As a consequence of the meandering capitulationist foreign policies of Pa Kettle in the White House, making us unsafer and unsafer, thus far I've come up with these possiblities for some real trouble, including nuclear warfare, in the near future:
Israel-Iran. For years and years, Israel has desisted from using its nuclear arsenal because Israel has enjoyed the rather, uh, tenuous support of the United States. Since official American governmental support of Israel seems to be receding, Israel quite naturally is going to feel it is on its own. It is hardly immoral for a people to fight for collective and individual survival; in fact, God commands it.
India-Pakistan. Pakistan appears to be crumbling--it was never solid anyway--to the onslaught of fundamentalist Moslem terrorists. If the terrorists were to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, India could hardly be expected to remain silent and compliant.
Japan-North Korea. Japan is getting increasingly nervous about North Korea, and with the official American governmental policy of appeasement, Japan may develop a nuclear arsenal of its own, and being Japan, that would probably take just months, not years or decades. Again, it is hardly immoral for a people to fight for collective and individual survival.
Poland-Russia. With the virtual American abandoment of democratic eastern Europe, Russia is rattling its saber against its traditional colonies. Neither Poland nor Slovakia have nuclear weapons, but Ukraine does. There is no love lost between Poland and Ukraine, but if Poland is threatened, so too is Ukraine.
Traditional hostilities, such as those between China and India, China and Russia, Russia and the United States, don't seem at the moment to present any threat.
During the Age of Aquarius, there used to be a "doomsday clock" sponsored by "pacifist" nuclear scientists and somesuch, measuring how close the world was, to a nuclear conflagration.
Of course, this "doomsday clock" was skewed, distorted, being based upon the theory that the United States was just as likely as the Soviet Union to launch an aggressive war, which of course was patent nonsense.
There was also this popular theory among the Democrats, liberals, and primitives that a "balance of power" was a good thing, because it "prevented" wars. If one side was not powerful enough to vanquish another side, it went, then no one would go to war.
Which was more nonsense; "balances of power" create wars, not deter them.
(History of course proves this; the Pax Romana of the second century, and the Pax Britannia of the nineteenth century, when one power was so overwhelmingly strong that everybody else generally behaved; it needs noted that the second and nineteenth centuries were remarkably muted in terms of warfare and bloodshed, when compared with other centuries.)
I suspect that if an accurate "doomsday clock" were to be created, it would show the world at circa four or five minutes to midnight.
Being buried out in the Sandhills of Nebraska, I don't worry too much about my own situation in case of a nuclear war outbreaking somewhere in the world--there would most certainly be sudden and awkward changes in the life-style and living standard, of course--but I am concerned about millions, billions, elsewhere.
It's odd, how a global situation can go from near-safe to violently volatile, in a mere fifteen weeks.
Am I missing any other hot spots that have the potential to go nuclear?
