[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Nuclear War & "Reality"

Prior to the ban on atmospheric tests, the United States,
Britain and France (which continues) bombed and irradiated the
peoples of the South Pacific.  Sometimes the United States kindly
relocated peoples away from their homes to "safe distances" (yeah). 
 
In 1962 the Pentagon detonated the 1.4 megaton H-Bomb Thor (shame,
shame) high in the stratosphere.  The Pentagon learned about the
remarkable effect later known as EMP hundreds of miles away in
Hawaii, and this knowledge has been integrated into weapons design
and strategy ever since.  
                                                    
In 1954, the United States detonated the Edward Teller-designed
"Bravo" (!!??!!) H-bomb, 1,000 times more powerful than used in
Hiroshima at Bikini Atoll.  This bomb was designed for maximum
dispersal of fallout, and several populated islands were indeed
blanketed with radioactive death.  
 
In fact, the testing in the Pacific afforded DoD and its
stepchildren in the AEC the opportunity to conduct long-term
studies on the effects of high-level exposure.  As Merril Eisenbud,
then Dir. of Health and Safety at AEC, noted, the Marshallese
island of Utrik was "by far the most contaminated place in the
world" and he warmly reflected on the opportunity:

     "to go back and get good environmental data.  Now, data of 
     this type has never been available.  While it is true that
     these people do not live, I would say, the way westerners
     do, civilized people [who drop nuclear bombs on others-TJ],
     it is nevertheless true that these people are more like us
     than mice." (in: Glenn Alcalay, Covert Action Information
     Bulletin, Summer 1992)
 
More than a decade ago, Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame,
determined that the United States threatened to initiate nuclear
war on NO LESS THAN NINETEEN occasionduring the Cold War. Given
that the nuclear umbrella has facilitated, and continues to
facilitate, U.S. interventionism, it is not at all accurate to say
that nuclear weapons have never been used (see: The Deadly
Connection: U.S. Intervention and Nuclear War, 1986).  We don't
know how many times the U.S. has threatened to use nuclear weapons
since.  If I hold a huge gun at you head so my other hand can
take money from your wallet, I am *using* that gun even if I don't
fire a bullet.
 
More recently, we do know that the United States brought over 300
nuclear weapons to the Middle East in the Pentagon's war exercise
against the people of Iraq.  U.S. policy and planning included
steps for their use in that conflict.  While the
media blanketed the public with FALSE (as should have been known)
stories of imminent Iraqi proliferation, U.S war planners were
actively considering the circumstances under which they would use
nuclear weapons against a Third World adversary.  
 
For years, as documented by former nuclear war planner Daniel
Axelrod and coauthor Michio Kaku, the Pentagon has actively developed the
technological infrastructure and planning for the use of nuclear
weapons in a FIRST STRIKE.  This policy remains in effect, even
with the demise of the Soviet Union, against Third World targets. 
This policy is different from, and even more alarming, than the
dangerous policy of First Use, to which the U.S also remains
committed.
 
What about other countries?  Let me take just one, probably the
second most likely initiator of nuclear armageddon: our close ally
Israel.  Emeritus Professor of Chemistry and peace activist Israel
Shahak, in reviewing the Israeli press, concludes that his country 

     "is preparing to establish overtly what it always coveted
     covertly: hegemony over the Middle East.  And if the experts
     are right, it will not shy from any means including nuclear
     ones to reach that end." (Covert Action, Fall 1993)

An article reviewing the public statements of Israeli defense
officials in the October 1992 issue of Lies Of Our Times, concludes
that the ODDS ARE IN FAVOR of Israeli use of nuclear weapons in the
next (and, presumably, last) major Israeli-Arab conflict.
 
All this leaves aside the very real risk of accidental or 
inadvertent nuclear war, possibly arising from one of the many
international crises that are all too routine- the greatest risk of
all, and one I'll leave for another time.
 
And this examination also, of course, leaves aside the possibility
of nuclear war erupting from conflict over the Spratly's; the (now
remote) possibility of Japanese military resurgence; the dangers of
nuclear war (scientist bake sale, sale of scientists, C4I
breakdown, accidental launch, breakaway republics, etc.) in the
former Soviet Union; a Indian-Pakistani or Sino-Indian nuclear
conflict; the "Islamic bomb" (perhaps a counterpart to the
"Christian" or "Jewish" bomb) and all the other scenarios we hear
so often in debate.
 
My criticisms, then, of those criticizing Ms. Anderson, can be
summarized thusly:
 
1.  They AND she dramatically underestimate the risks of nuclear
war.  It HAS happened, over and over again.  Nuclear weapons ARE
NOW BEING used as instruments of U.S. imperial domination.
 
2.  They focus, primarily, (M. Seimens appears to be an exception)
on scenarios FAR, FAR LESS LIKELY to end in nuclear war than others.
 
I would (and later may) argue that this is the case because of the
overwhelming (nay, near TOTAL) reliance on institutional sources of
information and analysis, or Pentagon lapdogs like NYT, WP, LAT,
Washington Quarterly, Orbis, the Council on Foreign Relation's (can
there be a more institutional source?) Foreign Affairs, the
Carnegie Endowment for Peace (sic)-linked Foreign Policy, the
moonie and CIA-linked rabid Washington Times, the CIA-linked CSIS
and on and on.  With Nexis, the latest homicidal meanderings of
functionaries of The MegaMachine are at your fingertips.
 
My point is this: we could satisfy both Ms. Anderson's desire for
a focus on real world impacts that touch on our lives as Americans, 
AND other's desire to look to nuclear war impacts, IF we focused
our attention on those factors most likely to create tensions
leading to nuclear war, and where and how weapons are being used. 
To do so, we would have to focus less on the crimes of other
nations, of which we are largely dimly aware, and focus instead on
the crimes of our nation (which just happens to be greater than
others) that may culminate in nuclear war.  This focus has the
added advantage that we might be able to actually DO something
about OUR government's policies; my sway over Iraqi nuclear policy
is pretty limited!
 
Now, my second thought (promise, I'll try and keep it limited). 

Everyone seems to be teeing off on Ms. Anderson's calculation of
the probability of nuclear war.  What about the other half of her
argument?  The fact that nuclear war may be more likely than she
suggests, DOES NOT mean that other impacts are less pressing or,
more importantly, that other impacts are not felt by average
Americans (and that includes us) as more real.  The risk of nuclear
war is unacceptably high.  The "risk" of patriarchy is far, far higher.
The "risk" of racism is far, far higher.  The "risk" of ignorance,
poverty, malnutrition, boredom, hopelessness, etc., are perceived
as far greater in most people's minds.  

I would venture that in
many cases these impacts ARE greater because the risks ARE far
higher.  Should our advocacy address these issues?  Maybe our analysis
and intuition as to how, and the degree to which, particular policies
might "link" to these impact is clearer and more tangible than, say,
the risk that Chinese reformers will model policies "like" aff's, become
paranoid, whereas now they are stable (kinda), and the hard rain will 
start to fall.  Many of us ackowledge that these "impacts" described 
above are real (as is the risk of nuclear war) and maybe do things,
or know people who do things, in the here and now (and in debates)
to try and deal with them. 

In a nutshell: we walk down the hall and see racism, sexism, environmental
degradation, etc. *happening* here *because* current policy X allows
for or avoids addressing impacts 1 & 2 which could be mitigated by policy
Y (there are many possible ways to put the above, e.g. fiat vs. 2nd persona).  
As we walk down the hall we *wonder* about the *likelihood* that
po' folk somewhere will acquire weapons of mass destruction and *if* they
might use them.  

I am not in ANY way saying the kinds of positions reflecting the 
second (charged) description aren't plausible, should never be run, or 
anything on that order (especially given that I think to the risk
of nuclear war IS unacceptably high).  I am ONLY saying they are more
highly speculative (they are in the future!), and rely, by intuition
and argument, on a longer, more probabilistic series of conditions
(internal links), and that perhaps THAT should mitigate the 
stranglehold it has on the collective consciousness of our debate 
personae.

As CHRISTINA WISE from Duckland pointed out *months* ago,
LOTS of forces in people's lives have importance to them and to us
that exceed the perceived, and probably even the objective, risk of
nuclear war.  They LINK much more strongly with the experiences
we have everyday of our lives.

Somehow, big impact debate is supposed to produce quality link
debate.  I remain skeptical.  Some of the  big impact debates I have
judged around the country this year (in California, in the
northwest, in the midwest) really turn on this much vaunted beast
"risk analysis" (read: my risk of no link is less than their risk
of no link).
 
If we really want to focus on "good links" to nuclear war,
especially if we hope our advocacy and research has a lasting
effect on history that is greater than metal and plastic in the
display case, lets start HERE at HOME and give the boys in the
five-sided beast no quarter.
 
Thanks for tuning in (or out).
 
Or on: It is 4/20!!
 
peace, love and happiness
Trond
from the Land of Ice and Snow
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page