![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mutually Pest Assured Destruction
April 10th, 2009 09:05 amOn Slate last week, Anne Applebaum made the assertion that Obama was focusing too much on nuclear disarmament. Her argument hinges on the notion that there are other problems which present a greater risk, which is debatable and depends how you measure risk. Amount of damage balanced against likelihood is my favorite, and considering nukes can destroy the entire world, they seem pretty damn risky whether they're likely to be used or not.
Despite thinking the article rather silly, it did get me thinking about whether the nuclear catastrophe strategy was changed at all by our new president. It IS, and I'm here to explain it to you.
We've all heard that there are enough nuclear arms existant to destroy the world n times, with a value of n>1, varying on source. To a lot of us this seems redundant at best -- surely we only need to destroy the world once?
That depends on what you mean by 'destroy'. It is common pop culture knowledge that even if we wipe ourselves off the planet, we'll leave our pests behind; to wit, cockroaches.
Cockroaches are the overlooked key factor in world strategy for the second nuclear Armageddon.
Suddenly, all that 'extra' nuclear destructive power makes sense. Say, we did destroy the world once, who's setting off arsenals 1 through n to destroy it the next several times? Cockroaches. Can we trust them after they've mutated into giant glowing cockroaches? Not if we don't have their loyalty now. Which cockroaches are most likely to be in an upperhandlimb position in a post-nuclear world? Good money's on the species that start off with the most advantages.
Ladies and gentlement, I bring you the giant hawaiian versions of the common American Cockroach.
Previously left out of combat strategy because they were believed to be too pacifistic and fond of luaus, the giant hawaiian cockroaches are sure to follow the lead of Hawaiian born president Obama. Suddenly, the US has a sure advantage, a species we can count on to unleash the second wave of total annihilation. Given that clear advantage, Applebaum's stance makes sense -- for the first time, we have a use for our redundant world-destructive power. Why give that up?
Despite thinking the article rather silly, it did get me thinking about whether the nuclear catastrophe strategy was changed at all by our new president. It IS, and I'm here to explain it to you.
We've all heard that there are enough nuclear arms existant to destroy the world n times, with a value of n>1, varying on source. To a lot of us this seems redundant at best -- surely we only need to destroy the world once?
That depends on what you mean by 'destroy'. It is common pop culture knowledge that even if we wipe ourselves off the planet, we'll leave our pests behind; to wit, cockroaches.
Cockroaches are the overlooked key factor in world strategy for the second nuclear Armageddon.
Suddenly, all that 'extra' nuclear destructive power makes sense. Say, we did destroy the world once, who's setting off arsenals 1 through n to destroy it the next several times? Cockroaches. Can we trust them after they've mutated into giant glowing cockroaches? Not if we don't have their loyalty now. Which cockroaches are most likely to be in an upper
Ladies and gentlement, I bring you the giant hawaiian versions of the common American Cockroach.
Previously left out of combat strategy because they were believed to be too pacifistic and fond of luaus, the giant hawaiian cockroaches are sure to follow the lead of Hawaiian born president Obama. Suddenly, the US has a sure advantage, a species we can count on to unleash the second wave of total annihilation. Given that clear advantage, Applebaum's stance makes sense -- for the first time, we have a use for our redundant world-destructive power. Why give that up?
