Global Nuclear Warfare - Essay Example

PLEASE ENTER PLEASE ENTER PLEASE ENTER May 16, 2009 Global Nuclear Warfare In modern history of mankind, there is no such phenomenon, except Cold war, that would signify highest level of stability, and simultaneously, the highest level of threat at the same time. The Cold war undoubtedly can be defined as a unique conflict, the first and presumably the last of its kind. And there is no such phenomenon that would have such immense impact on shaping the worldviews of the citizens of our country. Particularly, what is believed to have the strongest influence upon the world view in recent decades is the politics, or more precisely the strategy of fear that is explicitly connected with the global nuclear warfare as the thread that became apparent after the World War II, and resulted in the forty-years long Cold War that stretches its derivates and consequences to our very present times. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt has stated in his inaugural speech - the only thing we have to fear is the fear itself. During the Cold War that followed, ideological conflicts were often conducted through the medium of fear. While some politicians argued for expanding arms expenditure by raising alarm about the threat of communism, others demanded disarmament and appealed to the public's fear of nuclear weapons. However, the promotion of competing alarmist claims is very different to the situation in the past (Furedi). The abuse of fear is a high stake politics. The worldview of citizens during the Cold War era has primarily been shaped by alteration between concepts of realism and idealism. These two general approaches in the American foreign policy, dealing with the international sphere, are most explicitly reflected in the foreign policy doctrines. As professor Furedi puts it, the fear has fast become a caricature of itself, it was no longer simply an emotion or a response to the perception of threat; it has become a cultural idiom through which we signal a sense of unease about our place in the world (Furedi). The beginning of the post bipolar era emerged from the transformation that the entire international environment undergone in 1991. Two essential events had influenced this process the most, and outlined the security concepts of the post-Cold war US foreign policies. First, the collapse of Soviet Union, that secured at least the ideological domination of the United States. Second, the Iraq intervention, that demonstrated the reality of the terrorist thread to the world security, but the thread of the nuclear warfare remained, and so did the fear in the heads of most people. A brilliant indicator of the perception of the world by general public through the optics of the global nuclear warfare is the Doomsday clock, that attain a significant respect and prestige in forming the public opinion since the very start of the global nuclear thread. The Doomsday Clock, symbolic clock on the University of Chicago wall shows the time left till the outbreak of global nuclear war and the end of the world that would follow. Over the last sixty years the fingers have moved - forward and backwards - only eighteen times. Recently on few days ago, two minutes closer to the nuclear apocalypse: they stopped at five minutes to twelve. The last time we, and the world, were this close to the definite destruction was in 1984. Any sensationalists or fanatic peace activists have not invented this final countdown. Doomsday Clock - the "Apocalypse Clock" as it has been nicknamed with popularity - have been designed by top nuclear scientists associated in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the prestigious scientific board, or convocation, that is in charge of the decision of whether to move the fingers or not. On its latest session that decided to move the fingers world famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has participated. The first time Doomsday Clock were introduced to the public was short after the end of World War II, in 1947 and were set on seven minutes to twelve. The "midnight" symbolizes the moment when the global nuclear warfare outbreak will cause in the final destruction of the mankind. There are several reasons for moving the finger five minutes to midnight in 2007. These reasons have political, military as well as environmental character. Before the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Iron curtain the world was projected through the simple bipolar black-and-white optics and the scenario of its possible destruction was simple as well. Two superpowers possessing gigantic nuclear arsenal sufficient enough to destroy the entire life on Earth a multiple times were controlled by reciprocal balance of power and the logic that the attack on their only enemy would mean suicide for themselves. The nuclear Cold War could not be won; it was a zero sum game. After the collapse of Soviet Union it seems for a while that this thread disappeared. Both superpowers agreed on the gradual nuclear disarmament and the illusion that nuclear weapons help enhance the homeland security was proclaimed a mistake. That was why the Doomsday Clock was moved seven minutes backwards, reaching historically the farthest point from midnight, it was seventeen minutes to twelve. However, the reality of today, in 2009, is completely different. Although the mutual attack between USA and Russia is rather improbable, the thread of the emergence of local nuclear conflicts has rapidly increased in other regions falling into the sphere of either US or Russian influence. Furthermore, new relevant actors have appeared on the field of nuclear proliferation such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, inspiring