| I agree completely. These are congruent comments published at stateofnature.org:
"Though nuclear war is possible and becoming more likely, it is not inevitable. It is humanity’s right to survive that is at stake. We must untiringly struggle for general nuclear disarmament, starting with the United States."
“God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, fire next time.” So sang the slaves in the old days as quoted by James Baldwin years ago in his novel, The Fire Next Time. Recent nuclear weapons stories in the news media keep this prophecy in some people’s minds. Although the major media (owned by five or six corporations with financial interests interlocking with those of the big military contractors and oil firms) presented only one such news item in recent days – the first nuclear weapons test by North Korea (DPRK). Though not as dramatic, two other nuclear weapons stories indicate additional dangerous trends. Russian President Putin publicly complained that non-nuclear long range missiles fired at Iran by the United States could be misinterpreted by Russia’s defense systems as nuclear missiles aimed at them and thus create the potential to trigger a nuclear holocaust. [1] Finally, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported that non-state terrorists (e.g. Al Qaeda) were quite likely to be able to detonate a nuclear device in a metropolitan area killing hundreds of thousands and causing all sorts of further damage and it is quite likely they will actually carry out such an attack. [2]
There are three levels or tiers of nuclear military power currently in the world, and they are exemplified by the three news stories noted above: the United States standing at the pinnacle with about 7,000 nuclear warheads and plenty of missiles to deliver them, the eight other nation states with nuclear weapons and delivery systems of varying capabilities, and finally non-state terrorist groups. These three levels are evolving, each in their own way, in very dangerous directions.
Starting with the U.S., the policies in place when Bush 2 took office were dangerous. For example, official declared military policy included the statement that the U.S. had the right to use nuclear weapons if it was deemed necessary. This was explicitly stated in a Clinton era document: “The Essentials of Post Cold War Deterrence”. [3] The neoconservative Bush regime has actively destabilized the situation in a number of ways, including violations of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty such as sharing advanced nuclear technology with India. It is also encouraging Japan to re-arm. Thirdly, it is funding militarization of space, including nuclear militarization. These three moves appear to be aiming at a prolonged and foolish Cold War with China. [4] That is, the country that (with others, especially Japan) backs the U.S. war efforts with huge loans. Even worse, U.S. regime behavior is so rabidly and obviously aggressive that weak or relatively weak countries with strategic resources, such as Iran and DPRK, realize that if they are without nuclear weapons the U.S. military can, and very well may, physically destroy their country and people. Iraq is the paradigmatic example of this. Obviously, this is a great part of the motivation for some of the second tier nations to develop such a weapons system. Missile defense system development by the U.S., part of the militarization of space program, is a particularly important factor in accelerating the weapons race.
The second tier – the eight other nation states with nuclear weapons and other countries that want to join this club, seems to be perhaps a little less dangerous than the U.S. on one hand and the third tier – the non-state terrorists – on the other hand. India and Pakistan, second tier nations, share a balance of terror, a mutually assured destruction that echoes the successful-seeming Cold War stand-off between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. However, one must not make this into a generalization – a vast number of horrible scenarios initiated and propagated at the second tier are possible; for example, Israel v. Iran.
Of course, the three tiers interact. An example of the first and second tier interacting is American coordination with Israel. Another type of first and second tier interaction is that of the U.S. v. the DPRK; the U.S. being assisted by several players, especially Japan, Korea’s erstwhile master and enemy. The situation is deteriorating in a tragic and unnecessary dialectical dance. First the DPRK undoubtedly felt pressured to develop nukes, for reasons noted above. Now that they have taken the first baby steps they are threatened further – with even more drastic economic sanctions and Japanese rearmament. These latter threats are neoconservative policy; analogous to that used elsewhere with such destructive consequences. It is a spiraling positive feedback loop and could spiral out of control.
In response to the DPRK nuclear test, members of the American corporate/government elite regaled us on the TV screen with self-serving rationalizations, attempting as best they could to further their own individual agendas. Republican Sen. John McCain provided an example of this by blaming the prior Clinton Administration’s Korea policy for the present situation, when actually it was marginally less insane than current policy. According to some, Clinton had a carrot-and-stick approach that was sabotaged by right-wingers. Of course, Clinton and those around him did not have the substance or real desire to counter militaristic or, for that matter, any other harmful social policies. They, and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership, let us not forget, are really part of the same elite. Rumsfeld appears to work it both ways; he apparently benefited financially in the private sector when the Clinton Administration “supported” light water nuclear plant construction in the DPRK (the “carrot”). Yes, American corporations profited from those projects – from taxes – “socialism” for the rich. Now, as Secretary of War, Rumsfeld denounces the DPRK. [5] And all the while the threat of nuclear annihilation increases. With regard to this threat – with each additional new country added to the nuclear club, there are destabilizing possibilities, for example, by the sale of fissile materials to non-state terrorists.
While the report from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted above is sobering, it must be viewed from a critical perspective. It is important to note that this report was written by Graham Allison of the conservative NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative) represented by establishment types such as former Senators Sam Nunn and Fred Thompson, and billionaires Warren Buffett and Ted Turner. [6] One honest broker on their board is Amartya Sen, a distinguished scholar who has devoted much of his work to the survival of the hungriest of the poor.
