There's a great deal more to say about terrorism – the terrorism of the
weak against the powerful and the unmentionable but far more extreme terrorism
of the powerful against the weak. That both pose severe threats is hardly in
doubt. The threats are enhanced by the fact that the policies are considered
rational within the frameworks in which they are pursued. And there's reason
for that. A major historian, Charles Tilly, who studied the history of these
issues in Europe particularly, observed quite accurately that over the last
millennium "war has been the dominant activity of European states."
And for good reason: "The central tragic fact is simple: coercion works;
those who apply substantial force to their fellows get compliance and, from that
compliance, draw the multiple advantages of money, goods, deference, access to
pleasures denied to less powerful people." It's a truism understood all
too well by most of the people of the world, even if its significance has not
penetrated the heights of intellectual enlightenment.
Well, let me turn to the third category of questions, long-term tendencies
that are underway and that will persist without the essential change, though
there's a change there too. They're being escalated as state and private
power exploit the window of opportunity that is provided by the fear and anguish
of the population after Sept. 11 and naturally use that opportunity to ram
through harsh and regressive measures that would otherwise arouse resistance. As
usual, one participant in class war pursues its path with unrelenting intensity.
It's their victims who are enjoined to be subdued and acquiescent in the
interest of patriotism. The range of measures being implemented in this fashion
is far ranging. I'll mention only a few.
The most important of them is the instant escalation of the policies that
pose the greatest immediate threat to survival, namely, expanding the means of
mass destruction. For the powerful, nuclear weapons are the weapon of choice.
The U. S. Strategic Command, the highest military authority, describes nuclear
weapons as the core of the arsenal, because "unlike chemical or biological
weapons, the extreme destruction from a nuclear explosion is immediate, with few
if any palliatives to reduce its effect.'' Furthermore, "nuclear
weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict.'' This study
advises further that planners should not "portray ourselves as too fully
rational and cool-headed." "That the United States may become
irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of
the national persona that we project.'' It's "beneficial"
for our strategic posture if "some elements appear to be potentially `out
The United States is unusual, I think unique, in the access that it allows to
high-level planning documents and I'd be rather surprised if those of other
countries were fundamentally different. The important study that I've just
been quoting from is called ``Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence," a
Clinton era document. It's been available for years but it's unknown, it's
known only to readers of dissident literature that's scrupulously marginalised,
although I presume intelligence services of other countries read it and draw the
For the future, we also have to face the fact that small nuclear weapons can
be smuggled into any country with relative ease and remember they are small –
a 15-pound plutonium bomb can be carried across a border in a suitcase.
There's a recent technical study that concludes that "a well-planned
operation to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States would
have at least a 90 per cent probability of success, much higher than ICBM
(Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) delivery even in the absence of [National
These dangers, not just to the United States, are enhanced by the most
immediate threat that was identified by a high-level U.S. Department of Energy
task force, namely, "forty thousand nuclear weapons in the former Soviet
Union, poorly controlled and poorly stored.'' One of the first acts of the
incoming Bush Administration was to cut back a small programme to assist Russia
in safeguarding and dismantling these weapons and providing alternative
employment for nuclear scientists. That decision increased the risks of
accidental launch and leakage of what are called ``loose nukes,'' followed
by nuclear scientists who have no other way to employ their skills.
Current plans for ballistic missile defence are expected to enhance the
threats further. U. S. intelligence predicts that any deployment will impel
China to develop and deploy new nuclear-armed missiles. They predict it will
expand its nuclear arsenal by a factor of ten, probably with multiple warheads,
MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles), which will
"prompt India and Pakistan to respond with their own build-ups," with
a likely ripple effect throughout the Middle East. These same analyses,
intelligence analyses and others, also conclude that Russia's "only
rational response would be to maintain, and strengthen, the existing Russian
The Bush administration announced on September 1st of this year
that "it has no objections to [China's] plans to build up its small fleet
of nuclear missiles" – that's a sharp shift in official policy -- in
the hope of gaining Chinese acquiescence to the planned dismantling of the core
arms control agreements. Chinese resumption of nuclear tests is also being
quietly endorsed. On the same day that this was announced, the national press
also reported that the Bush Administration will impose sanctions on China for
allowing the transfer to Pakistan of "missile parts and technology that are
essentially for weapons that can carry nuclear warheads." All quoting from The
New York Times. You can figure out what all that means without further
Extension of the arms race to space has been a core programme for quite a few
years. `Arms race' is a misleading term for it. The United States, for now at
least, is competing alone in this race, although there are others who appear to
be eager to join the race to mutual destruction. Rightly or wrongly, that's
how India's stand is being interpreted in the United States. That received
great applause from the more hawkish and jingoist U. S. strategic analysts.
