Usually, when a society collapses, a bunch of warlords seize resources and then fight it out for a while, until everyone left knew people who died in the fighting.
During this period, it’s way easy for a stronger colonial empire to come in and take over, and if there are resources to be had (minerals, good farmland, oil, etc.) they totally will.
The US is an interesting case, since it still has a number of states that are strong self-sustaining economies all their own, and if the US fragmented, we might see those strong states lend aid to the dependent ones, making aid contingent on adopting the host states’ laws and values. Dunno if that will be a bloodless process, though.
It would be a ghastly scenario in which they decided to start a nuclear war. But I think that that is about as likely as nuclear war breaking out during the fall and dissolution of USSR (which is to say slim to none).
Firstly, US nukes are under a lot of security, and rogue actors would be hard pressed to commandeer those weapons for their own use. Also, most of them cannot be retargeted without a lengthy process and some sophisticated math. As they stand, they’re set for a specific list of possible trajectories, so they can only be used to target foreign enemies, and outdated targets thereof. (Rick Perry was delighted when he became Secretary of Energy that he was in charge of the US nuclear arsenal in 2017. Then he learned its sorry state of neglect and disrepair. Trump has since really wanted to use a nuke, and has been pushing to modernize said arsenal.)
Secondly, detonating even one nuclear weapon in hostility breaks some really forbidden ice, and invites all other foreign nuclear powers to use their arsenals as well. Right now we’re just past eighty years without an atomic weapon used in war, and the current stability still depends on the notion that if one nation attacks, the rest of the international stage retaliates with their weapons. Granted, they may choose not to for sake of the species, but provoking them is a terrible risk to take.
During the first Trump term, I was blogging about Far Cry 5 and ranted about the ending, during which I discussed how unlikely a nuclear exchange was, even though Trump had already made clear he very badly wants to use some nukes. (While I’m sharing old blog pieces, I discussed his fire and fury moment here.) I had predicted Mattis would stab Trump with a steak knife if that was what was necessary to stop him from starting a nuclear exchange, and fortunately, he had far subtler ways of disobeying and distracting. Since then, even in the second term, the US’ armed forces have outright refused to let Trump nuke someone.
So I’m pretty sure that even if there is a new civil war and even if the military chooses to get involved, it’s very unlikely to engage in tactical nuclear strikes, let alone engage the primary arsenal.
Huh. Re-reading my blog pieces from about a decade ago, I was far more optimistic about navigating the future than I am today. But even though things are not yet nuclear, they are very messy.
Usually, when a society collapses, a bunch of warlords seize resources and then fight it out for a while, until everyone left knew people who died in the fighting.
During this period, it’s way easy for a stronger colonial empire to come in and take over, and if there are resources to be had (minerals, good farmland, oil, etc.) they totally will.
The US is an interesting case, since it still has a number of states that are strong self-sustaining economies all their own, and if the US fragmented, we might see those strong states lend aid to the dependent ones, making aid contingent on adopting the host states’ laws and values. Dunno if that will be a bloodless process, though.
You forget one thing.
There are A LOT of long range nuclear missiles parked in places like North Dakota.
New York and California may be economic giants, but I’m pretty sure they have no nukes.
Sure, they just also host various military bases that just so happen to have even more long range weaponry, and the other 2/3s of the nuclear triad.
It would be a ghastly scenario in which they decided to start a nuclear war. But I think that that is about as likely as nuclear war breaking out during the fall and dissolution of USSR (which is to say slim to none).
Firstly, US nukes are under a lot of security, and rogue actors would be hard pressed to commandeer those weapons for their own use. Also, most of them cannot be retargeted without a lengthy process and some sophisticated math. As they stand, they’re set for a specific list of possible trajectories, so they can only be used to target foreign enemies, and outdated targets thereof. (Rick Perry was delighted when he became Secretary of Energy that he was in charge of the US nuclear arsenal in 2017. Then he learned its sorry state of neglect and disrepair. Trump has since really wanted to use a nuke, and has been pushing to modernize said arsenal.)
Secondly, detonating even one nuclear weapon in hostility breaks some really forbidden ice, and invites all other foreign nuclear powers to use their arsenals as well. Right now we’re just past eighty years without an atomic weapon used in war, and the current stability still depends on the notion that if one nation attacks, the rest of the international stage retaliates with their weapons. Granted, they may choose not to for sake of the species, but provoking them is a terrible risk to take.
During the first Trump term, I was blogging about Far Cry 5 and ranted about the ending, during which I discussed how unlikely a nuclear exchange was, even though Trump had already made clear he very badly wants to use some nukes. (While I’m sharing old blog pieces, I discussed his fire and fury moment here.) I had predicted Mattis would stab Trump with a steak knife if that was what was necessary to stop him from starting a nuclear exchange, and fortunately, he had far subtler ways of disobeying and distracting. Since then, even in the second term, the US’ armed forces have outright refused to let Trump nuke someone.
So I’m pretty sure that even if there is a new civil war and even if the military chooses to get involved, it’s very unlikely to engage in tactical nuclear strikes, let alone engage the primary arsenal.
Huh. Re-reading my blog pieces from about a decade ago, I was far more optimistic about navigating the future than I am today. But even though things are not yet nuclear, they are very messy.