The nuclear apocalypse. It’s a chilling concept that we haven’t really had to consider since the Cold War (hah, chilling, Cold War…). But however dramatic the concept may be, the simple fact that nuclear warheads exist means there will always be people like me writing about the horrors of the post-nuclear apocalypse.

Modern society couldn’t possibly go that way, though … could it? As I always like to say, probably not. But let’s brainstorm some ideas here because the concept is very intriguing, and things in the US of A are heating up to a point where the word ‘apocalypse’ is being thrown around, genuinely.

A modern spark for a modern full-scale conflict

Every conflict needs its spark, and the apocalypse needs a veritable atomic explosion. However, 2016 America is a unique catalyst for a potential, and disastrous, war.

Consider the US Elections. On one hand, Donald Trump is calling for force as a means to solve problems. Not just building a wall to stop immigration, but he claimed in his Republican convention acceptance speech that he is the “law and order” candidate. This is a distinctly authoritarian concept, and not one that was taken lightly by the internet.

Echoing Nixon slogan in 1968, Trump calls himself "law-and-order candidate." https://t.co/ieZo688DPL by @tcberenson

— Ryan Teague Beckwith (@ryanbeckwith) July 11, 2016

Then there’s Clinton. FBI email scandal Clinton. Old-world politician, behind-the-times Clinton. Or so people say. Liberal internet voices talk about Trump and his policies, but despite inching ahead in terms of overall favour, Clinton is not much more well-liked than her counterpart. Indeed, I read an article on the NZ Herald just today that discussed how Clinton, in reality, may only be winning due to Trump being so disliked.

I’m not going to sit here and tell Americans who to vote for, but it seems that there is a lot of discontent in the States, and discontent can breed violence.

Consider another point. In September 2014, Reuters held a poll that revealed one in four US citizens wants their state to secede from the union, or would want this given an opportunity. No matter how the data was filtered – age, sex, income – the results remained clear. Basically, less than two years ago, a quarter of the 318 million people living in the US wanted out. Let’s just let that sit there and simmer, like a grotesque stew.

American Civil War: The Second Coming

Now, I want to float this idea for a little longer (using an awesome movie title as a subhead).

A really interesting essay was written on a similar vein by Kevin Benson (retired US Army colonel) and Dr. Jennifer Weber. It was published in Small Wars Journal if you want to read it fully. It considers a situation where significant economic unrest sparks political division in a South Carolina town, leading a group of locals to overthrow local government. It’s a work of fiction – an argument hinging on very specific circumstances – but it’s interesting all the same.

Read more: Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future

Essentially, it explores the need for the US military to have clear plans in place for “full spectrum operations under homeland security and defense conditions”. The whole thing breathes a certain ‘Modern Civil War’ voice, even mentioning the possible threat of foreign forces taking advantage of local unrest, and it makes you wonder how this would play out. Would a civil war engulf the entire nation? Would someone move in? This would be disastrous for not just the local economy, but the world’s.

The world, and America’s place in it

EconomyWatch states that the USA has the world’s largest economy: about 17-22 per cent of the world’s GDP. The local dollar is also the most widely used trade currency, and numerous other nations use it as their own home currency, too. Some argue that the US relies on the world, rather than the other way around, but the facts remain the same: The US has the most influential trade market in the world, and when it crashes the world can tumble alongside (just look at the global financial crisis of 2007).

Let’s also consider who has a defence agreement with the US. It’s plausible, if you are looking for reasons for the world to start a fictional apocalypse, that a complete civil war on US home soil would mean the removal of its forces overseas, leading to the inability of said forces to aid allies in times of concurrent conflict. According to the US Department of State, current allies (which we should consider in this argument) include South Korea, the Philippines, Japan and Thailand.

The South China Sea: where claimants for territory include China, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. What if a lack of US defence led one of them – and I’m not pointing fingers at China, genuinely; anyone could fire the first shot – to act bolder than the rest?

Japan also has territorial disputes with China. Just recently, Japan announced that its ties with China were “deteriorating markedly” over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in Chinese). Is it possible that, with no US alliance, a brawl could start? I like to believe both nations are smarter than that, but wars have been started for less in the past.

I also like to believe that the US doesn’t have that much influence, but fuck it, I wanted to write an article.

All of this doesn’t even take into account the trouble in the Middle East, where US armed forces are a staple of military action and ongoing training. Europe seems to be a more universally stable continent, but even then, the 2014 annexation of Crimea was an undeniable, and violent, escalation of the status quo. Not to mention conflicts over the refugee crisis.

We’re wildly speculating, now, but it’s interesting to ponder. Are the world’s nations holding themselves together, or is it the overwhelming threat of a US defence that keeps some at bay?

In addition, could a complete, total deterioration in US economy lead other world powers to collapse? HMM.

From war to apocalypse

But what will it take to go from modern conflict to future apocalyptic Wasteland? Nukes, of course. I could sit here and debate the potential for a dystopian society to emerge from the ashes of our modern one, but it’s not as dramatic an apocalyptic setting.

I found a really interesting report on what would happen after a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. It’s titled “Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict”, and it debates what would happen if about 100 15-kilotonne bombs were dropped between the nations.

Read more: Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict

Essentially, the story goes like this: Nukes go off, immediate and truly horrifying destruction ensues. Black carbon is thrust into the atmosphere, swooping around the globe. Temperatures on Earth, over a period of years, drop. With only 100 bombs, they only drop a few degrees – enough to cause droughts, famines or other weather disasters, but likely not a full-scale post-nuclear apocalypse – but then rise ever so slightly after about two decades.

In this time, our ozone layer is crippled (those of us living in NZ won’t notice a thing on that front, right?) and sun cancer rates rise dramatically. Also, frost-free crop growing seasons are reduced in length due to temperature fluctuations, and the amount of average rain our planet receives is reduced.

Now take that scenario and replace “India and Pakistan” with everyone who has nukes. Holy shit.

Here in New Zealand, any Northern Hemisphere wars won’t affect us as badly as our Pacific counterparts further up, but we will still feel an effect. Obviously, anyone who drops a bomb down under will change that fact.

So, in closing, this is the wild musing of a mad blogger with a keyboard and Google. But it presents what I feel is something worth debating, if not in its present state. How much impact does the US have on the rest of the world, and could a destabilisation of an American people flow down into a destabilisation of our people?

#HelpAmericaHelpYourself

If you want to debate the post-apocalypse further, or would prefer to yell your opinion down the internet with little regard to any counterpoint, check Duncan P. Pacey out on his Facebook and Twitter pages!