Reflections on the Nuclear Age

I was born almost four years after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I had no direct experience of the era leading up to World War II, and my knowledge of its fateful conclusion, like that of most “baby boomers”, was limited to seeing flickering, grainy newsreels as I sat in a school auditorium. Whether newsreel or sci-fi flick, the opening scene was always the same; an image of a surging column of smoke and ash that embroils itself upward in a thick billowing stalk and then ponderously crescendos downward to form the familiar shape, and most notorious symbol of the nuclear age, a mushroom cloud.

Like the twin towers of the World Trade Center, this image was repeated with a frequency and repetition that seared the image into the mind’s eye, and imprinted the soul with something akin to a generational scar; a scar which branded a generation with the knowledge that whatever passed for security before was no longer true.

The official version in news reels was that ‘the bomb’ was a testament to the marvels of science and American technological ingenuity. They gave them ‘cutsie’ names like ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ and quickly changed the topic to the promise of a nuclear future with plenty of cheap, clean energy.

But the rosy spin of government propaganda doesn’t last long in the hands of a popular culture. Science fiction movies quickly saw another future, one that was dark and foreboding, as the earth as we knew it was annihilated. The legacy of the next nuclear event would be stark and decimated landscapes where even the very atmosphere and weather were forever altered and human beings, the few that remained, reverted back to a desperate tenuous survival that was far from assured.

Out of the rubble of WWII, and the spectacle of a nuclear holocaust, came a renewed determination to create a world body that would prevent a repeat of the past. The United Nations was formed to rectify the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, to contain national aggressions and prevent another world war.

The United States of America, much to its shame, never signed on to the League of Nations. Only as one of the victors of WWII would it emerge from its former isolationism. The charter of the UN, like the declaration of independence for the US, proclaims a number of noble ideas about the rights of people and of nations. Yet the structure of the UN was immediately flawed and unbalanced as it established the victorious nations of WWII as permanent members of the Security Council. It was only a matter of time until each of the member nations followed the technological lead of the United States and tested their own nuclear weapons.

Then, ten years after China unveiled their first nuclear test, India too, became a member of the nuclear club. Pakistan, India’s rival, was not to be outdone, and by 1998 had developed nuclear weapons of their own. It was largely through Pakistan that North Korea gained the technological “know-how” for the development of their nuclear program. No one has admitted that Israel has conducted a nuclear test, but most believe that this nation, too, holds an arsenal of nuclear weapons. And Iran is not far behind.

Robert Oppenheimer, on seeing the first US test of a nuclear bomb in the New Mexican desert was reported to have quoted from the Bhagavad Gita:

If the radiance of a thousand suns

were to burst into the sky,

that would be like

the splendor of the Mighty One—

I am become Death, the shatterer of Worlds.

Oppenheimer advocated that no individual nation should hold the power of the atom but that it was necessary for an international body to serve as the sole authority for the management and use of nuclear resources. The United Nations was never given a clear mandate to serve as this authority, but it is clear that the limited role it has played in this effort has failed. We have been on a continued path toward nuclear proliferation, and now the rate of such proliferation is increasing. The ‘war on terror’ and the war in Iraq have been distractions that have taken our eye “off the ball,” have led to a misguided use of resources and have blinded us to seeing who are our friends and allies and how best we could secure the safety and future of our people and the people’s of the world.

Sometimes, to gain control, you must give up power

10/11/06

In an article in today’s washingtonpost.com entitled McCain Targets Both Clintons Charles Babington documents the recriminations of Senators McCain and Clinton about the degree to which policies of the Clinton or Bush administration could be considered causal to the current situation being played out with North Korea’s recent nuclear test and their belligerence on the world’s stage.

The political context of these accusations belies a larger, more ominous, origin for the current crisis, a deteriorating United Nations. The United Nations, formed after World War II to manage the brave new world ushered in by the use of nuclear weapons is in tatters. The United States, an uncontested superpower since the fall of the Soviet Union, was itself belligerent on the world stage as it marched toward Bagdad 3 years ago. Arguably, the audacity of the United States has been a model for North Korea. But a more cogent model for the actions of the government in Pyongyang is the very structure of power established and legitimatized by the current United Nations.

Russia, France, China, Britain and the US have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Each country can ultimately veto any pronouncements of this world body. It is not trivial to note that all of the permanent members of this council are nuclear powers. Nor is it trivial to note how Pakistan and India, with their acquisition of nuclear weapons, have risen in stature with the United States. Nor is it trivial that Israel has nuclear weapons but some pretend otherwise.

Why shouldn’t countries seek to have nuclear weapons? Did Native Americans with bows and arrows shun European guns and ammunition? Has any society, any culture, any nation not sought out the latest technology in weaponry once it was released from Pandora’s box?

If there is a failure in US policy, it is in decimating and trivializing the one hope we have to control the spread and use of nuclear weapons, a strong and viable United Nations. There is blame to go around. It is not only the collective failure of several presidencies in the US, but the failure of every permanent member nation of the UN Security Counsel. Collectively, they have allowed the UN to devolve into little more than an instrument for manipulation or outright rejection.

