Shouldn’t the ability to bomb the world back to the Stone Age be the right and responsibility of every nation in the world?

Building a Better Bomb

The United States has been providing clues for creating an atom bomb on a government website:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Why shouldn’t we give every nation in the world an atom bomb?

THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology. The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa. The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest. All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

Iran is already willing to share its bomb technology:

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran is ready to share its missile systems with friends and neighbors, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards said, after he showed off missiles including some he said had cluster warheads.

Guards commander-in-chief Yahya Rahim Safavi also told Iran’s Arabic-language Al-Alam TV late on Sunday the Guards had thousands of troops trained for suicide missions in case Iran was threatened although he said any U.S. attack was unlikely.

Is there a danger in giving every nation the ability to taint the earth forever? How can one nation withhold by force and threat any technological advance from another nation? Is “mutually assured destruction” enough of a detriment to withholding the trigger finger from a cascading nuclear explosion?


  1. Hi David,
    Just as there are “Doomsday Cults” in America and elsewhere, there are similar groups operating in the middle east.
    Some suggest that the President of Iran is a believer that the reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi is imminent.

    “During the last times, my people will be afflicted with terrible and unprecedented calamities and misfortunes from their rulers, so much so that this vast earth will appear small to them.
    Persecution and injustice will engulf the earth.
    The believers will find no shelter to seek refuge from these tortures and injustices.
    At such a time, God will raise from my progeny a man who will establish peace and justice on this earth in the same way as it had been filled with injustice and distress.”

    Source: Wikipedia.
    Could nuclear weaponry be used by true believers to bring back the “man of peace?”
    From the UK Telegraph:

    But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad – recently described by President George W Bush as an “odd man” – and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.
    In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.
    When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: “What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.”
    The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad’s piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president’s belief that his government must prepare the country for his return. …
    All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour – denied by the government but widely believed – is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a “contract” pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran. …
    His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.
    This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.
    Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.
    The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

    If everyone in the middle east gets nukes, someone will be tempted to use them to start the Apocalypse since world chaos will hasten the return of Muhammad al-Mahdi, according to some.

  2. Hi Chris —
    If people choose to follow –- or be repressed by — a Mad Man isn’t that their right and people of free will and spirit?
    Is it the role of the USA to police the entire world from our national Christian perspective to decide what is right and wrong through the narrow moral view of our short history as a nation?
    If everyone has the bomb what’s the point in using it if you know it will be used against you in turn? Fundamentalists claim they want to die — but do they? If they truly yearned their deaths, the leaders of the movement would be the first to seek the permanent end.
    I assure you if Iran gets the A-Bomb, all our allies in the Middle East — if we have any left — will have an A-Bomb as well and the USA will be the giver of the material and the means to be competitive and protectionist in the marketplace of the Middle East.

  3. I think it would be far better to scrap all the ones we already have instead of building any more.
    However as I cannot see that happening my second option would be that each nation should have them. The technology should be truely *open source* – ie I dont think the US or any other nation should profit from their manufacture and sale to other nations.

  4. Everyone will have a nuclear bomb sooner or later. There’s no way to stop people from figuring out how to build one.
    Just as private individuals have access to powerful weaponry, well funded groups will develop nuclear capabilities.
    The doctrine of MAD only works when people have something to lose. If a rogue state’s leaders decide there’s nothing to lose, why not use the weapon to further the ultimate goal of bringing about everlasting glory.
    The same is true for all weapons control. Why shouldn’t we let everyone have a weapon for protection, since the bad guys always find ways to obtain them?
    Of course, in the case of nuclear warfare, things can get out of hand pretty quickly as treaty aliances kick in and decisions to launch have to be made in seconds, lest the capability to strike back is lost because nuclear warfare in the 21st century can begin and end in a 15 minute time period.
    For example, if Israel detects a nuclear launch, it might be tempted to strike back before it loses its retaliatory capability. (It is only a matter of time before states with emerging nuclear capabilities learn how to arm their weapons with MIRVs).
    Will Russia or China strike Israel in retaliation for a counterstrike, in such a scenario?
    Will we strike Russia or China for striking Israel, in that situation?
    Will Israel launch its arsenal to destroy the major cities of the middle east if they fear all will be lost if they don’t?
    Will someone strike the US to weaken our capability to strike back?
    Will our submarines launch to prevent an imminent nuclear launch?
    Will other country’s submarines launch against the US in a coordinated attack to limit our response to an attack on Israel?
    Is Iran’s submarine warfare capability competent to launch against US cities? Can they arm their Kilo-class subs with MIRVed weapons?
    Every country or entity obtaining nuclear weaponry means the possibility that the world can end in any 15 minute time period if events cascade out of control.
    Just as a gun in every pocket increases the chances of someone getting shot, a nuke for every country means the chances for an accidental or intentional use of the weaponry.

