World War III​—Can Anybody Stop It?

“FOR the love of God, of your children, and of the civilization to which you belong, cease this madness!” These impassioned words were recently addressed to the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, which are presently engaged in the greatest arms race in history. The speaker was no ill-informed alarmist. He was George F. Kennan, former United States ambassador to Moscow.

“No one will understand the danger we are all in today,” pointed out Mr. Kennan, “unless he recognizes that governments in this modern world have not yet learned how to create and cultivate great military establishments, particularly those that include the weapons of mass destruction, without becoming the servants rather than the masters of what they have created.”

Many others agree with Mr. Kennan in his bleak assessment of present-day world politics. An official of the People’s Republic of China observed that war between the superpowers “is inevitable,” adding: “The next 10 years are very, very dangerous. They are frightful. We should never forget this fact.”

Why All the Alarm?

For the past several years there has been much talk about “détente,” or a lessening of tensions between the world’s superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. During this period many people got the impression that world war was becoming less likely. The first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty was signed between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972, followed by the signing of SALT II in 1979, and people talked hopefully of “a generation of peace.”

No longer. “Not for thirty years has political tension reached so dangerous a point as it has attained today,” pointed out Mr. Kennan late in 1980, just 18 months after the SALT II treaty was signed. “Not in all this time has there been so high a degree of misunderstanding, of suspicion, of bewilderment, and of sheer military fear.”

What has created the tension? Why does World War III, once thought distant, suddenly loom so near? Political, economic and technological factors are all involved. They are converging to create an arms race that experts fear cannot be stopped. Yet, unless it is stopped, many say this arms race can only lead to war.

“Modern history offers no example of the cultivation by rival powers of armed force on a huge scale that did not in the end lead to an outbreak of hostilities,” warns Mr. Kennan. “And there is no reason to believe that we are greater, or wiser, than our ancestors.”

Why can the arms race not be stopped?

In the beginning of the nuclear age, missiles were not very accurate. They could be counted on to hit very large targets, like cities, but not small targets, like enemy missile silos. The result was what Winston Churchill called the “balance of terror.” Both sides targeted their missiles on each other’s cities, establishing, in effect, an exchange of hostages. Both sides knew that starting nuclear war would mean the loss of their own cities.

This strategic doctrine, known as Mutual Assured Destruction (or, appropriately, MAD), may have helped to prevent an early outbreak of World War III for one major reason. It did not matter which side struck first. Nuclear war would still be disastrous for both sides. So there was less incentive to drop the first bomb in former times of tension, such as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Technology Drives the World Toward War

Technology has changed the old “balance of terror.” The missiles of today are much more accurate than before. So they are not just aimed at cities anymore. A great many of them are aimed at other missiles. Vastly improved computer-controlled guidance systems have caused the change in targeting. The result? Mutual Assured Destruction has been replaced in military thinking with counterforce strategies in which, theoretically, nuclear wars are no longer deterred but fought and won.

But how can either side hope to win a nuclear war? By striking first and destroying not an enemy’s cities but his missiles. Then, according to the theory, the enemy is at the mercy of the side striking first and must submit to whatever ultimatum is imposed.

Does this kind of thinking sound dangerous to you? It does to many experts. “The more the two great powers come to rely on counterforce strategies the greater is the probability of nuclear world war,” says Dr. Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “The dilemma of the nuclear age is that, despite the desire of political leaderships to avoid such a war, we are being driven towards it by uncontrolled military technology.”

During the 1980’s, as more and more missiles are made accurate enough for counterforce use, the world will get more and more dangerous. As the New York Times pointed out, Robert McNamara, U.S. secretary of defense back in the 1960’s, “opposed making American nuclear forces capable of threatening Soviet ones. If one or both the superpowers thought its missiles had become vulnerable to a surprise attack, he argued, pressures for launching them in a crisis would become almost irresistible.” Mr. McNamara’s nightmare is nearing reality.