Robert Oppenheimer, called by some the father of the nuclear age, was aghast at the destructive force he had helped to unleash. He advocated for an international body to control the production, distribution and use of nuclear resources. His words fell on deaf ears.

Providing privilege and power to those who have nuclear capabilities guarantees that all countries will seek the same privilege. Today it is North Korea, tomorrow, Iran. Who will it be next week, next year? What countries still arm their warriors with bows and arrows?

The United Nations must be an inclusive, fair body for the deliberation of relationships between countries. It won’t matter much whether the next president is a Republican or a Democrat if there is no unity among the nations of the world. We must support the UN, make it stronger and more effective and recognize that sometimes, to gain control, you must give up power.

What does North Korea Want?

North Korea has, it seems with forthright honesty, set forth its agenda to develop and have nuclear weapons. Now they have made a test of one of these, and, though perhaps not a complete success, their boldness provokes us and other nations and makes the world less secure.

The leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il, has made it clear that North Korea’s nuclear aspirations are directly linked to their fear of the militarily aggressive United States. Why would they fear us? After all, they don’t have anything we want, certainly not oil. Even the raw material which could bolster our own stockpile of weapons-of-mass-destruction, uranium ore, is not, to my knowledge, in great abundance in their region of the world.

Perhaps they are afraid of the United States of America because they have heard our leaders refer to them as one of several countries that form an ‘Axis of Evil’. Perhaps they are afraid of the USA because the current sitting president of this once great nation has proclaimed a jihad of democracy around the world. Perhaps North Korea is afraid of us because the United States seems to be subverting, manipulating and finally directing for their own ends the wholly legitimate grievances of other nations (1).

Where should North Korea look for a model of how to comport with the powerful United States? What could establish its influence, what could assure its own security from the foreign aggression of a ‘superpower’?

North Korea seems to be throwing in its lot with the United Nations, even as it defies the organization’s attempts to control its nuclear ambitions. Why not? The United States and Israel behave similarly, as do many other nations that spurn UN resolutions, only to call for their own. North Korea doesn’t want to just be a member of the general assembly. It is posturing to become a member of that exclusive club, the permanent members of the Security Council. The core of the security council of the United Nations is not an elected body. Contrary to the often repeated proclamations from the current US president that the United States believes in a world run by democracy, no permanent member nation on the UN’s Security Counsel believes in democracy. The one belief held in common by all permanent members of the Security Council is that their possession of nuclear weapons assures their privileged veto power over any and all pronouncements of this world body.

Russia, France, China, Britain and the US have the permanent seats on this council – PERMANENT SEATS. How could any nation without nuclear weaponry hope to achieve even a modicum of parity, of equality, for their opinions and beliefs? What choice is there in the undemocratic United Nations ruled by a junta of nations possessing weapons of mass destruction but to acquire these nihilistic weapons for their own nations? After all, the veto is but a metaphor for the fact that nuclear deterrence, once a superpower game, is now being played by just your ordinary, every day nations as well.

North Korea has surely not been blind to the increased stature of India and Pakistan with their acquisition of nuclear weapons. Iran, too, is playing the nuclear card, albeit with a bit more finesse, as they proclaim, and rightfully so, their desire for control over their energy needs. Israel, meanwhile, sits quietly out of the nuclear limelight, but holding that nuclear card, none-the-less.

“Do as I say, not as I do” is not a very cogent example for the world to follow. North Korea sees how the game is played and is playing it, as is Iran. We are distracted by the threat of terrorism even as we fuel the fires of nuclear proliferation.

North Korea’s nuclear ambition is only a symptom of a larger threat, the demise of the United Nations. We have seen the chaos and civil strife caused by our ‘removal’ of a government, even a lousy government, for the people of Iraq. What will happen when the United Nations, even a lousy United Nations, dies, in part, from our neglect and failure to institute democratic forms for this world government?

If we, as a democracy, do not promote equality for all nations, rich and poor, how can we expect North Korea, or any other nation, not to pursue nuclear weapons?

It is the right of a people to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes destructive of the self evident truths that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Alter the UN, make it a truly democratic government, or face the fact that the people of the world will abolish it, and god (any and all gods) help us if that happens.

References:

(1) The last sentence in this paragraph is a paraphrase from Robert S. McNamara, ironically, spoken in reference to the communist ambitions of the Soviet Union and China. (Robert S. McNamara: The Essence of Security. Reflections in Office: Haper and Row. 1968),

Various news reports on the nuclear test by N. Korea in media from 10/9 and 10/10/06

The United States Declaration of Independence

10/10/06 in Cincinnati, OH (version as of 10/12/06 at 10:12 am)

Word count: 898

What should we say to them?

A constellation of recent news items deserves comment:

Controversy over cartoons, initially published by the Danish paper Jyllands, that are caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, have sparked a continuing controversy lead by several Muslim leaders and groups.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673908.stm

• A cartoon by Tom Toles in last Sunday’s Washington post drew protest from several high ranking military officers, including General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The cartoon depicts a bandaged soldier without legs or arms being ministered to by a doctor named Rumsfeld saying, “I’m listing your condition as “battle hardended.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102465.html

• A complaint filed by an Indian actress, Khushboo against the magazine Maxim for publishing a faked photo of her in underwear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4666278.stm

Free Speech? Rude and inconsiderate? Inciting a riot?

