Nuclear Napkin Number-Crunching

There is still a lot of progress to made in the world of nuclear non-proliferation. Don't believe me? Let's do a little math....

As of November 2013, there were thirty-one nations, including the United States, who possess nuclear capabilities to some degree. For the sake of an argument, let's focus on the United States. The two longest-range missiles, the Minuteman III and the D-5 Trident II, have effective ranges up to 13,000 kilometers. To put that into perspective, one of these missiles could start in Kansas, and land without a sweat in the middle of the Sahara Desert; a missile starting in Los Angeles could pay a visit to Beijing.

We have two types of missiles that can cross the entire world, starting from the US. However, some are submarine based, or located in other countries. In terms of numbers, we have approximately 400 Tridents and 330 Minutemen actively available to be used on command. For the purpose of this argument, let's fairly assume we could deliver a payload from these carriers anywhere on earth. Now let's talk about sheer destructive power.

The Minuteman has a payload of approximately 170 kilotons, which is not the largest of explosions comparing to other missiles. The Trident can deliver a payload of almost 500 kilotons, which is still pretty sizable. However, any explosion above 10 kilotons will cause what qualifies as "severe damage" within a half-mile radius, and moderate damage within a mile radius, and light damage extending out as far as three miles. For 100 kilotons, heavy damage will be caused within a 2 kilometer radius.

Time for some REALLY simplified, and highly conservative, math. Let's assume that our Minutemen can cause heavy damage within two square miles (given the increased payload, that's not a bad guess). Multiply that by the number of missiles we have active, and you have the ability to level 660 miles of land. With the Trident missiles, let's assume that an eight to ten square miles are heavily damaged, matching the increased radius to the increased payload. That means that you have the potential of annihilating 4000 square miles. Combined, with just these two delivery systems, the United States can destroy nearly 5000 square miles of the planet earth at any given time, without sending a single plane or deploying a single soldier. The United States could erase an area the size of Puerto Rico completely and entirely off the face of the earth, in the space of a few minutes. This is one country, with only two types of missiles. This math does not take into account the approximately 5,000 other nuclear warheads at our disposal, some measuring destructive ability in the megatons.

Granted, progress has still been made since the days of the Cold War. But does this threat to completely demolish massive tracts of land still hold us back from attaining true peace? We are warned of the dangers of arms races, and modern languages have largely agreed that this tactic of deterrence is not beneficial for humanity. However, maintaining stockpiles at all has done nothing to stop any advance in nuclear weapon production in rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. Should there be a further push to take the Vatican's advice, by pushing towards greater disarmament and aligning towards creating a universal, more powerful international peacekeeping group? We find that situations in the 21st century exist beyond the vocabulary of Vatican II, yet we are asked to strive for the standards that the council sets before us. Perhaps it would be time for the Vatican to lay out a more comprehensive plan to address the issue of WMD's, rather than simply advocating for an era free from the threat of annihilation. Rogue nations, terrorism, and complicated international relations create a categorically complex environment that requires a plan for direct intervention, not just goals to accomplish.

However, the mere presence of these weapons hints to a larger truth: as long as these weapons exist, relationships between countries will always have an element of fear. The element of mutually assured destruction in international relationships is not constructive, because it does not unite us, but rather, separates us by the threat of annihilation. We cannot hope to build peaceful friendships in the face of an ongoing nuclear Mexican standoff. If Catholics are called to reconciliation, we are forced to admit that such an action cannot occur in its fullest as long as nuclear arsenals stand at the ready, capable of leveling cities and ending civilizations. It's the rough equivalent of becoming friends in the middle of a Mexican standoff, albeit on a much larger scale. Reconciliation demands relationship, yet relationships tainted by fear cannot yield lasting peace or harmony. With every passing day, let's hope that we can let go of our weapons of mass destruction to free our hands to help others.

https://www.google.com/search?q=distance+from+us+to+africa&oq=distance+from+us+to+africa&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.5312j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=distance%20from%20us%20to%20sahara%20desert

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

http://www.remm.nlm.gov/nuclearexplosion.htm#blast