  5. Nicola!
    Oh, I love your “Open Source A-Bomb” idea! THAT should have been the title of this post! That’s precisely my argument today!
    There are no WMDs in Iraq — but we go in there anyway.
    North Korea has A-Bomb tests and we leave that nation alone.
    The policy doesn’t fit the rhetoric.
    Technology never moves backwards — so you’re right that we’re stuck with this destruction — and giving that power to everyone is the only way to guarantee it will never be used and if it is used, there will only be that one time and then the rest of the world will remove the offending nation from the face of the earth.

  6. Hi Chris!
    All your on-target Doomsday scenarios are precisely the reasons why everyone should have the bomb and why it will never be used. You use it once and the entire world goes away. What’s the point?
    The problem with those who seek glory in the deaths of others is they need to know their glory will be recognized and recorded and that’s pretty hard to make happen when your decision for glory annihilates all survivors, including your egomaniacal self.
    I still argue if these fundamentalist leaders truly wanted everlasting glory in death, they’d choose it right now for themselves. They don’t, though. They seek glory in the deaths of others. That unwillingness to permanently dedicate oneself to the cause of duty is telling and exploitable.

  7. Give everyone a bomb and someone will always want more than one or a bigger/better one. In the school cafeteria one can tell that all it takes is one kid to start a food fight. One may think it neutralizes the situation for awhile… but while everyone’s here plotting to destroy the earth, I’d rather figure out a way to colonize Mars.

  8. I’m still uneasy about every country developing nuclear capability.
    If Afghanistan had had a nuclear capability, it would have been in the hands of relgious extremists. The same goes for Pakistan, should that country fall to unsavory forces.
    The time issue makes nuclear weapons extremely dangerous. Decisions must be made in seconds because land-based military assets are sure to be lost as the first salvo arrives. That’s why every missile has a launch coordinate already programmed (or easily programmed in seconds) just in case of attack.
    From Wikipedia:

    Israel has been involved in wars with its neighbours on numerous occasions, and its small geographic size would mean that in the event of future wars the Israeli military might have very little time to react to a future invasion or other major threat; the situation could escalate to nuclear warfare very quickly in some scenarios.

    If a country believes the other country has the capability of disabiling their nuclear weapons, then the most “rational” action is to launch all land based missiles against the agressor and friends of the agressor.
    Adding to the danger is the capability of countries to deploy submarines with nuclear weaponry, allowing a second strike to occur. If a country doesn’t care to take on casualties (or martyrs), then they could position their subs to inflict a second strike upon other targets, i.e. friends and allies of the striken nation.
    Kilo-class submarines can operate quietly and in shallow waters, according to Wikipedia.
    There has always been talk of being able to carry out limited nuclear wars. Drop a bomb here to accomplish the particular mission.
    But, there are risks that “cakewalks” can turn into “quagmires.”
    Will a retaliatory strike cause counterstrikes from countries friendly with the agressor nation?
    From Wikipedia, link above.

    Whether there is a clear distinction between the two forms can be a matter of contention. Even many of the Cold War strategists who argued that a limited nuclear war would be possible between two heavily-armed superpowers (such as the United States and the Soviet Union) predicted that a limited war could easily “escalate” into an all-out war.
    Additionally, even the targeting of purely-military installations would likely have devastating long-term effects on civilian populations, owing to nuclear fallout being carried by the wind and the close proximity of many cities to military bases.
    Even the most optimistic predictions about the effects of a major nuclear exchange predict the death of millions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth’s ecosystems, and the global climate. It is in this latter mode that nuclear warfare is usually alluded to as a doomsday scenario.

    Emphasis added.
    Let’s not forget that the winds blow all around the planet and any nuclear activity will sooner or later end up causing problems where we live.
    Just as we’d prefer people in our neighborhoods refrained from owning AK-47s since they aren’t good for much other than killing, we might want to be wary of “Open Source A-Bombs.”

  9. A S!
    I say give each nation a million Atom Bombs! Dare them to use them. If they do, they face the annihilation of a culture and a cause in the megaton flash of light.
    A food fight doesn’t create the end of the world. Using an A-Bomb promises it.