Could counterforce thinking really help to drive the world to war? Recent history argues that it certainly could. Consider the aftermath of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 in which the United States, Japan and Great Britain agreed to limit their construction of battleships. Rather than stopping the arms race, the treaty “encouraged the emergence of the aircraft carrier, a new weapon neglected by the battleship admirals then dominating every major navy,” observes political science professor Charles Fairbanks. “As Pearl Harbor made clear, the aircraft carrier was a weapon that, as compared with the battleship, encouraged striking first in a crisis, and therefore somewhat increased the chances of war.”

Like modern missiles, aircraft carriers were vulnerable to enemy attack because of not possessing the thick armor of battleships and being loaded with gasoline. Like modern missiles, aircraft carriers were very effective when used by the side striking the first blow with its planes, while keeping the carrier itself at a safe distance. In 1941, as relations deteriorated between the United States and Japan, the pressure to get in the first blow became irresistible to the Japanese. What will happen if relations continue to deteriorate between the United States and the Soviet Union? Will history repeat itself?

Lasers, Satellites and False Alarms

Not once but three times in less than a year a computer reported that Soviet missiles were headed toward America. Immediately the crews of FB-111 and B-52 bombers started their engines, while the U.S. fleet of nuclear submarines was placed on alert, as were the crews of America’s 1,000 Minuteman missile silos. Each time, the computer report was found to be false. Twice the erroneous alert was traced to a small, 46-cent electronic circuit. The bombers, submarines and missile crews were told to stand down . . . until next time.

“What is failing here is not gadgetry, but sanity,” commented the New York Times. Some military men no longer feel that they can afford to wait until suspected missiles actually arrive before retaliating. As a result, the danger of false alarms provoking genuine counterattacks is growing. In the jumpy world of counterforce thinking, World War III could start simply by mistake. Not very reassuring, is it?

Technology is destabilizing the military world in other ways as well. Here are a few of them:

Submarine Warfare: Not only are land-based missiles becoming accurate enough to destroy other missiles, but submarine missiles, such as those for America’s new Trident fleet, are acquiring the same high accuracy. Also, both the United States and the Soviet Union are working hard on all types of antisubmarine sensors and “hunter-killer” submarines. But what if nuclear submarines should become vulnerable to a “first strike”? “The temptation to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike will then become well nigh irresistible,” according to Dr. Barnaby.

Satellite Warfare: Satellites are the eyes and ears of today’s military establishments. In this jittery age they provide the earliest possible warning of enemy missile launches, as well as make verification possible for arms treaties. Between 70 and 80 percent of all military communications are now routed through satellites. Since satellites are becoming so important, “an attack on a nation’s satellites would almost surely lead to an all-out nuclear strike since its intelligence-gathering capability would be crippled,” according to some observers. Is such an attack possible?

“Off and on over the past 12 years, the Soviet Union has orbited at least 15 hunter-killer satellites,” says a report in Science 80 magazine. The United States, in turn, is developing an antisatellite missile that can be fired from an F-15 fighter. Especially ominous are new types of weapons that could instantly blind or destroy satellites even in very distant orbits. What kinds of weapons are these?

Science Fiction? Think Again

If you think the idea of a ray gun that could destroy a missile in flight is part of science fiction, think again. Such weapons already exist! Since 1973 lasers have been knocking planes and missiles out of the air in tests. The United States Air Force has equipped a cargo plane with a massive experimental laser beam for tests at high altitudes. Over a billion dollars has been spent by the Americans alone on laser-weapon development, and it is claimed that the Soviets are equally advanced.

True, it might be a long time before a ground-based laser beam could shoot down a high-altitude satellite. Such a laser would require enormous amounts of energy. On the other hand, “much more modest amounts of energy . . . can blind the infrared sensors of a satellite,” observes New Scientist magazine, “leaving your opponent with no way to monitor the launch of your missiles.” Lasers with this much power are already quite feasible, adding another uncertainty to a nervous world.

