I wonder how many people realize that the chances of nuclear war did not fall significantly with the end of the Cold War. A deliberate nuclear war, while a real risk, was always the outside chance. The worst danger -- an accidental nuclear launch -- is probably more likely today than it was prior to the fall of the Soviet empire.
Neither the U.S. nor Russia have taken their missiles off hair trigger alert, and Russia's command and control system is deteriorating. When the old war criminal McNamara, leftist Noam Chomsky, pacifist and anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott, and the right-wing libertarian Cato Institute all worry about the same problem, maybe we should also.
Aggravating this, the U.S. is engaged in talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to put a "missile defense" system in their territories. "Missile defense" systems are useless, of course, as defense against missiles. Even in rigged tests they fail as much as they succeed. They can be fooled by tricks as simple as Mylar balloons.
But they are a quite useful as first-strike weapons. Russia won't be at all nervous at such first-strike weapons on their border, right? The U.S. is well known for a calm and measured approach to foreign policy. So we're not increasing the chance of an accidental launch by them even a little bit. After all, we would have no objection if Russia placed a similar system in Cuba.
One nuclear war could do a whole lot more damage than the worst consequences of global warming. (Except that nuclear war could be one consequence of resource shortages due to global warming.) While unmitigated climate change would probably end technical civilization, a full scale nuclear war could exterminate the entire human race.
Nuclear war is the most dramatic danger, but conventional warfare does quite a bit of damage too. To take one example: According to the Lancet, the U.S. invasion of Iraq killed around 650,000 more people than leaving it in peace would have. That was almost a year ago. Given the rate of escalation in the death toll, that could be close to a million by now. At any rate, we can add to that millions of Iraqis in refugee camps both inside and outside Iraq.
Part of me is reluctant to talk about the economic and environmental cost of all this. Complaining about smoke from a burning baby, or the expense of the firewood, seems rather beside the point.
But one could argue that the number of people killed directly by war is greatly exceeded by the number that could be saved if we devoted war resources to better purposes. For example, a small fraction of the $700 billion officially proposed as part of the U.S. Pentagon budget could provide clean drinking water, minimal wastewater treatment, and basic food rations, vitamin and mineral supplements, and really minimal medical care sufficient to help save hundreds of millions of lives. A fraction of the U.S. military budget could end starvation, malnutrition due to deprivation, and eliminate cases of sickness that are caused by lack of clean drinking water, basic waste disposal, and medical care on the level provided by a school nurse in the U.S.
When it comes specifically to global warming, Don Fitz points out that the military sector is one sector where we can make emission reductions of more than 100 percent. As a pacifist, he essentially argues that 100 percent of military spending is waste, and that the damage wars do bring the total up well beyond that.
Even without accepting his premises, his case holds up. For example, as non-pacifists we may accept that some military spending is needed as protection on grounds that it is hard for any nation be pacifist until all nations are pacifist. But we can still point out that most military spending in the world is not for defense, but for various degrees of intimidation and empire building. The U.S. spends five times as much as any other country on earth on its military, and more than the rest of the world combined is an extreme case, but it applies to some degree to almost every military on this planet.
Fitz also includes things like veterans' benefits and interest on military debt as part of military spending. From a moral point of view this is fair enough; both are costs of war. But even if peace on earth came tomorrow and every military budget dropped to zero, veterans have already earned their benefits and we still owe any money we borrowed for war spending. So while we might avoid incurring new costs in these areas, we will still be paying for the veterans of today's wars 70 years from now, and will be paying interest on any money borrowed until it is repaid.
Still, even if we can't eliminate all military spending, most nations (especially the U.S.) could eliminate most military spending without encountering any danger from doing so. If the U.S was to reduce its military spending by 80% or so, and stopped attacking other nations, it is quite true that reduced human misery and reduced environmental costs would exceed direct savings by many times.
Ending the wars we are currently fighting is the immediate priority, along with preventing expansion into Iran. But in the long run, U.S. insistence on running an empire, on an absolute right to tell everyone else what to do, is what has to be ended. The idea that we are the "essential nation" -- that we can decide the course of history because we see farther than others -- is a myth that has grown too dangerous to hold on to.
And just because the U.S. is currently the most dangerous nation does not mean the world can afford to accept replacement hegemons. Somehow, humanity has to outgrow empires and essential nations. We can't afford the U.S. foot on the world's neck any more, but we can't afford a new European empire, or a new Chinese lead alliance, or any of the other replacement candidates either. We don't have to wait to win this to tackle major crisis like global warming, or global poverty, or the threat of nuclear war. But we won't be able to tackle any of them without taking steps in this direction. A world of constant war and ever-growing disparities between the rich and everyone else is not one in which we will make much progress.
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 4:20 am
11 May 2007
What about the hundreds of millions who did not die in the 40 Year Cold War because of M.A.D. ?
What about the avoidance of full scale war by proxy war (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq)?