  10. Chris!
    The key to our “Open Source Nicola A-Bomb Policy” is that every nation has one and will use it against anyone who dares to use it.
    If Afghanistan dares to drop a wad of nuclear dirt on the Word Trade Center on 9/11, we have 100 other nations dropping their A-Bomb load all across Afghanistan to poison that land from the inside out for the next 10,000 years. They’re done.
    If, however, only a few countries have the ability to absolutely punish via generational nuclear pollution, the ability to punish absolutely is only a threat and not a guarantee.

  11. I respectfully disagree with your analysis.
    While there are sane and rational people who would not wish their own destruction, the terrorists that strap bombs to themselves have no fear of death or the death of others.
    I believe nuclear war will start very likely within the lifetime of a newborn if not our own lives. Many adults don’t seem to have moved beyond the elementary school level of arguments. I have seen people at the university level and beyond resort to name calling when others disagree with their opinion. We see this in our politicians when they slander their opponents. Other governments seem to be no better. Members of the congress / parliament equivalent in Taiwan have been seen removing their shoes to literally beat their point into those who oppose them. These are the people with which we are to entrust weapons of mass destruction?
    We already have enough bombs to destroy the world several times over. No more bombs are needed.

  12. Hi A S!
    You have to have someone survive to carry on the mandate of the culture. If everyone is dead, there is not meaning to the Martyrdom.
    Name-calling isn’t the same as guaranteed annihilation via A-Bomb.
    The power to “destroy the world several times over” only rests in the hands of a select few who refuse to share that power with the rest of the world. Is that fair or equitable? If Japan had the bomb, the USA never would’ve touched Nagasaki.
    By democratizing the ability to end the world via even distribution of technology, you ensure the end of the world will never happen in the flash of nuclear contamination because people at heart are self-preserving and evolutionary.

  13. Re: If Japan had the bomb, the USA never would’ve touched Nagasaki.
    If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor would the U.S. have gone in to WWII?
    If there was an Atomic bomb in every household someone would be bound to use it. If one government was able to destroy the entire world with one blow except their region, they may well do it.
    Although I must say that the destruction of those who are the cause of destruction (the human race) may be the only way there will be peace on earth.

  14. A S!
    I think it’s pretty well understood that the USA could’ve turned back the Pearl Harbor threat if it wished — but FDR wanted the strike to happen in order to give the USA a reason to enter the war.
    I don’t think people of nations should have the bomb. Only the leaders who are vested to protect the country and its people should be able to press the trigger. There is a greater leadership and accountability beyond the self.
    There are fundamentalist Christians who believe the Second Coming is on its way and that colors the way they view the world and its future.
    How is that any different than the Muslim Extremists’ view?

  15. Scenario:
    Iran positions a nuclear armed submarine in the Baltic Sea and is able to avoid detection.
    Hoping to bring about war among the infidels, the Iranians launch a MIRVed nuclear missile while off the coast of Finland while US and other NATO forces are conducting a military excerise.
    There’d only be a few minutes to determine who had launched and what to do. Remember that most Russian missiles would be targeted to American sites.
    While the Russians aren’t on hair-trigger alert right now, increased tensions between the US and Russia could create paranoia among leaders in Washington and Moscow. Lets say Iran was able to manipulate by pitting Russia against the West — maybe on the question of sanctions or some other issue.
    Or, lets say Iran could manipulate tensions between China and the US over Taiwan. Islamic terrorists could pose as Taiwanese independence leaders and cause havoc while leaving clues that made it look like America was behind attacks on China such that China would consider using nuclear weaponry to keep the US away from Taiwan.
    Or, lets say Iran was able to make a missile look like it was launched from China at Russia.
    Hair-trigger responses aren’t unheard of in the history of nuclear warfare.
    From ABC Radio Australia:

    In late 1983, the world came closer to the brink of nuclear war than at any time since the Cuba crisis. Deeply paranoid Soviet politicians and military leaders believed that the US was preparing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union – and argued that the Soviets should prepare to strike first if necessary. …
    Tom Morton: As the Pershing II missiles were being flown in to bases in West Germany, the Russians walked out of the arms talks in Geneva. Within days, NATO began a major military exercise code-named Able Archer. Normally such exercises would have been routine, but the build-up of tension during 1983 had now reached its crescendo and Moscow’s nerves were stretched to breaking point.
    Professor Paul Dibb, former director of the Joint Intelligence Organisation in Canberra, and a specialist on the Soviet Union:
    Paul Dibb: There was a fear in Moscow that the NATO exercise Able Archer in November 1983, which was an exercise which escalated from a conventional conflict with the Soviet Union in Europe to simulated nuclear release – that this exercise was being used, if you like, as a cover for an actual nuclear attack. …
    Vojtech Mastny: A simulation of release of nuclear weapons entailed the use of encrypted codes, so we can assume that the Soviets, being unable to figure out what these codes meant, did not throw out the possibility that it might be the real thing.
    James Hershberg: And of course keep in mind that this was a stake in the Cold war where there were hundreds of thousands of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces lined up on both sides of the Iron Curtain down the heart of Germany and down the heart of central Europe. …
    Oleg Gordievsky: The Russians, [unclear] that military people took it as a sign of the…indeed, you see, they’re preparing an attack on us!
    James Hershberg: The Soviets really thought World War III was about to happen.
    Paul Dibb: the Soviets were reacting to hair-trigger alert in reaction to the NATO exercise, Able Archer.
    Oleg Gordievsky: And the military commanders, including people sitting at the-ready to launch a nuclear missile-they were very nervous. They were sitting there believing that this might be true. That’s why it was so dangerous.

  16. Chris —

    Iran positions a nuclear armed submarine in the Baltic Sea and is able to avoid detection.

    I don’t believe that is possible with today’s technology. We all know where and what the other is doing. “Avoiding Detection” has become a misnomer over the last 20 years.
    The second that sub launches the A-Bomb is the moment all of Iran is annihilated. That has to be the promise of the world.

  17. The ABC Radio Australia article, link above, shows that control of nuclear weapons often rests not on the top leadership of a nation, but on the “middle management” military people who have to make split-second decisions.

    Now you may be wondering by now – if the Soviets really got that close to pressing the button during the Able Archer exercise in 1983, what was it that stopped them? Well, the ultimate answer to that question lies in the former Soviet military archives in Moscow – archives which are still closed both to Russian and to foreign researchers. But Vojtech Mastny thinks we can draw a tentative conclusion from what we do know from the archives of the former Warsaw Pact allies such as East Germany. The fact that Able Archer didn’t end in nuclear holocaust is probably down to some anonymous KGB analysts in Moscow who decided that the evidence that NATO was about to launch a first strike just wasn’t strong enough. In other words, it may be that the world was saved by middle management.
    Vojtech Mastny: Well, what was different in the Cuban missile crisis is that this was really managed by the top leadership, and in that instance by Kruschev in particular, who was a gambler. So that was what made the Cuban crisis so important and so dangerous. In 1983 they didn’t get that far. They didn’t get to the upper level. Either there wasn’t time to pass it on to the leadership, or they decided that it was not worth it. Or they attached qualifications to it; that it was not certain. In any case, one can assume that fortunately they used their common sense rather than being alarmist or panicking. So that, I think, is encouraging. What is disconcerting is that it may have been a close call, and maybe, well, a crazy guy some place along the line really could have created in a moment havoc.
    Scott Sagan: If you look at the history of the cold war you should recognise that nuclear weapons were not controlled by statesmen. They’re not controlled by states. They’re controlled by military organisations and normal, frail, all-too-human military operators. It seems to me that our successful experience during the cold war blinds us all too often to the dangers that existed at that time.

  18. Hi David,
    But, if it looks like the bomb isn’t from Iran, but is from America and a decision must be made within a minute where to fire the weapons …

  19. Well, Chris, I think we’d have to reply on the crushing will of the world to track these things before they happen. We would have to work together to make sure no covert action or trickery were possible in the “Everyone Gets the Bomb” scenario and that would include reporting and some sort of third-party oversight.

  20. But, human and electronic intelligence can be flawed. Didn’t everyone think Saddam was up to no good?
    What if a nuclear bomb gets shipped around in a crate to various places, then ends up someplace?
    What if a bomb was made by non-state-sponsored terrorists (independent ideological operators with no direct ties to any government) who traveled to Somalia, then to Saudi Arabia, then to the Philippines, then put the bomb together in Spain, then detonated it in Moscow?
    Who gets bombed back to the stone age when highly trained, non-governmental entities begin to obtain the capability to build their own bombs?
    Also, when a country gets nuked, what about innocent neighboring countries?
    If you are downwind, it doesn’t make much difference if there was a direct strike or not, because fallout will be something to deal with.
    Also, the electromagnetic pulse will wipe out all electronics in a specified area. What if nukes destroy infrastructure in innocent nations?

    A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.
    The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.

