Environmental Ethics
and Public Policy
Ernest Partridge, Ph.D
www.igc.org/gadfly


HOME PAGE                             
                                                   
Editorials 
    Philosophy and Religion
    Ethics, Moral Issues, the Law
    The Environment
    Economics
    Education
    Science

On Politics
    The Crisis
    Foreign Relations, War, Peace
    The Media
    The Elections
    Civil Liberties and Dissent
    Republicans & the Right
    Democrats & the Left
    Lies, Propaganda & Corruption
    Culture War & Religious Right
    Coup d'Etat, 2000

Published Papers

Unpublished Papers

Reviews, Lectures, etc.    

Internet Publications

Jottings

Lecture Topics

Conscience of a Progressive
    (A Book in Progress)

A Dim View of Libertarianism

Rawls and the Duty to Posterity
    (Doctoral Dissertation)

The Ecology Project

For Environmental Educators

The Russian Environment

NO MO PO MO
    (Critiques of Post Modernism)

Notes from the Brink
    (Peace Studies)

The Gadfly's Bio Sketch

The Gadfly's Publications

The Online Gadfly: Editorial Policy
 


The Gadfly's E-Mail: gadfly@igc.org


Classical Guitar:
"The Other Profession
"

 

 

 

TWO GIANT STEPS BACKWARD

By Ernest Partridge
University of California, Riverside
www.igc.org/gadfly // gadfly@igc.org

June, 2000
 

Step One: "Strategic Defense" Ė Itís BAAACK!

In 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed a "Strategic Defense Initiative" Ė a "space shield" against incoming nuclear missiles. George W. Bush promises to renew the "initiative," and Bill Clinton is toying with the scheme, despite the strenuous objections of the NATO allies . Missile defense was a bad idea during the Reagan era, and it is a bad idea now.

First of all, it probably would not work, and much more to the point, even if (however improbably) it did work, it would be useless.

In a recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, validates what we have heard and read about the feasibility of the scheme. A determined effort by an aggressive power to defeat missile defense, through the use of decoys, would probably succeed. "Tests" of anti-ballistic devices are directed more toward the task of persuading the public and the Congress, and at authentic research and development.  Critics have characterized such "tests" as "strapped chicken demonstrations."  

Back in the Reagan/SDI days, we pointed out the ease with which missile defense might be defeated, and so we will not repeat that argument here. (See "Star Wars: The National Sanity Test," this site).

But never mind all that. Just suppose that we might devise a system that could stop an errant ICBM, launched by some "rogue state." What would that accomplish? Virtually nothing, I suggest.

The trajectory of an ICBM launched at an American city can be plotted with near certainty back to the launch site. If such a missile successfully took out its target, we can be sure that North Korea or Iraq or some such "rogue state" responsible for the launch would soon be reduced to rubble. In short, an ICBM launch is a plain act of personal and national suicide.

So clearly, any national or sub-national entity (e.g., the mafia or the Abu Nidal group, etc.) would choose a delivery system that would hide the place or group of origin. These might include "suitcase devices" in autos, aircraft or ships, or possibly an off-shore "lob". In addition, none of these require the advanced technology, inflated budgets and readily detectable trail of evidence entailed by the deployment of ICBMs.

And none of these far more likely scenarios would be the least bit affected by an anti-missile defense system.

There are other consequences as well. The 1972 ABM treaty with Russia will have to be revised or, assuming a likely Russian refusal to revise, abrogated. Facing an opposing missile defense system, the Russian government would be under irresistible pressure to reactivate and expand its offensive missile forces. This is a safe assumption since it precisely what the West would do if faced with the prospect of a Russian missile defense system.

It takes little historical memory to realize that this is precisely the mind-set that dominated, and arguably prolonged, the Cold War. Despite the advice of wiser and cooler heads among Western European leaders, it is a mind-set that has apparently recaptured the adherence of the American leaders of both parties.

Moreover, this confrontational mind-set is totally inappropriate to the greater nuclear dangers that we face today. The greatest danger, by far, is a terrorist act, with the nuclear "device" delivered by briefcase or truck, as with World Trade Center or the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Prevention of such a disaster calls for close cooperation and coordination among international and state security agencies, such as Interpol, the CIA and FBI in the United States, and the FSB in Russia. "Human intelligence" must be cultivated within terrorist groups and "rogue nations," security files and surveillance data of many nations must be integrated, international inspection agencies must be reactivated, and acutely sensitive radiation detection devices must be developed and deployed.

If, somehow, "missile defense" is a technological imperative that cannot be stopped, then it should be made an international project Ė not merely "shared" with Russia, China, and NATO, but still more openly developed with and deployed by these powers. Only then might we avoid a renewed arms race.

