Noam Chomsky: How Close the World Is to Nuclear War

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/266-32/17025-focus-noam-chomsky-how-close-the-world-is-to-nuclear-war

Laray Polk: What immediate tensions do you perceive that could lead to nuclear war? How close are we?

Noam Chomsky: Actually, nuclear war has come unpleasantly close many times since 1945. There are literally dozens of occasions in which there was a significant threat of nuclear war. There was one time in 1962 when it was very close, and furthermore, it's not just the United States. India and Pakistan have come close to nuclear war several times, and the issues remain. Both India and Pakistan are expanding their nuclear arsenals with US support. There are serious possibilities involved with Iran - not Iranian nuclear weapons, but just attacking Iran - and other things can just go wrong. It's a very tense system, always has been. There are plenty of times when automated systems in the United States - and in Russia,it's probably worse - have warned of a nuclear attack which would set off an automatic response except that human intervention happened to take place in time, and sometimes in a matter of minutes. That's playing with fire. That's a low-probability event, but with low-probability events over a long period, the probability is not low.

There is another possibility that, I think, is not to be dismissed: nuclear terror. Like a dirty bomb in New York City, let's say. It wouldn't take tremendous facility to do that. I know US intelligence or people like Graham Allison at Harvard who works on this, they regard it as very likely in the coming years - and who knows what kind of reaction there would be to that. So, I think there are plenty of possibilities. I think it is getting worse. Just like the proliferation problem is getting worse. Take a couple of cases: In September 2009, the Security Council did pass a resolution, S/RES/1887, which was interpreted here as a resolution against Iran. In part it was, but it also called on all states to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's three states: India, Pakistan, and Israel. The Obama administration immediately informed India that this didn't apply to them; it informed Israel that it doesn't apply to them.

If India expands its nuclear capacity, Pakistan almost has to; it can't compete with India with conventional forces. Not surprisingly, Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons with indirect US support. The Reagan administration pretended they didn't know anything about it, which of course they did. India reacted to resolution 1887 by announcing that they could now produce nuclear weapons with the same yield as the superpowers. A year before, the United States had signed a deal with India, which broke the pre-existing regime and enabled the US to provide them with nuclear technology - though they hadn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's in violation of congressional legislation going back to India's first bomb, I suppose around 1974 or so. The United States kind of rammed it through the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and that opens a lot of doors. China reacted by sending nuclear technology to Pakistan. And though the claim is that the technology for India is for civilian use, that doesn't mean much even if India doesn't transfer that to nuclear weapons. It means they're free to transfer what they would have spent on civilian use to nuclear weapons.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. "There is another possibility that, I think, is not to be dismissed: nuclear terror"

To accomplish what?

We just saw a terrorist attack here in the US. What did it accomplish? It killed a beautiful little boy who all loved from his photo, and few other good people from all over the world. It took the legs off other people who messed with no one but really enjoyed running. It solidified the will of the people against whatever the cause of these terrorists is. The world watched as behind the flags of many nations, these crimes took place - and all were disgusted.

Nuclear terror is the same thing times 1,000. Useless as far as advancing any agenda whatsoever in a modern society where people with different ideas are so mixed together in the same places all over the world. While so many other tactics work to influence the course of the world, especially those which try to inform people using the net, terrorism simply isn't one of them. Even the US military, who tried to take over Iraq in a compassionate manner, talking about the goodness of the people there and so forth, has meet a wall of futility in their aims due to the violence showed in places like Fallujah. Generations will be talking about what bastards they are for the white phosphorous. To wit - experiment after experiment, experience after experience shows that it's the loving ones, the brave but non-violent ones, like MLK, who influence world events in a lasting and sustainable way. Yet it takes many so long to get wise.

However, the atom bomb is a product of science. Scientists of any stripe who do the research can see the validity of what I'm saying, how non-violent efforts are most effective at shaping the world. Anyone who would play the game at such a high level as to seek this fruit of scientists must also see the same. Its useless, there is no power in it. The future of the world is still in the hands of good people, trying to stand up and do the right thing.

[KG]

3. the US tried to take over Iraq in a compassionate manner?

what planet do you live on?

[LuvNewcastle]

4. I guess we killed them with kindness.

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. Talk to any soldier. They were told the Iraqis were good people, it was just Saddam, etc.

But my point is, still over the top violence was used, and still it undermined the mission there.

[Jim Lane]

7. I can see two answers.

First, nuclear blackmail could be effective. Politicians will thump their chests and vow "no negotiations with terrorists." See if they keep to that when the West Fredonian Liberation Front presents credible evidence that it has a dirty nuke in place and ready to be detonated in New York City, and it demands that the U.S. release the five WFLF leaders who've been jailed for prior activities, as well as pay a million dollars.

Second, there are fanatics out there with no understanding of the political ramifications that you outline. The historical fact is that Boston is only the latest in a long line of terrorist attacks on innocent, uninvolved people, most or all of which did indeed fail to advance the terrorists' goals. All it takes for the danger to be real is for a nuclear weapon to come into the hands of a group that thinks an act of mass slaughter will help it.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. The sad truth is I know you're right. The irrational acts continue.

But maybe that's something to look at right there. Could it be for instance that helping science education globally could reduce terrorism? Its sort of a paradox to think that the way to make terrorists less dangerous is to make them more effective.

[k2qb3]

10. To accomplish what?

An overreaching, reactionary response that bleeds the target more than it does the terrorist.

Despite all the bluster and chest-thumping the sad fact is that terrorism has proven very effective.

The Islamic terrorists are incompetent, even their successes are always poorly executed. (9/11 1 plane failed, 1 plane couldn't find its target, the other planes struck too high and dramatically reduced lethality) and yet look at the response they've gotten, a completely destabilized political order in their region of the world, with opportunities to achieve political power that never existed before, a seriously weakened United States with no appetite for war, a radically changed political climate, and an economy that can't even produce growth at negative real interest rates.

Boston is essentially the same thing, radicalizing two young morons shut down an entire city for days, captured the attention of the entire world, and will undoubtedly have persistent effects on civil liberties, security measures and the way we conduct public events.

Terrorism works because we allow ourselves to be terrorized.

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. At SOME point though we have to see through that, and move beyond.

And I think the point may be now. Even Giuliani was making sense on the TV circuit. I heard him saying something like "terrorism like this is not going to kill you." And he's right, the numbers support that. When I feel myself feeling freaked out, I always remember that song Don't Fear the Reaper, with the line "40,000 men and women every day" (about the number of people who die at the time of writing that song, now its about 150,000, 10,000 in US). So even the deaths in the towers on 9/11 2001 was just around 30% of the americans who died that day, and around 2% of the people of the world that died that day. And that was one of the biggest terrorist attacks in history.

But you are right. We will move beyond when we just keep walking forward. That's why I'll be pissed if I see this one politicized. Congress just failed to pass any gun reforms with the death of like 30 people in Newtown. If the deaths of 4 people make for major changes or loss of liberties, than we need to really stand up to it. Because all that serves to do is validate terrorism.

[bananas]

2. "with low- probability events over a long period, the probability is not low."

The house always wins.

[Mnemosyne]

5. K&R nt

[jwirr]

6. Imagine what it would be like in Boston right now if those bombs had been dirty bombs.