SANITY AND SURVIVAL: A PHILOSOPHER'S VIEW
Ernest Partridge, Research Associate
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
University of Colorado
| |
"The unleashed power of the atom has
changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we
thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes."
Albert Einstein |
The "doomsday machine" in Stanley Kubrick's
classic film, "Dr. Strangelove," was designed to be triggered
irrevocably by the detonation of any nuclear weapon on the face
of the earth. Once detonated, the "doomsday machine" would so
alter the atmosphere as to destroy all human life. The designers
assumed that once the machine was deployed and "the other side"
apprised of its existence both sides would see no
possible rational justification for the continuance of the
nuclear arms race.
According to scores of eminent scientists
from the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and several other nations, we have,
in effect, already built and deployed a "doomsday machine."
However, the leaders of both great powers proceed as if they
neither knew nor believed this. For these leaders to act as if
nothing has changed, is cosmically irresponsible, for, in fact,
everything has changed. With a virtual "doomsday machine"
effectively in place, standard nuclear doctrine has lost its
last shred of rational foundation.
The "working parts" of this "doomsday
machine" are meteorological and ecological, and have come to be
called "the nuclear winter." This global prospect was presented
to millions by Dr. Carl Sagan on the ABC discussion which
followed the filming of "The Day After" last November. For the
benefit of Mr. Reagan, Mr. Weinberger, Mr. Schultz and the few
others who appear not to have heard of it, here is Dr. Sagan's
brief account:
The "nuclear winter" that will follow
even a small nuclear war, especially if cities are
targeted (as they almost certainly would be) involves a
pall of dust and smoke which would reduce the
temperatures . . . pretty much globally to subfreezing .
. . for months. In addition, it [will be] dark [and] the
radiation [will be] much more than we've been told
before. . . The biologists who have been studying this
think that there is a real possibility of the extinction
of the human species from such a war.
Subsequent scientific studies and
publications have generally tended to substantiate Prof. Sagan's
assessment.
If these analyses are correct, writes Herbert
Simon of Carnegie Mellon University, "then no nation can make a
major nuclear attack even against an unarmed opponent without
committing suicide -- without itself receiving punishment as
severe as that imposed on its intended victim." Evgeny Velikhov
of the Soviet Academy of Sciences concurs: "Nuclear weapons can
no longer be tools of war or politics; they are only instruments
of suicide... Nuclear superiority is a delusion."
While this doomsday scenario of nuclear
winter should have changed everything, it has, to use Einstein's
words, apparently "changed everything save our modes of
thinking." In the ABC discussion which followed Dr. Sagan's
depiction of the "nuclear winter" (a depiction never disputed by
the panel), such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Robert
MacNamarra, Brent Scowcroft, trotted out the familiar and
time-worn strategic litany of "window of vulnerability,"
"deterrence," "civil defense," "confrontation." All this despite
repeated references by the moderator, Ted Koppel, to the
scientists' projections. It was as if Dr. Sagan had not said a
word. Yet Sagan's pronouncement rendered the preconceptions of
the discussion participants to be at best pointless, at worst,
delusive. For example:
The "window of vulnerability," (the alleged
period of time during which our land-based ICBMs are said to be
"vulnerable" to a first strike) can be of no conceivable
advantage to the Soviets since such a strike would have to
involve at least one attacking missile for each of our 1000-plus
ICBMs. Therefore, even a "totally successful" strike involving
no retaliation against the USSR would nevertheless utterly
destroy the Soviet society. They are, in effect, equally
"vulnerable" to their own "first strike." Why then do we
continue to hear of this "window of vulnerability" as an
advantage to the Soviets?
"Retaliation" is pointless. Once one side has
set off the "doomsday machine," a massive "response" amounts to
no more than a coup de grace, immediately killing much of
the aggressor's population and thus sparing these individuals
the agony of awaiting their certain demise in the coming
"nuclear winter" -- a fate which awaits the "survivors" of both
sides. Nuclear deterrence is as rational as the scene in Mel
Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" where the Sheriff escapes from a mob
by pointing a gun to his own head, thus "taking himself
hostage."
A decision to invest in programs of "civil
defense" reduces to a preference for drawn-out death by
starvation, radiation or freezing over death by instant
vaporization. Die now or die later. "Survival" is no longer an
option. And yet, defenders of Administration nuclear policy
continue to cite the Soviet civil defense system as evidence
that "the other side" is preparing for a nuclear war. If, in
fact, the Soviets are attempting to "defend" their civilian
population, such efforts are futile. It would be folly to
imitate their exercise in futility.
Talk of "strategic confrontation" or "the
contest" or even "the enemy" is obsolete. We and the Soviets
face a common, if abstract, enemy: the consequences of our
combined technological brilliance and moral incapacity. However
brutal, deceitful, and godless many Soviet commissars may be, we
may just have to mind our own business and leave the reformation
of the Soviet government to time and the initiative of the
Soviet people. (Such a laissez faire policy is deemed by
the Reagan Administration to be quite appropriate with regard to
some despotic regimes; e.g., those of Chile and South Africa.)
Our real choice now is whether to live together or to die
together on this planet.
One of the classical criteria of sanity is
the capacity to alter one's perspective upon the world when
faced with a stark and irrefutable dose of reality. If one's
world view cannot be altered in the face of unyielding,
conspicuous fact, then one has not a world-view but a fantasy.
How do our leaders measure up to this test of sanity?
It has been nearly a year since "the nuclear
winter" was portrayed at the Washington conference -- quite time
enough for reality to seep through and for sweet reason to alter
the tone and nudge the content of these apocalyptic debates. Yet
Mr. Reagan still speaks of a "vulnerability gap" in our nuclear
forces. But vulnerable to what. In the context of
"nuclear winter," this amounts to "vulnerability" to a
deliberate Soviet decision to destroy its own population and
social system through the pointless act of destroying us. And if
we close that alleged "gap," what do we accomplish? Our
strategic forces presumably "gain" the ability to immediately
"survive" that suicidal first-strike from the Soviets -- survive
to "defend" a population fated to perish in the "nuclear winter"
which follows. Accordingly, talk of such a "gap" is worse than
false, it is absurd.
And the absurdity continues. In an interview
on ABC's "Nightline," April 10, Secretary of State Weinberger
was asked directly if U.S. nuclear policy made sense in view of
the "nuclear winter" projections. Weinberger's reply was
unresponsive (he failed even to respond to the term "nuclear
winter"), indicating that he had given the matter no serious
consideration.
Clearly, our "defense policy" no longer
defends us. Why, then, do we persist with our senseless
"strategic nuclear doctrine." Is this "doctrine," as the word
suggests, an article of faith rather than a consequence of
careful and informed deliberation? Is our defense policy in fact
the result of technological, bureaucratic, economic, even
cultural, "imperatives" --- forces that are independent not only
of human compassion, aspiration and morality, but detached from
compelling objective scientific evidence, simple logic and plain
common sense? Who or what is in charge of our destiny? Are we
guided and moved by intelligent humans and just institutions, or
by blind social/cultural forces, irrational fears--- in short,
unevaluated "doctrine?" "Official" responses to recent
scientific warnings and to the implications thereof offer bleak
assurances here.
Suppose we take the scientists' warning
seriously. What decisive steps toward sanity and survival might
we take? We begin by acknowledging that nuclear war is no longer
a credible device of intimidation, bluff or threat by one side
against the other; it is a common threat, requiring a common and
coordinated solution by both parties in concert. Talk of "first
strike," "civil defense," "winnable" or "containable" wars is
now idle and pointless; still worse, it is a dangerous
distraction from the compelling problem of accommodation. The
most urgent matters of global business before us are stabilization and
risk-reduction, not threat-escalation.
We are not helpless. Much can be done, both
unilaterally and bilaterally, to step back from the brink.
Briefly, and as a start: (a) the leaders of both great powers
should publicly recognize the "doomsday scenario" reported by
the Sagan/Erhlich conference, the National Academy of Sciences
(forthcoming), and prominent members of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences. They should acknowledge that the "nuclear winter"
described therein is sufficiently plausible to render a first
strike an act of suicidal madness, (b) both sides should then
acknowledge each other's acceptance of these facts, (c) on this
basis, these heads of government should meet in open agenda, at
the earliest opportunity and in the company of their scientific
advisors, both to display this acknowledgment and to initiate
appropriate cooperative responses, and (d) an open and permanent
Scientific Institute of Global Security should be established,
jointly sponsored by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and
the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
Is such a course of action possible? That
depends upon the willingness of our national leaders to face
simple but compelling facts of meteorology and biology, and to
realize that in the face of these facts, the groundwork of most
conventional nuclear doctrine has been swept away. A failure to
face the facts and to act appropriately amounts to a tacit
declaration that science and sanity are subversive. In the past,
the leaders of the great powers, comfortable with their
cherished prejudices and doctrines, have often behaved as is
they would rather die than reconsider those "modes of
thinking" which underlie and direct their policies. But
that may be precisely the choice before them -- and therefore,
before all of us.
___________________________________
Dr. Partridge, a philosopher, is a Research Associate at the
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES),
at the University of Colorado. (September, 1984)