Alas, "integration" and "cooperation" seems furthest from the minds of our national leaders, including it seems the ex-KGB officer who is now the President of Russia. "Strategic theory" that was hard-wired in the heads of our leaders during the cold war and which remains active in numerous careers and investments, still seems to control our policies.

How else are we to explain the return of the "missile defense" fantasy?
 


 

Step Two: The Putin Putsch


With a stroke of the Presidential pen, "the Russian environmental crisis" has been eliminated Ė at least, as a matter of official concern of the federal government. For in late May President Vladimir Putin abolished the State Committee for Environmental Protection (Goskomekology).

Unfortunately, the air and water of Russia remain as polluted as ever, nuclear wastes remain in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Japan, and in the soil of Chelyabinsk and Semipalatinsk. The life expectancy of the Russians is the lowest in Europe, and is falling, as is the population of Russia. All these tragic legacies of environmental neglect during the Soviet regime remain, and, with Putinís decree, are even less likely to receive the attention and remedies that are so urgently needed.

By abolishing Goskomekology, Putin appears to share the view of many leaders of the US Congress along with their corporate sponsors Ė namely, that environmental protection and renewal are subversive of economic growth and prosperity. This complaint, which has been heard persistently since the first Earth Day thirty years ago, has been thoroughly demolished by the economic performance of the industrial world during the same interval. The "economics vs. environment" argument has even less credence in Russia, which is unlikely to experience economic prosperity with a work force devastated by environmentally induced illness and with a perpetually deteriorating  resource base. Gaylord Nelsonís rule applies universally: "the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment." There is no prosperity on a ruined planet.

The community of Russian environmentalists has not received news of Putinís decree passively. The deposed Minister of Environmental Protection, Viktor Danilov-Danilyan denounced Putinís decision in a public news conference. Former Presidential advisor and leading activist, Alexey Yablokov along with numerous members of the Russian Academy of Scientists have publicly protested the move, as have leaders of the Socio-Ecological Union. Indeed, protests from across the spectrum of Russian Environmental NGOs have been sent to the President.

As the accompanying material will testify (see The Putin / Goskomekology Controversy, this site) , the Russian environmental leaders have called upon concerned environmental scientists and activists throughout the world to express their displeasure at Putinís decree, and we herein convey that call to our readers. (See, "To Express Your Opinion," this site). Unfortunately, the force of international protest may be muted in Putinís ears, since he has often expressed his belief that domestic environmental groups serve as havens for foreign spies.

Late word from our Russian friends is that Putinís decision is not set in stone, and that he might be persuaded to rescind it. If so, then perhaps at this very moment, the Presidential mind may be an arena of conflict between two contending perspectives: one is the surviving mind-set of a former KGB officer and cold-warrior, who suspects nefarious foreign subversion behind domestic political dissent. The other is of an educated lawyer and a recent associate of a progressive political leader (the late Anatoly Sobchuk), capable of being persuaded by scientific evidence and expertise, and open to an appreciation of the global scope of an environmental crisis that unites an international community of scholars and activists in a common cause.

We suggest that Vladimir Putin be given the benefit of the doubt, as he is respectfully if forcefully presented with the weight of informed scientific opinion regarding the gravity of the environmental conditions in Russia. He should also be allowed space and opportunity for a "graceful retreat."

Greatness of leadership is measured, not only by correct decisions, but also by a leaderís response to erroneous decisions. Eisenhowerís behavior after the U2 incident, Khruschevís decision to remove the missiles from Cuba, Kennedyís acceptance of blame for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, all come to mind. In contradistinction, history does not kindly judge a leaderís dogged refusal to admit error. Lyndon Johnsonís pursuit of the VietNam War is a case in point.

By abolishing the Committee on Environmental Protection, President Putin has made a portentous error. Now, in the face of national and international protest, he faces another decision. He might display a stubborn courage of his unfortunate conviction, or he may yield to the evidence of Russian and world science, and to the manifest needs and sentiments of the Russian people. If the latter, he may more than recover the stature lost by his decree; he will also receive the gratitude and admiration of his compatriots and of people throughout the world who sincerely wish for the success of the new Russian democracy.

These "two steps" Ė missile defense and the abolition of Goskomekology Ė move the governments and peoples of Russia and the West further apart, and set both nations upon a course leading to further separation and even conflict. A unilateral American program in missile defense will surely renew Russian suspicions of US intentions which will lead in turn to a resumption of the arms race. An abolition in Russia of a Federal ministry of environmental protection, combined with a libeling of environmental NGOs as "subversive," separates Russia from the cooperative international effort toward global environmental protection and renewal.

This is not what we had expected or hoped for, a decade ago, when the Soviet Union fell and a Russian democracy was in prospect. Both of these ominous backward "steps" are recent enough to be open for reconsideration, halted in their tracks, and reversed.

Dare we hope?

Copyright 2000 by Ernest Partridge
 


Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org).  Dr. Partridge can be contacted at: gadfly@igc.org .