It's easy to want to remove something that appears to be the worse from the equations, but you must account for the consequences.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Werdna Posted 4:42 am
11 May 2007
I agree that no nation can be pacifist until all nations are. And that's the big problem. Although the US has made some terrible military choices in the past 7 or so years, I think most Westerners can agree that they would rather see the US as the dominant super-power than China (who would be more than ready to take the US's place if it stepped down).
Additionally, you neglect to mention that the number of war deaths in the last 50 years or so is vastly smaller than the number of war deaths from the 50 years before that. I don't know the numbers, but I believe it's an order of magnitude. We must be doing something right.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.liveableregion.ca/
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:36 am
11 May 2007
Maybe the time has come to give up deferring to mob bosses. Nobody considers unmobbed up neighborhoods to be "Pacifist". Tons of people manage to go their whole lives without Tony Soprano as a neighbor.
Also you might want to ask the people of Latin America how benign the last half century has been. Maybe the people of Indonesia and East Timor. "Not as bad as WWII" is a pretty low standard.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:10 am
11 May 2007
I did a few calculations on the back of a napkin and I've decided what our priority should be. It is quite clear. Before we do anything else... before we save the biosphere, cure all disease, send robots to Mars, set up asteroid detectors and destroyers, transform our agricultural system to 100% GMO-free organic, persuade people to live in cities, find alternative energy sources, et cetera... WE SHOULD FOCUS ALL EFFORT ON ENDING WAR.
War sucks. It distracts people from learning about other serious problems, drains resources, harms the environment, prevents us from restoring some natural areas, provides an excuse for idiots to run nations, disrupts societies, kill our finest and brightest... I'm sure you can add to the list.
Let's all turn off the TV, stop wasting money on entertainment and status symbols. Let's shut down the entire world economy for a few months. We will spend all of our new free time learning about and discussing war. We will travel abroad and invite people to visit us. We will march on capitols around the globe... will get Dubbya and the President of Iran to sit down and talk. We will ask people what they want. Ask them why they hate one another and find ways to work out their differences.
ALL of us working together. Billions of people, for a few months, will focus once and for all on ending ALL war. It is clearly an enormous waste of resources.
We will have all sorts of focus groups... find ways to help people get along, organize truth and reconcilation meetings, find ways to convert the arms industry to peaceful purposes, find new jobs for those interested in being soldiers, find new outlets for aggression. Maybe organize an international paint ball competition... yeah... mock war for the masses and they can get together for a beer after "killing" each other. Think of the business opportunities.
Then, when we have finally ended all wars, we can take advantage of all the liberated resources, new international networks, new transglobal communities, and all of our experience educating people about war and organizing focus groups... and solve the next big problem.
If you aren't with me, you must be against me.
Why do you hate peace?
Forward!
Permalink
Werdna Posted 6:46 am
11 May 2007
Gar said:
"Not as bad as WWII" is a pretty low standard.
You're right. It's no longer 50 million. It's only 5 million. Still 5 million too many.
I would also rather have the 21st century ideals of Europeans ruling the world over hawkish American ideals. But, this is still better than the hawkish European ideals of the early 20th century.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I am saying that there is a progression here (at least for the past 50+ years). And, if the world continues in this direction, then wars will become a thing of the past (or at least extreme rarity). Perhaps one day soon, we'll get a government that understands this and allocates resources accordingly. It won't be easy or guaranteed (eg- peak oil could cause many wars clamoring for limited resources), but I think it is possible and more likely to occur than wiscidea's idea.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.liveableregion.ca/
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:07 am
11 May 2007
We all have utopian dreams. Don't worry. I'm not exactly clinging to such a vision. It's like fashion design... outrageous, but perhaps it can be toned down for the masses.
Regarding number of annual fatalities due to war. The world is still an awful place, but, surprisingly, not as awful as it used to be. Somone wrote an article about that recently -- he was a guest on NPR -- but I cannot recall who, where, and when. Maybe somebody will chime in.
Forward!
Permalink
Werdna Posted 7:20 am
11 May 2007
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.liveableregion.ca/
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:33 am
11 May 2007
He does well, to give Lancet's painfully high figure for Iraqi civilian casualties, far higher than any admitted by the White House or the Pentagon.
As though anybody in DC thought it were worthwhile to try to keep count ...
One would have hoped that "deterrence," involving the threat of the horrifying deaths of countless individual totally innocent civilians (in Moscow?, Beijing?, Shanghai?, Riyadh?, Tehran?, Mecca?), was by now unspeakably beyond consideration.
Why in the world do we still support a government that continues to pronounce that "all options are on the table"?
Do we really want to save our own children, by threatening to incinerate -- or worse, to melt slowly -- the children of Tehran?
The first poem written in the central Italian vernacular Latin that later developed into a literary Italian dialect is Saint Francis of Assisi's "Canticle of the Creatures." "Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Sun," "Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Moon," and so forth.
San Francesco ends: "Be Praised, my Lord, for our Sister, our Bodily Death, from which no living man can escape. ... "
The attitude toward death is not easy for us to understand. We certainly know enough, not to wish death on anyone. And yet, we should understand as well, that death is a bridge; a serious crossing to be sure, not one entered onto easily, to be sure; but most definitely NOT a final cliff at the end of the world.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:10 am
11 May 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:11 am
11 May 2007
Now I am in internal exile. I will not do business in the USA because of the Iraq War. The byproduct is that I have reduced my carbon footprint by 90%.
Canis -- I fear global warming ending human history more than I fear death. Mitigating global warming is much more important than war, than death.
Peace
Permalink
Fergus Brown Posted 9:38 am
11 May 2007
There's another paper by the same authors in ACP dealing with climate change and regional scale nuclear conflict.
Do they know something we don't?
Seriously; though there may not be too many surprises, the first paper is an eye-opener.
Regards,
Turned out nice again...
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:42 am
11 May 2007
I do not want to make a big issue of this. But I want you to know, dear Gar, yes indeed, it is an issue, however minor. So, please, show some sensitivity.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:43 am
11 May 2007
I do not want to make a big issue of this. But I want you to know, dear Gar, yes indeed, it is an issue, however minor. So, please, show some sensitivity.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 10:58 am
11 May 2007
Permalink
MikeSar Posted 3:01 pm
11 May 2007
The oceans probably should go up a degree or two just because this Carbon is particularly dirty and inhuman and the Polar Bear demise will be five years sooner.
Yet, it could all be avoided if our U.S. Congress had a law that required ALL War Resolutions to include an EIR, or better yet, an HEIR (Human and Environmental Impact Report) but, since this is Be-Kind-to- Bean-counters-Week, they should really demand a FHEIR (no, it's not what you think) a Financial, Human and Evironmental Impact Report prepared by the Congressional Office, independently of the Administration.
But, what if they bring up Pearl Harbor? No to worry, they will never do that, they do not want to remind ANYBODY (anybody) that WWII didn't take as long.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:13 am
14 Jan 2008
For those who have their doubts about the military industrial complex's involvement in issues of foreign policy, just read the recent news:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1807 ...
-blackwater still raking in the dough (check)
-no sign of an end to military activity (check)
-weapons manufacturers still funding think tanks (check)
-government continues to use scare tactics to garner support for military spending (check)
-country run by individuals linked to weapons manufacturing (check)
-$20 billion arms deals with other countries (check)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:45 am
14 Jan 2008
But in general the environmental movement, and just about all the other movements as well, seem to think that peeling off hundreds of billions of dollars from the military budget is quixotic. But I think it's one of the main areas that we can find the resources to mitigate global warming (and do alot of other things besides.
Permalink
wildleaf Posted 4:47 am
14 Jan 2008
82 million killed 1946-present
This is hardly an order of magnitude difference. Perhaps you were only counting white people.
And this will escalate substantially this century for sure. This next fifty years will probably bring about 500-750 million deaths.
The Black Car Project Killing cars before they kill us!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:03 am
14 Jan 2008
However, that bein' said, from a strictly non-emotional perspective...I wonder what the cost of war (in resources, energy, etc.) is in comparison to amount of resources that would've been consumed had the fatalities lived a normal lifespan.
In other words, is war an effective means of artificial population/resource control in that the number of the resources the dead would've consumed had they lived a full life (and possibly the amount of resources consumed from potential future offspring of the dead) would've been more than the resources consumed for the war effort?
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:52 am
14 Jan 2008
Incidentally,Time magazine has a review of Lester Brown's new book, Plan B 3.0. (There is also a plug for Grist!) Brown outlines a plan to reduce carbon emmissions by 80% by 2020. Although it is based on an increasing carbon tax, it puts into perspective how large military budgets are:Altogether Brown calculates that his Plan B would cost the world an additional $190 billion a year. That might seem high, until he compares the price tag to the global military budget, which stands at more than $1.2 trillion. All we have to do is find the political and popular will to implement the plan.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:31 am
16 Jan 2008
I detect another "modest proposal" forming with your idea, Colin. By the way, Tasermons, the resources sucked out of the planet to pay for all of the militaries, and the political systems warped by them, totally outweighs any population loss thereby attained.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:04 am
17 Jan 2008
If we can make it so that there's no reason to justify having such a ridiculous military (by making peace with other nations, trading intelligently, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy) then military consumption will naturally decrease, and funds can be spent elsewhere. Diplomacy and quality foreign policy really are green issues, in that sense.
To Tasermons: I would have to agree with Jon Rynn on this one and say that the resources used/abused to build tools of destruction are much greater than the number of people who end up not consuming as a result of war - but it was a good question. I would also point out that most war casualties occur within poor populations, which wouldn't be consuming a vast amount of resources anyway.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:17 am
17 Jan 2008
However, the military managed to hang on until there was a real threat, aka al qaeda, even though they don't need a multi-hundred billion dollar budget for that one either. I don't know if the term "peace dividend" resonates today -- it may have actually originated after WWII, implying a "dividend" -- which is usually coming from investment. Anyway, if anybody has a better term, please share it.
Permalink