Empire and Terror in the Nuclear Age
A lecture by Dr. Zia Mian
March 5, 2005
Summary by Phoebe Hoss
Zia Mian, a physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University and an authority on issues of nuclear disarmament and war and peace, gave us some realistic insights into a central issue of our time and nation: the United States's use of terror in this nuclear age.
This year marks the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's papers that laid the basis of the nuclear age. From early on, the prospect was viewed both as a possibility and with fear; and in the 1930s, physicists agreed to stop publishing papers on nuclear physics and weapons. The Nazis' efforts to build a bomb, however, led to our efforts to build one.
Before World War II, President Roosevelt begged Great Britain and Germany not to attack cities and civilians. Nonetheless, during the building of the first atomic bomb, the U.S. proposed strategic bombing to destroy Germany's political morale, the justification for this measure being "unashamedly terror." We went ahead and bombed European cities and then Japan. Now strategic bombing is a staple of military strategy.
The first historical proposal to build a "dirty bomb" was made during the Manhattan Project when the physicist Enrico Fermi suggested that the U.S. produce radioactive bombs to poison and kill populations. The minimum requirement for such a bomb was that it kill half a million people. Thus, Mian noted, from the Nazis we have internalized the idea of a psychopathic genocidal regime - a lesson we have refused to recognize.
After the war, there was the question of whether to build even bigger bombs. In a secret debate among scientists at the highest level, reported in Herbert York's The Advisers, the majority advised against building for ethical and political reasons: it would continue a policy of genocide. Even more strongly opposed was a dissenting minority who considered stronger bombs as "evil when seen in any light." Ignoring this advice, our government went ahead and built a stronger bomb - the hydrogen bomb. Today the U.S. and Russia each has about 10,000 weapons ready to be used in 15 minutes. Nuclear weapons are robust, destined to last 40, 60, 100 years.
Another lesson arising from all this: "People learn, but institutions prevail." And a third: "Institutions prevail in all circumstances" even when the rationale is no longer operative.
Mian used as examples of terrorism's history two attempts to fight the British Empire: Gandhi's nonviolent one, where tens of thousands of people were sent to jail, and people suffered and sacrificed; and, earlier, our own violent American Revolution. The U.S. belongs in the tradition of a colony fighting for its freedom - like Jewish armed forces against the British in Palestine, the Palestinians today, and other attempts by third-world countries to throw off foreign domination.
Since Henry Luce's 1941 essay on the "American Century," the idea that the United States is an empire has been both embraced and resisted. Today our administration wholly embraces it. Still, the U.S. probably won't last long as an empire, the history of the last 60-100 years around the world having been one of independence. Zia Mian thinks that violence is never justified, even against an empire. Yet fighting against those who dominate isn't easy. You need to understand power and how it works. You need to recognize that in the process of getting independence, you may develop institutions that aren't fit to govern, institutions that reflect the old colonial relations that oppressed you in the first place.
As for the Muslims and jihad: Today more and more Muslims see the U.S. as a source of injustice and death in daily life. Jihad is a modern invention: maybe started in the 1980s, in Afghanistan when we paid and armed the mujahideen - thus teaching them how terror works - in order to drive out the USSR.
The fear that sooner or later nuclear weapons will be used is well founded. Only a comparably awesome power can make the U.S. back off. There are on both sides cold-blooded murderers. The U.S. has created an enemy that thinks like us: we think that if we terrorize with nuclear weapons, they'll give in - but they'll use them, too.If this is the dialectic, Mian wound up, who can break it?
At the conclusion of his talk, Dr. Mian was generous in answering questions.
Why is there no public mention of our putting a 9/11 on Indochina and Vietnam for 15 years?
What people remember is what happens to them. It's uncomfortable to acknowledge that your country has done terrible things, to find out that you aren't who you thought you were.
- Re Israel and Sharon's recent aligning with the center, can coalitions within a nation turn it around?
-
This is a bad example. Israel's is a defensive coalition, not forward looking. They're determined to get and keep what they want, international law be damned.
-
Rather than a coalition, one should attempt to build countervailing institutions. Canada's recent decision not to join the U.S. in missile defense was a direct result of popular movement.
-
Also, why have a coalition when we have the United Nations? Dr. Mian reminded us of the origins of the Security Council veto: after much debate, though the USSR was willing to live without a veto, the U.S. was not. The U.S. Secretary of State said: No veto, no U.S.
The question that arose after 9/11: "Why do they hate us?"
-
The question is a huge distraction. It's irrelevant: to think in terms of hate rather than of politics, of fairness, justice, power.
What about nuclear energy versus oil?
-
This is the most political question facing the world.
-
You can't separate nuclear weapons from nuclear energy, waste involved in both. Nuclear energy has created a problem we didn't anticipate and have no idea how to solve. Nuclear waste will last hundreds of years. We need to make sure it doesn't get into the environment, so we mustn't bury it.
-
We need to learn to do with less. We're going to have to make choices re capitalism and our life style in respect to nuclear energy.
-
It's not rational to end the world you live in.
Shouldn't war be a criminal offense?
-
It is. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, war is the highest international crime; and the U.N. Charter speaks of the "scourge of war".
-
The real issue is social justice, the core of everyday politics.
|
|
