of apocalyptic weapons is still something that cannot be done on the whim of a single
man, whether he wears an ushanka or a cowboy hat.