Of course, this by no means exhausts the list of destabilizing advances in military technology. Cruise missiles, which, although slow, are far more accurate than any ICBM, can be considered a counterforce weapon. They are well suited to attack small military targets. A “neutron bomb” has been designed to kill people with radiation while destroying relatively little property. New, “improved” nerve gas is being advocated by some military authorities, although nerve gas has been outlawed in warfare since 1925! There is also talk of Biological Warfare, using germs such as anthrax. But technology is not the only thing pushing the world toward World War III.

Mounting World Tension​—The Causes

In September 1979, a United States satellite monitored a bright double flash near South Africa. Such a flash is characteristic of a nuclear explosion. Was South Africa testing nuclear weapons? The South African government denies it, but South Africa has never signed the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Israel is another nonsigner of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Back in 1974 the president of Israel stated: “It has always been our intention to provide the potential for nuclear weapons development. We now have that potential.”

Nor is that all. “Administration intelligence specialists believe that in five years a variety of nations, including Taiwan, South Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina, could join the six or seven existing members of the so-called ‘nuclear arms club,”’ reports the New York Times.

What is especially ominous about the coming decade is not merely the almost inevitable spread of atomic weapons, but the countries to which those weapons will likely spread. Many of these nations consider themselves to be surrounded by powerful enemies. “States that feel beleaguered, such as Israel and Taiwan, tend increasingly to view an atomic-weapon capability as the ultimate deterrent to any attack from hostile forces,” observes U.S. News & World Report. Such nations could hardly be counted upon to use nuclear restraint in a crisis.

Can nuclear proliferation be stopped? It is doubtful. There is just too much plutonium around from which bombs can be made, and the know-how to make the bombs is easily obtainable. A recent report of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation panel gloomily implied “that there is no technical solution to the problem of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to countries which do not now have them.”​—Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Where did all the plutonium come from? “So far, a total of 100,000 kilograms of plutonium, in an unprocessed state, has been accumulated from civilian nuclear reactors,” SIPRI points out. It only takes a few kilograms of plutonium to make a bomb like the one that destroyed Nagasaki! As developing countries turn to atomic energy in an oil-short world, they wind up with the basic stuff of atomic bombs as a by-product.

Could a developing country really build an atom bomb if the plutonium were available? In 1978 a United States college student made headlines by designing a workable atomic bomb from declassified documents available to anyone for $25. Experts agreed that the bomb “would have a very good chance of working.” If an undergraduate could do it, why couldn’t an underdeveloped country?

Cooperation or Confrontation?

Experts are warning that a world with more nuclear nations will be increasingly unstable, “a world of considerable fears and deep uncertainty,” as nuclear proliferation specialist Joseph Nye of Harvard puts it. A check on this instability would be increased cooperation between the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Is such cooperation likely? In a world of scarce resources, many feel it is not.

The United States now imports over 40 percent of its petroleum. Many American allies must import even larger percentages​—90 percent in the case of France and 97 percent for the Federal Republic of Germany. These nations have made it clear that they are willing to risk war in order to protect their oil supplies. The result? Oil-producing areas of the globe, such as the Persian Gulf, are witnessing intense military rivalry between the superpowers​—a very dangerous situation.

Commenting on the danger of World War III starting in the Middle East, Richard Falk observed that “general wars in the past have always occurred when a great power tries to compensate for economic and political decline by recourse to decisive military means.”​—The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1979.

In other words, trying to solve economic problems with military buildups leads to war. A recent example was the Japanese “solution” to the American embargoes on vital oil supplies in 1941. “Dismay at the embargo drove the Japanese naval command . . . into collusion with the army’s extremism.” (Encyclopædia Britannica) The result? Pearl Harbor.

Can the world afford another Pearl Harbor?

Oil is not the only thing on which the United States is short. “Imports account for more than half of the sources of 23 strategic materials consumed by U.S. industry,” says U.S. News & World Report, adding: “What’s worse, most of these minerals come from politically unstable countries in sub-Saharan Africa.” The U.S. must import 89 percent of its platinum (used in processing crude oil), 90 percent of its chromium (used in armor for tanks) and 98 percent of its manganese (used in making high-strength alloys). Each vital commodity in short supply represents a potential conflict, should the supply be threatened.

