|
Harvest feast? I was much uplifted with Marianne Arbogast's
"Thanksgiving without apologies." As a vegetarian--(vegan) I sent copies
to a few friends (along with Donella Meadows excellent article). Indeed,
that issue (as always) was a Venerable feast. Nuclearism today The October Witness (10/99) continues to cope with the hard issues of today in Peter Werbe's "Campaigning for nuclear abolition now: an interview with Jonathan Schell." However, this particular piece offers some critical problems. [My reading] clearly states that national policy is aimed at abolishing nuclear weapons. The real issue is when. Gradual, not immediate, abolition is the national policy. Mr. Schell is free to disagree, but errs in not dealing with the reasons for gradual versus immediate abolition. His claim that we now "have the chance" to abolish them completely is, actually, highly debatable. What concerns this reader is Mr. Schell's implication that our policy makers do not face the possibility that a "chance" exists. The fact is that the policy of gradual abolition is the result of long-term debate about the timing of abolition. A continuing reality that Mr. Schell fails to cite is the international anarchy that reigns today. The collapse of communism has lulled us into a false sense of security. Possession of weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical and biological--is, now, possible not only for nation states but for individuals and organized crime as well. This reality is what argues for gradual rather than immediate abolition of nuclear weapons. Perhaps, the call for immediate abolition of nuclear weapons reflects today's desire for easy answers? Inquisitive readers might well begin with the March 31, 1998 statement of Edward L. Warner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Follow this document with the President's A National Security Strategy for a New Century, October 1998. Then read the National Military Strategy of the United States of America written by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Finally, Eric K. Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, sets forth his vision for the U.S. Army as of October 15, 1999 in The Army Vision: Soldiers On Point for the Nation ... Persuasive in Peace, Invincible in War. First, as I read these documents I was struck by their explicit or implied recognition of the breadth of human need in this world. More important, I was surprised to find from the military a whole body of thought that was both self-critical and humbly aware that their concerns were not the only factors to be considered. The experiences of Viet Nam and the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., founded in the early 1980s have resulted in a posture of reflection and self-awareness that permeates all of Army life today. Mr. Schell refers to "launch on warning" as the policy in force today. He errs. "Launch on warning" means that as soon as we detect a missile has been launched, we automatically launch a counter attack. In fact, this policy is no longer in effect. Further, the ground observation available today gives us knowledge that something is underway well before a launch. This means there is more than Mr. Schell's "half an hour" to decide on our response. Further, Mr. Schell tells of many among the military saying nuclear weapons should be abolished "from a strictly strategic and military point of view since they're unusable and, hence, useless." In the midst of today's international anarchy, such views ignore deterrence as a substantive strategic reason for keeping some nuclear weapons as we work for their total abolition in the longrun. Does not responsible journalism call
for The Witness [to present the other side]? |