In general, individuals associated with NTI largely perceive the problem as one generated by the second and third tiers – nuclear nations other than the U.S. and its allies and non-state terrorists. They see the solution as largely technological and security based. Their work has been, for example, in encouraging the securing of nuclear materials scattered through Eastern Europe and the territory of the old Soviet Union. They are unable to perceive two problems with their approach. Firstly, security measures, even Draconian ones, can not, in isolation, guarantee safety from nuclear terrorism. This is simply wishful thinking. Secondly, of even more significance is the fact that American nuclear weaponry and policy is at the end of the day at least as dangerous. The massive advantage the U.S. has of an estimated 7,000 warheads is the ultimate fuel of the planetary weapons race. This arsenal can kill every living cell on Earth many times over. Sensible policy by thoughtful and dedicated public servants would include progressive decommissioning of these weapons. No thought has been given to this. It is not anywhere on the radar. No member of the American elite ever mentions the possibility of initiating nuclear disarmament at home. Truly this should be a demand by progressives and all thinking people.
I have not found it reassuring to learn that the younger generation is generally not troubled by the danger of nuclear weapons. An example of this nonchalance was a discussion in 2005 on the liberal website Salon.com. Apparently most people look upon this as a previous danger – one that humanity has already gone through and survived; a relic in the Cold War era dustbin of history like the ’57 Chevy. The Big One never happened and desensitization is a natural phenomenon, as many other stimuli grab for our attention. Nevertheless, this attitude is very unrealistic and must be contested and overcome.
A brief examination of the history of the nuclear era will illustrate why this is the case. There are three phases to this history. The first began in 1945 with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended in 1949 with the successful A-bomb testing by the Soviet Union. This was the period of American hegemony. The bombings announced to the world: “We’re in charge now!” However, the Soviet development of the A-bomb that brought howls of paranoia from America’s elite, particularly in the early years, resulted in the dream of American hegemony having to be deferred. This was the second period – 1945 to 1989. At great cost, the Soviet Union kept up with America militarily, leading to this prolonged stalemate of Mutual Assured Destruction. However, this was no worry-free utopia. The 1962 Cuban missile crisis nearly did us all in. There were also near misses during this period when misinterpretation could have led to nuclear missile firings. This is true even up to the present. In 1995, well after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russian President Yeltsin almost launched nuclear war on the U.S. based on misinterpreted findings by Russia’s defense system. [7] We can see then how fragile our situation is - depending on luck to avoid nuclear holocaust. Instead, we need to develop strategies to eliminate the possibility of nuclear attack altogether. However, at least we survived the Cold War period. The post-1989 third period is inherently far more unstable than the second period. With the Soviet Union gone and Russia weak, and before the new China, American dreams of hegemony quickly resurfaced. The first Bush announced the New World Order in the early 1990s. His war against Russia’s neighbor, Iraq, was unopposed by Russia. This clearly signaled that a corner had been turned.
Nevertheless, the dream of hegemony will remain only a dream. America’s ruling elite overplayed its hand. It was no fluke that the reckless faction of the ruling elite picked up the ball and ran with it – the neoconservatives with their Project for a New American Century. These geniuses had, and presumably still have, the utopian plan of establishing permanent military predominance over the whole world. After the 2000 “election” they quickly initiated a war policy, an apparently permanent and global war policy. One example among a myriad comes to mind: Rumsfeld’s plan to send special operations forces to 120 U.S. embassies around the world. The 9/11 attacks provided the perfect context. Indeed, their documents from well before 9/11 explicitly express the need for a new Pearl Harbor. [8] Five years later it should be obvious to all that the American elite burned its candle too brightly. Elites on the decline tend to behave more violently and unrealistically. This is particularly troubling to note given the alignment of political forces in the U.S., specifically that of the Christian fundamentalists, some of whom believe in the Rapture and End Times. Some of these people look upon the 20th Century political victory of Zionism as indicating that Bible prophecy is coming true and that nuclear warfare is a mechanism by which the Apocalypse could occur. True Christians would be “raptured” away and the rest of humanity destroyed. Thus, they do not fear and may even promote the Bush regime’s war policies. For those such as myself who do not believe in their theology, there is still the problem of the “self-fulfilling prophecy”. Fortunately, the alliance between the neocons and corporate elite on one hand and the Christian fundamentalists on the other hand appears to be weakening.
More thought should be given to the potential for terrorist use of nuclear weapons. There are certain realities almost never mentioned in the U.S. despite said phenomena being part of the natural landscape. Specifically, I am referring to the phenomenon of class warfare. But terrorism can not be properly understood without reference to the concept of class struggle. The CIA has figured this out, as noted by Antonia Juhasz in her superb book: The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time. The CIA report that she quoted predicted increased religious extremism and violence as a result of increasing global inequality. [9] Without regard to what one thinks or feels about the efficacy or morality of terrorism, it is a tool of class struggle. Let me add quickly that this instrument is far more widely used by the wealthy against the poor than the other way around. This latter point has been well-documented by many scholars. See, in particular, the documentation by Gideon Polya at his weblog: http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/ and the recent authoritative study in the medical journal Lancet regarding Iraq War mortality among Iraqi civilians:
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/abstract.
This war of aggression is truly a series of acts of state terrorism given the asymmetry of forces involved.
Nevertheless, it is helpful to remind ourselves why terrorism has also become a tool of some of the powerless. It is an old story – one that repeats itself when non-violent avenues are closed off and great violence is being done to destitute populaces. Ultimately, one can only hope that strikes, general strikes, targeted boycotts and mutual aid will be the used and shown to be useful strategies to bring about a more just and peaceful world.
Despite America’s military predominance, the situation is fundamentally chaotic because of the large number of players and the vast potential for moments of conflict or cooperation. Though nuclear war is possible and becoming more likely, it is not inevitable. It is humanity’s right to survive that is at stake. We must untiringly struggle for general nuclear disarmament, starting with the United States.
Morton Skorodin is a retired physician living in Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. In recent years he has been involved with others in his town opposing the so-called Patriot Act and the war against Iraq.
|
The Bush administration is very focused these days on Iran’s nuclear program. This focus has only sharpened in the aftermath of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report that Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of a UN Security Council demand.