    Source: Nuclear Weapon EMP Effects, emphasis added.
    One large bomb blast over Kansas could wipe out all electronics in the continental United States!
    If we took out Iran, but wiped out all technology throughout Asia, we’d be in serious trouble economically!

  21. Hi Chris —
    Again, all these warnings and caveats and “what ifs” you share are what I believe will keep all those nuclear devices in check and on the table. No one will be able to move one without sending shudder alarms throughout the rest of the world and the fact that clouds of contamination are not limited to one country gives your neighbor a vested and vital interest in precisely what you are doing and what you are planning.
    You can also knock out electronics with E-Bombs that send out EMP waves — no A-Bomb necessary!

  22. The problem is that the best intelligence often ends up being hunches and reasoned guesses about what an enemy might be up to.
    If the Soviets were planning to hit us in 1983 because they weren’t sure what we were up to with our military exercises, how can we know for sure what Iran or any other nation might be up to with their nuclear weaponry?
    Will we guess and launch preemptive strikes?
    Can we have limited nuclear wars?
    Can India nuke Pakistan, or vice versa, if tension are high?
    If every nation having a nuke can work, why are people opposed to average citizens carrying concealed weapons? (My state is a concealed carry state — some suggest that it prevents crime. Others suggest that our state is a source of many guns that are used in crime).
    Would countries that had no problem using chemical weaponry, i.e. Iran and Iraq, have any pause against using nukes against their neighbors?
    How long can humans live in a nuclear standoff involving multiple countries and alliances? If we thought the Cold War was bad, just think about the threat coming from countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran gunning for us?
    If someone did pop-off a nuke, would it result in a “bar fight” where everyone jumps on everyone else just for the fun of it?
    Would we have to nuke Russia and China, if we nuked Iran? Do they have any sort of treaty?
    I think everyone having nukes would increase the odds that someone would use a nuke, just as in places where everyone has five or six guns, there are more murders, than in places where there are stricter gun control laws.
    All it would take is some crazy world leader to start up a global nuclear war!

  23. Hi Chris —
    I’m all for concealed gun laws and there are many moments when I think mandatory small-town laws where everyone is required to carry a gun at all times is an interesting attack to take to fight crime.
    The A-Bombs would be centrally located in each country. Outside inspectors would monitor and watch those bombs. If a country makes a move to offensively use the weapon then they are giving up their sovereignty and their right to exist as a nation. The rest of the world, led by the UN or the “Open Source A-Bomb Commission” then wipes that nation, and its people, off the face of the earth in a retaliatory strike.
    A-Bombs are nasty, dirty, provocative and generationally deadly.
    They have become a Pandora’s box that must never be opened or tempted.
    Are we strong enough as a world community to resist the desire to attack and take revenge against our great enemies and our greater goodness?
    That is the final test of humankind.
    I don’t think we’ll pass.

  24. Hi David,
    I don’t think we’d pass either.
    If I was in charge, everything would be fine.
    The same for you.
    And, everyone who reads Urban Semiotic.
    But, there are some crazy people out there …
    How about each country makes robots, and the robots will fight the wars in stadiums for amusement? Nobody gets hurt, but we get to tear up machinery in the name of our various countries.

  25. Chris!
    I agree: One Urban Semiotic to Rule them All! A-Bombs for everyone!
    I know there are crazy people out there — but the A-Bombs for Everybody Plan — requires they never get into power to get near that button. I love the option of having no option: Do you dare touch that button? You can if you must, but do you really want to do that and become forever? Promised total annihilation is a valuable valve for turning off hotheads and wackos.
    I think we already have virtual fights with other nations every day don’t we? The machines hold numbers indicating wealth and value and exchange rates and made of ones and zeros and only the people who are ruled by these numbers get hurt. The machines go on and on…

  26. “You can also knock out electronics with E-Bombs that send out EMP waves — no A-Bomb necessary!”
    Electrical warfare in the skies above us resulting in the frying of all communications, computers and electronic devices.
    No electricity – millions of panicing humans, no way to communicate – no way to control.
    I once (very late at night) spent three hours discussing this possibility – a very scary proposition indeed. That comment took me right back there – almost twilight zone.

  27. Nicola —
    Many of us lived that “E-Bomb” nightmare a few years ago here on the East Coast when the electrical grid went down. We lost everything for five days. Food. Water. Heat. Computers. Phone. All gone. It was frightening. We learned to always have candles, flashlights, gallons of water and a lighter. We were lucky most people just stayed home instead of taking to the dark streets in completely blacked out cities.

Comments are closed.