the real danger to our lives and security is not that of attack by foreign enemies and invaders, but the preparation for nuclear war, itself
My first comprehensive statement about nuclear abolition....
The following essay was entered in the Rabinowich Competition sponsored by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1980. Some of the dates and numbers have been updated as of 2005. It should be considered part of the "Abolition" movement, rather than simply "limiting" or "controlling" the proliferation of nuclear technologies.
(C)1980, by Paul Stephens
HOW TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR
I. INTRODUCTION
The threat of nuclear war has brought about the most serious crisis in the history of civilization. The reasons for maintaining that nuclear war is unthinkable are already well-known: it is not a viable way to settle human differences and should it happen that a nuclear conflict of world dimensions occurs, with total commitments on the part of one or more major powers to achieve an unconditional victory, the destruction of civilization as we know it and possibly the human species in its entirety would occur. The detonation of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads would not only destroy the specific targets sought (which are known to include all major cities, mines, factories, shipping ports and military installations) and thus effectively kill, wound, irradiate, starve, and impoverish the respective populations of the nations involved, but it would also leave a radioactive residue which in a few months or years is predicted to contaminate the food chain over the entire planet, bringing about catastrophic incidences of cancer and mutations and very likely end the reign of larger, more complex, long-lived mammalian life-forms (including human life) throughout the earth-dependent biosphere. And those who escape destruction from nuclear weapons, we are told, would suffer additional irradiation from outer space which could become deadly after the atmosphere's protecting ionization layer is broken down by nuclear explosions in the atmosphere.
Thus, the real danger to our lives and security is not that of attack by foreign enemies and invaders, but the preparation for nuclear war, itself. Whatever other dangers we face in this most dangerous age pale into insignificance in comparison with the threat of nuclear war and its related perils of pollution, waste-disposal, and nuclear terrorism. These are dangers not simply to those involved in conflict or to those now given the responsibility for "national defense" but to the human species, itself. Therefore, it is everyone's duty and responsibility to confront this threat and overcome it.
In certain respects, the United States government has been dominated by the nuclear lobby and the military interests who have expanded and perfected their capacity to destroy without interruption during the past 65 years. Therefore, it is clear that an anti-nuclear, anti-war movement must come into being independent of the established nuclear/military interests. Even though such a movement might gain support and recognition from Congress and the civilian parts of government (and perhaps those few military theoreticians whose awareness extends to these questions and concerns), it should remain independent of government and thus avoid the possibility of diminution and co-option.
Needless to say, this is a world concern, not a national one. A successful anti-nuclear movement must gain the support of dedicated proponents of nuclear disarmament throughout the world. And while the socialist nations claim that they are already well aware of the dangers of nuclear war and will disarm as soon as the "imperialist" nations also give up their reliance on a nuclear capability, the NATO Alliance points to the threat of Communism to justify its nuclear arsenals. Yet, it is the United States itself which bears the stigma of development, deployment, and first use in battle of nuclear weapons, and no other nation or government can be held responsible for the present nuclear predicament in quite the same way.
Therefore, it is essential that the United States take a leading role in the formation of a program to dismantle all nuclear arsenals and discontinue the use of all weapons-grade and pollution-producing nuclear materials, "peaceful" or otherwise. To rid ourselves of weapons and the ability to reconstruct them from readily-available materials is our necessary goal. A nuclear capability cannot be concealed but it is impossible to know another nation's ability to wage nuclear war in the midst of a massive nuclear power industry. Thus, the two are inextricably related.
It seems clear enough, now, that any attempt on the part of governments to control the nuclear industry and the military interests which continue to advocate a weapons build-up is doomed to defeat, probably for the very reason that governments thrive on wars or the threat of them. As George Orwell so tellingly illustrated in his novel 1984, there is no better way to defend dictatorship and regimentation than to posit a foreign enemy which is portrayed as being inherently hostile and always on the verge of attack, and largely because of a propaganda effort either explicitly initiated by governments or else tacitly followed by a consensus of information sources, and organized economic and political interests, there are substantial numbers of people in the United States who are convinced that we must utterly defeat the Soviet Union, "Communism," or some other real or imagined "enemies." Thus, nuclear weapons have been seen as being essential to survival rather than a threat to it. Until these attitudes are changed -- and they can only change through an expansion in outlook, information, and experience -- disarmament will be next to impossible.