Writing after the Foreign Minister's visit to the United States a few months
ago, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the liberal New Republic that when
President Bush unveiled his plans to expand these programmes, "the rest of
the world carped that the plan would provoke a new arms race, but India took a
mere six hours to declare its support,'' while Foreign Minister [Jaswant]
Singh boasted that Delhi and Washington are "endeavouring to work out
together a totally new security regime, which is for the entire globe.''
Whether that's the right interpretation or not, you can determine, but
that's the interpretation.
Kaplan went on to quote Administration hawks who recognised that Pakistan is
"not an ally anymore," but rather a "rogue state," unlike
India, which will now be admitted into the club that includes the United States,
Britain, Taiwan and Israel. It's true this was three months ago. And since
then all of us have observed a small lesson in Axiom One of international
affairs: States are not moral agents. Their solemn pledges mean exactly zero.
They serve domestic power interests. And they do as they please, unless they are
constrained externally or by their own citizens, the choice that lies in their
hands at least in the more free and democratic societies.
All of these programmes increase the danger of destruction for the United
States as for others. But that's nothing new. It's very common to pursue
programmes with the conscious knowledge that they increase the danger of
destruction for the participants, the advocates. The history of the arms race
during the Cold War provides many examples and there's ample precedent going
back far in history. Furthermore, all these choices make sense within the
prevailing value system.
Both of these topics bear quite directly on the assessment of the biological
success of higher intelligence. Let's look at a couple of cases. Fifty years
ago, there was only one major threat to U. S. security, at that time only
potential: ICBMs, which did not yet then exist but were being developed. It was
quite likely that the Soviet Union would have accepted a Treaty banning
development of these weapons, knowing it was far behind. There is a standard
history of the arms race by McGeorge Bundy, the National Security Adviser for
the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. He had access to internal documents. He
reported that he could find no record of any interest in pursuing the
possibility of eliminating the sole potential threat to U.S. security.
Russian archives, quite a lot of them, have been released recently and these
bear on this question. They strongly reinforce the assessments by high-level
U.S. analysts that after Stalin's death, Khrushchev, when he took over, called
for mutual reduction of offensive military forces and, when these initiatives
were ignored by the Eisenhower Administration, he implemented them unilaterally
over the objection of his own military command. Kennedy's planners, when they
came in forty years ago, doubtless shared Eisenhower's understanding that, in
his words, "a major war would destroy the Northern hemisphere." They
also knew, we now know, of Khrushchev's unilateral steps to reduce Soviet
offensive forces radically and they also knew that the United States was far
ahead by any meaningful measure. Nevertheless, they chose to reject
Khrushchev's plea for reciprocity, preferring to carry out a massive
conventional and nuclear force build-up, thus driving the last nail into the
coffin of "Khrushchev's agenda of restraining the Soviet military."
I'm quoting historian Matthew Evangelista, in a monograph reviewing the U.S.
and Soviet archival records, published by the main history project on this
Without continuing, there's not much novelty in the Clinton-Bush
To comprehend the logic of these programmes and why mutual destruction seems
an entirely rational policy to pursue, it's necessary to recall a doctrinal
truism. It's conventional for attack to be called "defence." And
this case is no exception. Ballistic missile defence is only a small component
of much more far-reaching programmes for militarisation of space. The goal is to
achieve what is called Full Spectrum Dominance, that is, a monopoly of the use
of space for offensive military purposes. These plans have been available in
public documents of the U.S. Space Command and other government agencies for
some years and the projects outlined have been under development. They were
expanded in the first months of the Bush Administration and again sharply
expanded after September 11th in a crude exploitation of the fear and
horror that was engendered by these crimes. These plans are disguised as
ballistic missile defence. But that's only a small component of what's under
development and even that small component is an offensive weapon.
That's understood by such potential adversaries as Russia and China and
also by close allies. China's top arms control official simply reflected
common understanding when he observed that "Once the United States believes
it has both a strong spear and a strong shield, it could lead them to conclude
that nobody can harm the United States and they can harm anyone they like
anywhere in the world." China's position is shared by high-level
strategic analysts in virtually the same words. The Rand Corporation is the
major, mostly military research agency. Rand studied the topic, and concluded
that ballistic missile defence "is not simply a shield but rather an
enabler of U.S. action'' – virtually the same words as China.
