The conservative columnist George Will wrote a very welcome column calling attention to a book, Nuclear War: A Scenario by historian Annie Jacobsen, a riveting must-read that details just how easily deterrence could unravel, how fast and irreversibly escalation would occur, and how complete the worldwide destruction would be.
But Will undercut the value of his review by saying we ought to pay more attention to nuclear war and less to the climate crisis, of which he is a denier. Climate deniers these days are as obsolete as Holocaust deniers and surely neither should be given space in major American newspapers.
The climate crisis is inescapable, the nuclear crisis is becoming more so, and the two are inescapably intertwined.
Both crises continue because of denial. The extreme kind is exemplified by Mr. Will and, from all indications, candidate Trump—neither of these thinks global climate change is an emergency at all. That an influencer of Mr. Will’s scope has become anxious about nuclear war is a good thing. As for Mr. Trump, whatever his thoughts about nukes, it is clear he should never again be in charge of nuclear command and control (bearing in mind that no leader would be able to conduct themselves calmly in the minutes before the world ended).
Some degree of denial encompasses us all. We see the obvious indicators of climate and nuclear dysfunctionality and feel helpless. The exceptions are the Bill Mckibbens and Greta Thunbergs and their followers who have given their utmost to waking the rest of us up, including the doctors of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, or the activists in International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.
The denial of the passive mass middle around both issues includes the political establishments of many nations. Some countries are doing more than others to mitigate global warming, even as the powerful fossil fuel industry fights tooth and nail against its own looming obsolescence. On the nuclear front too many nations are renewing their arsenals. The invasion of Ukraine and China’s ongoing threat to repossess Taiwan are rendering new arms control initiatives all the more difficult—just when the aggressive pursuit of such treaties is most needed.
In the Jacobsen book it takes only 72 minutes to pretty much change the planet we know and love into a world where those still living would envy the dead. But because global warming is not just somewhere over the horizon but here now, there are going to be far too many people who will die in the summer of 2024 from the effects of heat, Mr.Will’s air-conditioned denial to the contrary.
Establishment thinking assumes that we have enough money and creativity to cope with both crises. For 35 years one member of the International Physicians for Nuclear War who is on the activist end of the spectrum, Dr. Robert Dodge, has been writing hair-on-fire editorials that apply a formula for determining how much of our tax revenue is poured down the nuclear weapons rathole. In tax year 2023, just the one small town of Ojai where Dodge lives spent $2,742,698 funding U.S. nuclear weapons programs. Ventura County, where Ojai is located in California spent $253,174,999. The total U.S. Nuclear Weapons Programs expenditure was $94,485,000,000. That’s 94 billion.
There are differences between the leaders of the nine nuclear powers. Mr. Biden has little in common with Kim Jong Un, though the other candidate for U.S. president, spending his down time in court at the moment even as he polls neck-and-neck, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Mr. Kim.
But all the leaders of the nuclear powers are failing to put the interests of the planet above the interests of their sovereign nations: they know that a nuclear war cannot be won, that launch-on-warning is insane, and that none of them could possibly be prepared for those awful minutes of decision described so powerfully by Jacobsen. But they refuse to act creatively upon the implications.
Jacobsen’s book is short on solutions, but there is a way out, and, once again, it involves the interconnection between nuclear war and the climate crisis. Start by pulling our ostrich heads out of the sand and admit the crazy dysfunctionality of nuclear deterrence. The nine nuclear powers need to sign the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons even if they may violate its provisions for some years yet. Make gestures which are quickly reversible if no other party responds, like bringing home a few nuclear-armed submarines. Convene the generals, Russia’s and China’s included, and talk about the no-exit nature of the situation—and talk unilaterally about it even if some generals refuse the invitation.
And talk equally loudly about the need for a new level of cooperation on climate. Think outside the box: the military forces of all nations happen to also be the biggest polluters. How could they work together to help with the effects of climate already here, the refugees, the water crises, the conflicts over resources? It’s a proven fact that tensions decrease when adversaries cooperate toward a common goal.
Everything has changed in our world: we can no longer deny along with powerful influencers like Mr. Will and Mr. Trump that everything we do or don’t do affects everyone else around the world and vice versa. We all breathe one ocean of air.
But there’s some consolation that were all in this together. Will the fact that leaders would die in a nuclear war along with the rest of us, or that the real war ought to be against chaos of climate effects, constrain them and push them in new directions? There’s hope in accepting our radical interdependence and acting on it. As a start, we can probe our representatives at every level with questions that drive home the connection between the two challenges.
Shorter version of letter to WAPO:
Dear Editors:
George Will’s op-ed reviewing Nuclear War: A Scenario by historian Annie Jacobsen
was most welcome. The book shows how easily deterrence could unravel, how fast and irreversibly escalation would occur, and how complete the destruction would be.
Will undercut his own review by saying we ought to pay more attention to nuclear war
and less to the climate crisis, of which he is a denier. Arguably, climate deniers are as
obsolete as Holocaust deniers. Both crises continue because of denial.
Both crises are globally existential. Jacobsen explains it takes only 72 minutes
to change the planet into a world where the living would envy the dead. Global warming is not just somewhere over the horizon but here now. Many people will die in the summer of 2024 from heat effects.
The leaders of the nine nuclear powers know that launch-on-warning is insane. None of them could possibly be prepared for those awful minutes of decision laid out by
Jacobsen. A ‘victory’ is impossible. But they do not act on the implications.
Jacobsen’s valuable book is short on solutions. The way forward connects the nuclear and the climate crises. The arms race drains scientific creativity needed to reduce global warming. The military forces of all nations are also among the biggest polluters. They can work together to reduce the effects of climate destruction. History shows that tensions decrease when adversaries cooperate toward a common goal.
It
is more pragmatic to invest in clean energy than preparation for war.
To conserve life on Earth, we all need to be "conservatives."
No comments:
Post a Comment