Is it approaching a new nuclear race?

After few months, I want to relaunch my blog and I though the best way was writing about the best thing I know, and although I don't know so much about it, this issue is biosecurity, biosurveillance, pandemics and society.

Thus, I've just write in a LinkedIn group answering the post Mr. Koblentz post, The United States Should Shape the Second Nuclear Age Before It’s Too Late:

"In a new report released by the Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Stability in the Second Nuclear Age," I describe how changes in geopolitics and technology have led to the rise of a new nuclear order. This second nuclear age is characterized by new nuclear states, new sources of uncertainty, and a new geometry of deterrence.

During the Cold War, the potential for nuclear weapons to be used was determined largely by the United States and the Soviet Union. Now, with 16,300 weapons possessed by the seven established nuclear-armed states—China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—deterrence is increasingly complex. Since most of these countries face threats from a number of potential adversaries and their deterrence relationships are increasingly interconnected, changes in one state’s nuclear policy can have a cascading effect on the other states.

Though many states are downsizing their stockpiles, Asia is witnessing a nulcear buildup; Pakistan has the fastest-growing nuclear program in the world. By 2020, it could have a stockpile of fissile material that, if weaponized, could produce as many as two hundred nuclear devices. South Asia is the region “most at risk of a breakdown in strategic stability due to an explosive mixture of unresolved territorial disputes, cross-border terrorism, and growing nuclear arsenals.”

Emerging technologies such as missile defenses, cyber and antisatellite weapons, and conventional precision strike weapons pose additional risks and could potentially spur arms races and trigger crises.

The United States should work with other nuclear states to address sources of instability in the near term and establish processes for multilateral arms control efforts over the longer term. "

And this is my answer:

"It's so interesting what you say, Mr. Koblentz. But, for my point of view, the most important and the most interesting is the impplications of this likely second "Cold War" in terms of logic of war and widely, logic of society. I have read quite a lot about the change in the logic of prevention, from precaution to preparedness in USA and then in the whole West, and it would be nice to know what is the "next step" or the next shift. 

On the other hand, due to my studies, I think this next step it's not about nuclear realm, but biosecurity and biosurveillance issues, deploying this logic of preparedness by protecting the biotic."

So, what is more important, a new nuclear-scale or the recent bio-preparedness strategy? you can check what is talking about the second one in some bibliography like this:

1. Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 777-798
2. Collier, S.J. (2008). Enacting Catastrophe: preparedness, insurance, budgetary rationalization. Economy and society, 37(2), 225-250.
3. Lakoff, A. (2009). Swine Flu and the Preparedness Apparatus. Keele University. Newcastle.
4. Samimian-Darash, L. (2009). A pre-event configuration for biological threats: preparedness and the constitution of biosecurity events. American Ethnologist, 36(3), 478-491.

Photo Credit: Flickr, user NIAID (http://bit.ly/1qZxBeg)