Canada's military planners advised their Government that the goal of ballistic
missile defence is "arguably more in order to preserve U.S.-NATO freedom of
action than because the U.S. really fears North Korean or Iranian threats."
Quoting another leading strategic analyst, Andrew [J.] Bacevich: "Ballistic
missile defence "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S.
military power abroad.'' He happens to be writing in the conservative
journal, National Interest. He says: ``By insulating the homeland from
reprisal – albeit in a limited way -- missile defence will underwrite the
capacity and willingness of the United States to `shape' the environment
elsewhere.'' He cites approvingly the conclusions of Lawrence Kaplan, who
happens to be writing at the other end of the spectrum. He says "missile
defence isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global
dominance," for "hegemony." For this reason, both of them
enthusiastically proclaim, "missile defence" is a wonderful
contribution to justice and freedom.
It's understood that missile defence, even if it's technically feasible,
has to rely on satellite communication, and destroying satellites is far easier
than shooting down missiles. That's one reason why the United States must seek
Full Spectrum Dominance, such overwhelming control of space that even the poor
man's weapons will not be available to an adversary. And that requires
offensive space-based capacities. That includes immensiely destructive weapons,
nuclear-powered, in space that can be launched with instant computer-controlled
reaction. That greatly increases the danger of vast slaughter and devastation if
only because of what are called in the trade ``normal accidents,'' that is,
the unpredictable accidents to which all complex systems are subject.
The logic of militarisation of space is much broader however. And it's
explained. The U.S. Space Command, the major agency in charge, has been quite
explicit about this. It put out an important brochure, in the Clinton years, in
1997, called ``Vision for 2020.'' In it, it announced the primary goal quite
prominently on the front cover, in big letters: ``Dominating the Space Dimension
of Military Operations to Protect U.S. Interests and Investment.'' This is
presented as the next phase of the historic task of military forces. They say
that armies were needed during the westward expansion of the continental United
States, of course in `self-defence' against the indigenous population that was
being exterminated and expelled. Nations also built navies, the Space Command
continues "to protect and enhance their commercial interests." The
next logical step is space forces to protect "U.S. National Interests
[military and commercial] and Investments."
However, they say the United States' Space Forces will be unlike Navies
protecting sea commerce in earlier years because this time there will be a sole
hegemon. The British Navy could be countered by Germany, with consequences that
we need not discuss. But the U.S. somehow will remain immune except to the
narrowly circumscribed category of terrorism that is permitted to enter the
canon, the terrorism that "they'' carry out against "us,''
whoever "we" happen to be.
The need for total dominance, they argue, is going to increase as a result of
the "globalisation of the economy." The reason is that globalisation
is expected to bring about "a widening between `haves' and
`have-nots'," an assessment shared by U.S. intelligence and academic
analysts. I'll come back to that. Planners are concerned that the widening
divide may lead to unrest among the have-nots and the U.S. must be ready to
control that by "using space systems and planning for precision strike from
space [as a counter] to the worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction" -- a predictable consequence of the recommended programmes, as
I just mentioned, just as the widening divide is an anticipated consequence of
the preferred form of globalisation. That happens to be in conflict with the
economic theories that are professed, but it's in accord with reality.
Well, again there's more to say about that, but I have my eye on the clock.
Throughout history it has been recognised that such steps are dangerous. I gave
a few examples, but there are many more. By now the danger has reached the level
of a threat to human survival. But there's a good reason to pursue it
nevertheless. It's deeply rooted in existing institutions. The basic principle
is that hegemony is more important than survival. That's not new, plenty of
examples through history. The principle is amply illustrated in the last half
century. What's new is the scale of the consequences of pursuing this
Let's turn to another apparently inexorable tendency -- the destruction of
the environment that sustains human life. The Bush Administration has been
widely criticised for undermining the Kyoto Treaty. The grounds that they
presented are that to conform to the Treaty would harm the U.S. economy. Those
criticisms are rather surprising because the decisions are entirely rational
within the framework of existing ideology. We're instructed daily to be firm
believers in neo-classical markets in which isolated individuals are rational
wealth maximisers. The market responds perfectly to their votes, which are
expressed in currency inputs. The value of a person's interests is measured
the same way. In particular, the interests of those with no votes, no dollars,
those interests are valued at zero. Future generations, for example, who don't
have dollar inputs in the market.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT