I wonder whether the visceral reaction to the possibility of nuclear war is in part generational. Ellsberg and I are only a few years apart in age and both of us became very involved in opposition to nuclear war when we were young. That is what explains my clumsy and rather desperate efforts to ridicule the casual references to "tactical nuclear weapons." Ellsberg understands much better than I did the concrete consequences of a nuclear war but people several generations younger seem to contemplate that possibility without an awareness of how totally terrible it would be.
It was the threat of nuclear war, rather than economic inequality or racial oppression or gender oppression, that first drove me into political activity, and now, 65 years later, we are living with the society-ending threats that so many of us saw then and protested against unsuccessfully.
Ellsberg was an undergradyate, a Junior Fellow and then a graduate student in economics at Harvard when I was there but I do not recall ever having met him.
6 comments:
I think that's probably right.
Ultimately I can only report on my own state of mind, and am far from claiming that my priorities are correct, but I'd guess I speak for some of my peers (as an older Millennial in a Midwestern US city) when I say that the most genuinely, viscerally upsetting world event was the election of Trump. I (we?) had always taken it for granted that "people can't possibly be that ignorant and horrible" - at least not in large enough numbers to be truly disastrous; with Trump's victory, that sense of security vanished overnight.
9/11 would be a distant second, but that's mostly because of age (early 'teens at the time) and location. Things that haunt me on an almost daily basis (apart from many more self-centered worries) include mainly climate change as well as the sense that the Republicans aren't going away - hence the threat that rights will erode and that inequality and misery will prevail (to a greater degree than under the Democrats, at any rate).
I don't doubt for a moment that you have a more appropriate level of concern about nuclear war; honestly, I simply don't want to contemplate it. Reality does creep in now and then, but overall I find it too much to deal with - I don't want to be more fearful and miserably insecure about the future than I already am.
I think you may be right, that it's a generational thing.
If so, perhaps in part it's because for some time we seem not to have been presented with depictions of the awfulness of nuclear war (though perhaps I just haven't been paying attention).
But it may also be due to the fact that the various treaties respecting nuclear weapons have engendered a sense that the situation is under control. (That could also be why depictions of the horrors have disappeared?)
On the bright side, I suppose, we don't--yet--seem to have new Herman Kahns telling us how we might fight a nuclear war. One might hope that Philip Green put an end to that sort of pseudo-rational propaganda with his "Deadly Logic" book. On the other hand, I have read in various places that there are people in influential places in D.C. who actually do think that nuclear wars can be fought. I can, unfortunately, envisage some powerful person standing amidst the rubble proclaiming 'we've kicked the nuclear syndrome.'
A further possible downside in our future: if any Herman Kahns do come along, they're unlikely to be as comedic as he could be in live presentations. (It takes someone of a certain age to have experienced that.)
But when all is said and done, it's that perhaps widespread notion, that we have somehow brought nuclear weapons under control, that I find terrifying, not least because so much of that control seems to be lodged in computer-AI systems that arrive at conclusions faster than people can think. Just imagine that if such systems can cause huge economic collapses because of some 'misjudgement,' . . . Well, I need say no more.
I did meet him once. It was at a protest or rally I think back in the late 80s in the Bay Area. I was with Michael Parenti and Michael introduced me to Ellsberg, saying that I was writing a book on the Constitution. Ellsberg then said to me that I needed to read everything written on the Constitution of a critical nature or words to that effect. I can't remember the exact wording or context, just that Ellsberg came across as someone trying to impress upon me that I needed to be very thorough and serious. Good Lord, I thought, I'm nowhere near that level. I thought Ellsberg's The Doomsday Machine, apart from being mind numbingly scary, did showcase the level of thorough scholarship he had advocated. An amazing whistle-blower, for sure.
David Palmeter: There’s no disputing the scientific consensus that [Ellsberg] notes on the effects of nuclear war. But he doesn’t say how we should react to that, other than to (implicitly) deplore what we’re doing now. But what, exactly, should be our policy with regard to nukes in a world in which people like Putin and Xi have them?...
These may be unfair questions to pose to someone in Ellsberg’s position right now, but they don’t go away, and I don’t see anyone addressing them.
Ellsberg has been very clear on this. Search for some of his articles and interviews from the past few years.
Along with Norman Solomon, Ellsberg calls for the US to unilaterally eliminate ICBMs. (Mutually disarming would obviously be preferable, but in the absence of that, someone has to go first.)
"(...someone has to go first.)"
And then what happens? Lions and lambs? Unicorns?
How about gradually reducing ICBMs to see if others follow?
Post a Comment