|
Activism
after nuclear war?
By
Brian
Martin
Science, Technology and Society,
University of Wollongong, Australia
TFF associate
September 3, 2002
In the event of nuclear war, as well as death and
destruction there will be serious political consequences.
Social activists should be prepared.
The confrontation between Indian and Pakistani
governments earlier this year showed that military use of
nuclear weapons is quite possible. There are other
plausible scenarios. A US military attack against Iraq
could lead Saddam Hussein to release chemical or
biological weapons, providing a trigger for a US nuclear
strike. Israeli nuclear weapons might also be unleashed.
Another possibility is accidental nuclear war.
Paul Rogers in his book Losing Control says
that the risk of nuclear war has increased due to
proliferation, increased emphasis on nuclear
war-fighting, reduced commitment to arms control
(especially by the US government) and Russian reliance on
nuclear arms as its conventional forces disintegrate.
A major nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions of
people. But less catastrophic outcomes are possible. A
limited exchange might kill "only" tens or hundreds of
thousands of people. Use of nuclear "bunker-busters"
might lead to an immediate death toll in the thousands or
less.
Nuclear war would also lead to increased political
repression. Martial law might be declared. Activists
would be targeted for surveillance or arrest. Dissent
would become even riskier. War always brings restraints
on civil liberties.
The political aftermath of September 11 - increased
powers for police forces and spy agencies, increased
intolerance of and controls over political dissent - is
just a taste of what would be in store in the aftermath
of nuclear war.
Being prepared for nuclear war is not defeatism but
realism. Indeed, being prepared may make nuclear war less
likely, as I argued 20 years ago in an article titled
"How the peace movement should be preparing for nuclear
war". Many of the points I made then are just as relevant
today.
Groups should have contingency plans in case of
emergency. It is worth asking, for example, "What should
we do if key members are arrested?" Planning for such
possibilities can be useful even if there is no nuclear
crisis, since the group could come under attack for other
reasons. Various scenarios should be considered, such as
intensive surveillance, disruption, infiltration and
public discrediting. Brian Glick's book War at
Home is a valuable manual on this topic.
Resources could come under attack: offices destroyed,
computers stolen, websites removed. This points to the
value of having back-up copies of key information. The
same applies to skills: if a knowledgeable person, such
as a web designer, is not around, can someone else do the
job?
Communiation networks are absolutely essential in a
crisis. Being able to obtain reliable information and
consult with others is vital for taking action. Activists
should have plans for maintaining communication links in
the face of interruption and disruption. If the phones
are taken out, for example, what other system can be
used? Schweik Action Wollongong developed some exercises
for strengthening communication in groups.
In a crisis, individuals and groups may need to act on
their own. This could be due to arrest of movement
leaders or to interruption of communication. When local
groups have autonomy and many people have leadership
skills, then it is easier to act effectively in a crisis.
Generally speaking, decentralisation and self-reliance
are an advantage.
If worst comes to worst and nuclear weapons cause
physical effects close to home, then survival becomes a
priority. It makes sense to know the basics about the
effects of nuclear war - blast, heat, radiation - and how
to protect. Knowing basic first aid is important too.
There is plenty of information on what to do in the event
of nuclear war, but most social activists have avoided
even thinking about it on the grounds that preparation
makes nuclear war more likely. I disagree. If activists
are seen to be ready, this makes nuclear war less
likely.
Nuclear weapons are severely stigmatised largely due
to the efforts of peace activists. Governments have been
reluctant to use nuclear weapons because they realise
there will be an enormous political backlash. From the
1940s on, US leaders have considered using nuclear
weapons on quite a number of occasions - such as during
the Vietnam war - but always refrained, largely due to
the fear of a backlash.
If, despite this, nuclear weapons are used, it is
vital that social activists capitalise on the widespread
revulsion that will occur. To do this, activists need to
be prepared. Otherwise, the next nuclear war will be only
the beginning of a series of nuclear wars.
A further implication is that activists need to be
psychologically prepared for nuclear war. For decades,
many people have thought of nuclear war as "the end": as
extinction or the end of civilisation. But limited
nuclear war has always been possible and even a major
nuclear war could leave billions of people alive.
Therefore it makes sense to think through the
implications and make suitable preparations.
Nuclear war is almost bound to be a disaster, not only
in human and environmental terms but as well in terms of
political prospects for achieving a better world.
Activists are doing what they can to prevent nuclear war,
but they are not the ones who design and produce the
weapons and prepare to use them. Given that nuclear
weapons may be used despite the best efforts of peace
activists, it makes sense to be prepared for the
aftermath. That means preparing organisationally and
psychologically.
Bibliography
Brian Glick, War
at Home: Covert Action against U.S. Activists and What We
Can Do about It (Boston: South End Press,
1989).
Brian Martin, "How the peace movement should be
preparing for nuclear war", Bulletin of Peace
Proposals, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1982, pp. 149-159;
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82bpp.html
Brian Martin, "Critique of nuclear extinction",
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1982,
pp. 287-300;
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82jpr.html
Paul Rogers, Losing
Control: Global Security in the Twenty-first
Century (London: Pluto, 2000).
Schweik Action Wollongong, "Strengthening
communication in groups", Peace News, February
1999, pp. 12-13;
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98nvt.html
Click on the links above to
buy the books from Amazon.co.uk!
Or click on these links to
buy the books from Amazon.com:
Brian Glick, War
at Home: Covert Action against U.S. Activists and What We
Can Do about It
Paul Rogers, Losing
Control: Global Security in the Twenty-first
Century
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|