Shortage No Surprise to Some

Before World War II, the United States produced more petroleum than the rest of the world’s countries put together. At that time it was common to speak of America’s limitless mineral wealth. Few people foresaw that in several brief decades America would be unable to supply her needs for most strategic materials. Careful students of the Bible, however, saw trouble coming.

In the book “Your Will Be Done on Earth,”a published back in 1958, the Soviet Union was identified with the “king of the north,” mentioned in Daniel chapter 11. “The king of the south,” also mentioned in that chapter, was identified with the so-called free world, led by the United States and Great Britain. This chapter of Bible prophecy describes a competition between these two symbolic kings, in this language:

“And in the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him [the king of the north] in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships . . . And he [the king of the north] will actually rule over the hidden treasures of the gold and the silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt.”​—Dan. 11:40, 43.

What did this mean? The book “Your Will Be Done on Earth” made this very interesting Bible-based prediction over 22 years ago:

“How far the king of the north will have got when he reaches his ‘time of the end’ the future alone will tell. But he is predicted to gain control over the treasures of gold, silver and all the precious things of this commercialized, materialistic world, including oil.”​—Page 303.

Today the Soviet Union is one of the very few industrialized nations that does not need to import oil. The Soviet Union also controls vast deposits of the very strategic minerals that the “king of the south” needs desperately. No wonder world politics in recent years have been characterized by a “pushing” match between the superpowers!

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 9]

If a college student could develop a workable atomic bomb, why couldn’t even a small country do the same?

Hope of Escaping World Destruction

Will this nationalistic “pushing” match result in World War III? Possibly. The world political situation certainly looks hopeless from a human point of view. But there is another point of view to be considered.

Just as God’s Word correctly predicted the present tense world situation, it also predicts the outcome. Without specifying whether or not the present arms race will touch off World War III, it does make this statement about our times:

“But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give their reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”​—Rev. 11:18.

Economic greed and pollution are already “ruining the earth,” and God has plenty of reason to put an end to those responsible for such things, even without the added ruination that a third world war might bring. Still, in view of this prophecy, even if a global war should break out, God would never let it totally ruin this beautiful globe, which he created to be the home of humankind, not its graveyard.​—Isa. 45:18.

The Bible even has a name for the symbolic battle in which God Almighty puts an end, once and for all, to present-day nationalism, militarism and war. Its symbolic location is called “Armageddon” in the “King James Bible,” known as the Authorized Version.​—Rev. 16:14, 16.

“Armageddon?” You may ask, “But are not Armageddon and World War III the same thing?” The answer is NO!

Newspaper pundits may use the word “Armageddon” out of its Biblical context to refer to World War III and nuclear destruction, but the Bible indicates a strikingly different meaning for this term. The Bible describes this battle in Revelation chapter 19, not as a fight among earthly nations, but as a fight between all those nations and heavenly armies under the command of “The Word of God,” Jesus Christ.​—Rev. 19:11-21.

Armageddon is not the consequence of nuclear war. It is the solution to nuclear war, a solution imposed by the only One powerful enough to enforce his will on this violent, gun-toting system of things. Armageddon will not result in smoking craters of radioactive debris. Instead, the result will be a “new earth,” cleansed of all forms of wickedness, including arms races. Consider this heartwarming promise:

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth . . . with that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: ‘Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.”’​—Rev. 21:1, 3.

What will happen to the arms race in this new earth? To Armageddon survivors, used to ever-growing munitions outlays, the change will be astonishing. God’s Word states:

“Come, you people, behold the activities of Jehovah, how he has set astonishing events on the earth. He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire.”​—Ps. 46:8, 9.

Can anybody stop world destruction? No human powers can. Only one Person in the entire universe can save us out of it, and he will. If you get to know him now, you can escape destruction, not by World War III, but at the hands of Jehovah God, who will soon “crush and put an end to” the world system so near to ruining our planet.​—Dan. 2:44.