other similar states to develop their own nuclear research. It seems there is a highly potential possibility that we, and the mankind, might soon enter the era of practically uncontrollable nuclear proliferation, the era of global nuclear warfare meant unprecedented hazarding with the existence of life on this planet. Same importantly, the next effect this might have is the risk that extremists who do not hesitate to use nuclear weapons on civil targets, might get a chance to obtain to nuclear weapons. So the war on terrorism initiated by USA might not bring enhanced global security, but may have opposite effect - the global destabilization, that may grow into global nuclear warfare at any time. But it was not only the increased jeopardy of global nuclear warfare due to the emergence of new "nuclear states". The progress in biology and genetics in last few decades has created and opened completely new horizons. Together with deeper understanding of the mechanisms of how do various genes in various organisms' function, and the ways in which they influence the physiologic systems, we were able to find medicines for many diseases. This knowledge might easily be abused resulting in the deformation of natural bioregulation as the most serious consequence. The situation is further aggravated by fact that the top biologic and genetic technologies are available almost for anyone in dispose of considerable financial resources. By moving the clock fingers towards the end of the world in this particular context, the nuclear scientists argue that the deepening global destabilization, which we are witnessing will end into situation when all rules, that we have considered to be self-evident until now, we start to be discredited. Ironically, all this will happen in the name of searching for new, better and safer world. The dangerous synergetic effect of the politics of building the scientific progress and environmental thread together create the detonating fuse are even doubled by the eventuality that it may be launched unexpectedly at any time. This only plays up to the strategy of promoting the omnipresent fear in the public worldview so any foreign policy and nuclear strategy can be legitimized instantly and effectively. Today, according to the National Intelligence Council in its report Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, the opportunities for mass-casualty terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, or less likely, nuclear weapons will increase as technology diffuses and nuclear power (and possibly) weapons programs expand, and the practical and psychological consequences of such attacks will intensify in an increasingly globalized world (NIC iv) The recent annual public opinion polls have shown that the fear from global threads is shared among Americans and Europeans. The feeling that international terrorist and the possibility of global nuclear warfare mean serious thread to the world's security has intensified compared to the previous year. Today, 81 percent of American view the world as seriously endangered by the thread of global nuclear warfare, compared to 72 percent that shared this view of the security situation of the world in 2005. Interestingly, according to Princeton University research on the American public opinion on foreign policy only 16 percent of Americans agreed that in solving international problems should United States continue to be the preeminent world leader, while more than two thirds of Americans agreed that the United States should do its fair share (Todorov, 2003). Furthermore, this research also found out that in contrast to the actual public opinion, Americans estimated that 35 percent of other Americans believed that the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader and that only 45 percent believed that the US should to its fair share. Similarly while only 23 percent of Americans believed that the more important lesson of 9/11 is that the US needs to act on its own to fight terrorism rather than to work with other countries and Americans estimated that about 49 percent of other American endorsed this view (Todorov 2003). The conclusion we can possible derive from the above discussion, is that as long as the public will be massaged by the media and they would perceive the outside world as the source of the proximate threat to their very security and the security of their homeland, no positive change to their predominantly negative worldview is possible. At the same time, we have to admit that the thread of global nuclear warfare, that has produced this negative and fearful worldview, is still real. The fact that the international rivalry that has been concentrated into two rival pacts during the Cold War is now fragmented and causes nearly a paranoia among people of who to fear, or who to fear most. Recent changes in the public mind and politics as well may, however, change the paradigm of recent decades of nuclear, bipolar or post bipolar, age. Resources Global Trends: 2025. A Transformed World. National Intelligence Council Report, November 2008, NIC 2008-003. www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html. Web, accessed May 14, 2009. http://www.americans-world.org/ Todorov, Alexander. Public Opinion of Foreign Policy: The Multilateral Public that Perceives Itself as Unilateral. September, 2003. http://www.americans-world.org/articles/todorov_opinion.pdf. Web. Accessed May 15, 2009. Furedi, Frank. The market in fear. Politics has become a contest between different brands of doom-mongering. Online essay. September 26, 2005. http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD7B.htm. Web. Accessed May 13, 2009 Read More