How might we hope to convince other nations of our peaceful intentions and work with them in the cause of peace? The first step must be one of self-examination and criticism. To what extent do we, ourselves, pose a threat to world peace? How have past developments in our attitudes and policies contributed to an atmosphere of paranoia and mutual distrust? Until we have answered these questions and satisfied the rest or the world that our intentions are peaceful, we will be a threat to others and feel threatened by them.
II. THE PROBLEM
The community of scientists, logicians, computer theoreticians, and systems analysts have created a system that is inherently contradictory and self-destructive. As the danger continues to increase, the ability to control and reverse our present course continues to diminish. Even now, the average citizen is afraid to take a stand against the nuclear arms race while the professional expert in the nuclear field was long ago constrained from any such advocacy by the threat of ruination to his career and credibility, and in the absence of any sane alternative course of action except to resign in futile protest, the momentum of the nuclear interests continues undiminished. Meanwhile, a plethora of symptoms indicates that the whole social fabric is coming apart, and a mood of desperation and defeat pervades nearly every level of society. We might mention the collapse of the public school system, the lack of interest in mathematics and science, the hatred of computers, political fascism juxtaposed with anarchism, a large-scale embracing of drugs and mysticism as an escape from science and technology, anti-intellectualism as an increasingly prevalent cultural value, skyrocketing rates of teenage alcoholism and pregnancy (indicating not the traditional rebelliousness but an all-pervasive defeatism, self-destructiveness, and despair), a growing political isolationism evidenced by a disinterest in the rest of the world, declining study of foreign languages, etc,, etc.
These conditions have come to dominate the social order during the past 30 years--the period which coincides with what is now being called "the advent of the nuclear age." It may be that as historical and social phenomena, they are inextricably related to one another.
The policies which underlie the nuclear crisis we must now confront are often subsumed under such concepts as deterrence, "preparedness," "the nuclear security umbrella" and other such semantic abominations. This abuse of language has tended to conceal the real state of affairs and cause/effect relationships which should have been identified and corrected long ago. The mechanism by which we have gotten ourselves into this condition can be seen in the ascendancy of an authoritarian, militaristic, technocratic elite over all of the peoples of the world; an end to effective democratic control over national policy (that of the United States as well as the other nuclear powers); the rising autonomy and domination of the military contrary to American traditions of civilian control of the military and demobilization after war; and the increasing use of increasingly-scarce public resources in science and technology for life-threatening, elitist tyrannical and destructive purposes.
Unlike most other human artifacts and institutions, nuclear weapons and other radioactive technologies have not evolved over hundreds of generations, but instead were created at a moment in time still a part of the recent past and without a thorough consideration and working out of their implications prior to or in conjunction with their deployment. It has been necessary for philosophers, moralists, sociologists, economists, and others concerned with the human condition to respond to this almost instantaneous appearance in a similarly short and all-too inadequate span of time. In the three and a half decades since the first atomic fission bomb was exploded, the scientific community has been directed to develop nuclear weapons and other technologies which have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and man-hours to produce and deploy. During the same period of time, not even 1% of that effort has been spent in examining, criticizing, and developing the social, political, and moral framework within which such technologies could safely exist (if such were possible) or in the movement to dismantle and discontinue the use of nuclear technologies which at this point in time is clearly the imperative course of action if civilization and human life are to endure.
No other threat has been so total and all-pervasive, but like those other destructive and anti-social practices which civilization has abandoned through experience of their harmful effects, the production, deployment, and utilization of nuclear technologies must also be suspended or reversed -- at least until such time as the rest of the human experience catches up. Because the reliance on nuclear technologies resembles certain other kinds of institutionalized human behavior (e.g., racism, slavery, genocide, or the tyranny of fear and superstition) which in a particular case may have been useful and beneficial to some but destructive to others and to the general well-being of the human species, it is precisely this approach -- one of generalized humanistic concern -- which must lead to the placing of present nuclear technologies in the category of the experimental, or even the criminally taboo. And the sooner this is accomplished, the better it will be for all of us. Nothing less than an outright moral condemnation, affirmed in law throughout the world by every nation and ethnic group, can ultimately prevent the catastrophe of nuclear war, and until we develop nuclear technologies which cannot be used as weapons, we must condemn the rest of the nuclear industry as well.
It is undoubtedly the case that in the absence of governments having policies and interests of their own independent of the. real interests of the people, there would be no arms race, no desire to maintain "nuclear preparedness," and no incentives to become convinced that we are an island of sanity and rectitude in a sea of madness, evil, or error. Such attitudes had all but disappeared a century ago, yet now have re-gained a credibility which is astonishing in its prevalence and one-sidedness. What is really lacking is faith in human nature, personal choice, and self-government. So long as some people who have taken over the reigns of officialdom believe that wisdom rests with them and that they are capable of taking responsibility for the lives and well-being of the rest of us independent of our approval and co-operation, there will be no end to danger and oppression. so long as we are made to follow the demands of elitist special interest groups whose philosophies rest on obedience and fear, there will be some threat to us and our survival will be in question, if not from nuclear weapons, then in some other way. Nuclear weapons are becoming ubiquitous for one simple reason: they are very cost-effective as a means of terrorizing entire populations simultaneously, and in the creation of a caste whose custodianship of the nuclear genie gives it unprecedented authority and mystique.
III. THE SOLUTION
The way to eliminate the threat of nuclear war is obviously to eliminate the prospect of nuclear war, and ultimately the possibility of nuclear war. This must be accomplished in steps, according to an agreed-upon plan and consistent with agreed-upon principles. This much must be obvious to anyone who is at all familiar with the issue. Yet, so far this has not been accomplished nor even very seriously undertaken on an official governmental level.
Unlike many other policies which have been enacted through the implementation of a specific political program, nuclear disarmament is an issue of pressing conceal to every human being. Thus, it has become the province of philosophers, artists, theologians, youth organizations, feminists, businessmen, farmers, fishermen, and any and every other individual person and organized group, no matter what their status, station, or other concerns may be. It has, in other words, transcended the boundaries of a military or political issue. Therefore, the elimination of the threat of nuclear war requires a general solution acceptable to all the separate nations and interest-groups in the world, excepting of course those who may think that their greatest interest is in the perpetuation of this threat. It must be admitted at the outset that it is at least a possibility that the problem is perpetuated precisely because there may be such an interest group as this It would presumably be found among political and military elites, ideologues who wish to impose their views on the rest of the world (or those who fear that others might impose their views on them in the absence of opposition), religious fanatics who see in the atom some higher manifestation of God~s will and blessings, and those economic interests which profit or prosper from a continuation of arms build-ups and the threat of nuclear war.
Other factors which are responsible for the existence of the threat of nuclear war might include a wider historical sociological, or evolutionary process which would be more difficult to identify and correct through the initiation of particular political policies or programs. Perhaps we should then distinguish, at the outset, between particular factors which have brought about the threat of nuclear war and which therefore may be immediately corrected, and general ones which are not associated with any particular actions or designs, but have instead evolved spontaneously and in a way which has thus far defied any comprehensive analysis or control. Any complete program the purpose of which is to eliminate the threat of nuclear war would thus have to address both kinds of conditions, and have within it the capability of altering and correcting those factors which now make war increasingly likely or inevitable. In order to provide for a harmonious future free of the threat of nuclear war, the program would have to address the political, military, economic, social, and moral issues simultaneously.
Thus, even if some political and military agreement could be reached which would result in every nation of the world dismantling and disposing of its nuclear arsenals, there would still be the hidden threat of some nation having concealed or surreptitiously produced nuclear weapons which could then be brought out and used with devastating effect before any retaliation was possible. Or, even if the vast majority of people in the world and their governments became united behind a unanimous consensus of intellectual and spiritual leaders in opposing nuclear arsenals and other forms of serious, violent conflict, it would be to no avail so long as military leaders continued to possess the weapons and the capability of using them. Under these circumstances, the rest of us would, in effect, be held hostage by those in possession of the weapons, much as a highjacker or other outlaw threatens the lives of those within his reach. Thus, it is necessary both to dispose of nuclear weapons and to rid ourselves of the desire to ever have them or use them, again. We are in need of both a practical program to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons and the other technologies with which they could be re-created and a set of philosophical principles amounting to an ideology which can be generalized and agreed to by every nation and interest group capable of constructing nuclear weapons.
We might begin with a moral imperative similar to the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism, or Kant's Categorical Imperative. For instance:
THOU SHALT NOT MINE, CONCENTRATE, OR FABRICATE RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
Such an imperative could and under present conditions should be taught as one of the most basic moral rules of civilization and survival as well as a practical principle of the greatest relevance. Through the use of films and testimonies, it could be clearly distinguished from those abstract principles which many know but few observe. Perhaps it could be included in all the religious creeds.of the world, or in different form, appended to pledges of allegiance, and struck on the coins and printed on the currency of every nation. Fortunately, it is precisely the kind of principle which everyone might enthusiastically adhere to and defend. "Peace, Non-pollution, Non-depletion" or "Peace, Renewal, Evolution" might be seen as more effective statements of the same principle.
The abolition of war, itself, has been a topic of concern to nearly every major philosopher, moralist, and religious leader. Solutions have included everything from a monolithic world state or federation to vegetarianism, population control, the abolition of the state, and universal equality. Although this question is beyond the scope of the present article, the author believes that until war, itself, is a thing of the past there will henceforth always be a threat of nuclear war.
An anti-nuclear imperative, in order to be effective, would have to have the same moral force as other evolved principles such as those against murder, rape, cannibalism, torture, and so forth. The more precise analogy, again, is that of social institutions which were at one time sanctioned (for example, the aforementioned slavery and racial supremacy which had been implemented in the forms of colonialism and genocide) but later abandoned or disavowed.
In addition to the automatic moral repugnance felt by almost anyone at the prospect of having our world destroyed through the follies of militarists and politicians, there is a formal, logical criticism which may be meaningful to strategists or others who would attempt to justify the existence of nuclear arsenals. This may be stated as follows: nuclear weapons can have a purpose only so long as they are exclusive or limited to one group or ethnic community. When everyone has nuclear weapons, the consequences are demonstrably negative-sum. No one can benefit, but instead, all must lose from the maintenance of nuclear arsenals. Therefore, nuclear weapons are not a useful instrument of foreign policy, national security, or any of the other purposes for which they were supposedly developed once it becomes clear that the use of them could precipitate a nuclear war and the destruction of civilization.
IV. THE "PEACEFUL" USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
The argument against the so-called peaceful uses of nuclear energy rests on two demonstrable assumptions:
(1) Because of their longevity and danger to genetic continuity, nuclear wastes can neither be safely disposed of (isolated) nor allowed to.be dispersed in the environment.
(2) There is no way to separate nuclear power technologies from nuclear weapons technologies. Materials can be surreptitiously diverted from the former to the latter either by governments or by extra-legal groups (conspiracies of scientists, terrorists, etc.)
Both (l) and (2) apply to societies as they now exist and to all known technologies and processes which are now. in existence or envisioned for the next several decades or more to come. It is, however, conceivable that
(a) nuclear power technologies may he developed which are inherently safe and non-polluting, and
(b) under some sort of unitary, quasi-theological or militarist world state, it would be possible to develop sufficient conscience, obedience, and/or psycho-social harmony to reduce the threat of diversion and nuclear terrorism or even the threat of war, itself, to insignificant proportions.
The present argument assumes present circumstances and is sufficient in itself in that it merely says that democratic, pluralistic, open societies are not compatible with nuclear technologies as they now exist. Anyone wishing to advocate nuclear technologies as having a place in some future quasi-utopian society must therefore construct and defend that different society as well as the specific nuclear technologies which are held to be potentially harmless and economically feasible.
[***This is perhaps the only paragraph in this essay which I would now change or delete. Some readers seem to have taken it as being an argument AGAINST "democratic, pluralistic, open societies". That, of course, is what I mean to maintain and expand.***]
V. CONCLUSION
If there is a way to reverse the present course of events without first experiencing the bitter lesson of a nuclear war (which might, indeed, be the lesson to end all lessons and the very end of civilization, itself), it can only be through a determined effort at citizen education and political action -- one which is so important and yet so difficult to achieve that it must require an extraordinary kind of philosophical and moral justification as well as a level of commitment and a dedication of energies and resolve equal to that demanded by governments and military organizations, themselves. Like freedom fighters and enemies of oppression in every age, we must now pledge our unyielding support, including our time and other resources to the cause of civilization and in opposition to the weapons-makers and politicians who have usurped our capacity to choose the path of peace and sanity.
If there was ever a time to take the idea of world brotherhood seriously and to work towards mutual understanding among all the peoples of the world, it is certainly the present. We must resolve whatever serious differences divide us and take the role of moral agents in the cause of progress and reconciliation. The only certain means of achieving this goal is to travel, visit, share, and to the greatest extent possible, equalize our respective conditions of life and opportunities for health, comfort, and happiness. We of the more prosperous regions of the world must learn responsibility in the consumption of resources -- especially when these are non-renewable and taken from regions of the world which do not even possess the bare necessities of survival. So long as the nuclear powers remain islands of prosperity and might in a world of poverty, envy, and resentment there will never be freedom from the threat of nuclear war.
No comments:
Post a Comment