Most of us have experienced a situation in which someone says something that, even as we acknowledge to ourselves is inappropriate, we want to laugh. Humor is like that. Laughter, when it is not out of joy is often out of despair. I’ve also seen my share of diversity video’s and sexual harassment training films that are valid; tools to help people understand that humor is often at someone else’s expense. Jokes are fashionable within a very limited range of political correctness, and a funny line that may have been okay to repeat at the office in 1975, may be way out-of-line today.

In all things there is a balance. Freedom of speech, to be sure, is one of the greatest freedoms of all. Yet just because a person can say anything doesn’t mean they should. Every speech that is delivered has an audience, and every speechmaker tailors their speech to their audience. The language, the idiom, the content, and, yes, the jokes, are all orchestrated to be received by a particular group of people, a group that shares an affiliation with the speaker. For exclusive audiences ideas may coincide, or, if they differ, there is still some basis for understanding in which shared humor becomes a bridge to understand one another, to share in that condition of humanity that lets us laugh in spite of our differences.

But take that same speech, devoted to that target audience, and present it to another group and the applause might readily turn to boo’s. Scorn may replace praise. Anger may replace what was previously a happy concurrence of opinion.

On the world stage, in the public forum, the audience is no longer a hand picked group. With the limitless distribution of the internet there is no longer a targeted subscriber audience. For better or worse, it is now as if every speech intended for a select group were bugged, taped and played on loudspeakers on every corner. Our technology no longer allows for the “inside” joke. Just as the promulgation of civil liberties has diminished the exclusivity of race and gender based groups, so too, communications technology has changed the arena of social discourse.

Does this mean that much satire does and will inevitably continue to offend others? I think so. And, if I’m right, then perhaps we need to think a bit more about the results of our efforts to communicate. If we are flippant and disrespectful, are we creating a dialog that wins the hearts and minds of those we want to better understand us? If we want our views to be respected, don’t we, in turn, have to at least try and understand and respect the strongly held views of others?

We are at a crossroads in the world today. Each of us has the capacity to be heard by an audience that never existed before, an audience that can vary in size, ideology, nationality, religious expression, that can be comprised of a receptive few or of an angry mob. Those that want to reach out to us, and those who want to destroy us.

What should we say to them? And when does “us” and “them” become “we?”

Catching up

August, 2005 when I last wrote in this blog, was a long time ago. Since then, Arial Sharon has had a massive stoke and now lays in a coma. Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament. The insurgency in Iraq continues unabated and messages from Al-Qaeda suggest that hatred and fear of the United States are also largely unabated.

In the mean time, Iran moves forward with a nuclear energy program that Europe and the US fear will include the development of nuclear weapons. Exxon amasses the largest profit of any US corporation ever, 36.3 billion dollars in 2005, on an annual net income of 371 billion dollars, more then the entire GNP of Saudi Arabia for the same year.

It is hard not to be cynical. America harbors unfettered capitalism not unlike the harboring of Al-Qaeda by the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is a saying, be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. Hamas has become the ruling party in Palestine through democratically held elections. The folly of the United State’s invasion of Iraq becomes more apparent as the civil war of that country continues, Islamic fundamentalists encouraged by the lack of a strong central government. Once Iraq, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, was a moderating influence on Iran. But now Iran shuns concerns over it’s bold pursuit of nuclear capability. Iran, of course had received their initial technology and support for nuclear development from the US, France and Germany during the days when the US was its “friend.” The government back in the 70’s, though not a democracy, was amenable to US influence. The Shah was happy to kowtow to a large superpower for the rewards that he could accrue for his country. As the Hamas election victory shows, democracy is not, in itself, something that the US government considers to be sufficient for favorable foreign relations, any more then monarchal governments (such as the late Shah’s) were necessarily bad for US relations. The rhetoric of the current Bush administration belies the truth of record profits by Exxon and what they imply, that our war with Iraq is a war meant to commandeer, cajole and otherwise influence foreign powers that have the raw crude under their soil to keep it available to the US economy.

I have no allegiance to the hateful words of Hamas, or the threats of Al-Qaeda, but I also find the overthrow of the former monarch of Iraq by the US to have been equally hateful and threatening to the people of that country. The Bush administration listens to the Christian fundamentalist beliefs of its base of supporters that say that ending the life of a fetus is never justified, nor is it ever merciful to use drugs to mercifully end the life of a person in constant pain. Yet the killing of Iraqis is tolerated, promoted, continued – without any moral outrage. In fact, it is justified as the moral thing to do.

Issues of abortion, euthanasia, war, and the wide distance between poverty and wealth in income and medical care are deserving of debate and discussion. The answers to questions posed are, perhaps, less important then that discussions are held. But such discussions will never have credibility until we cease to blame others and look at ourselves.