|
Editorial Review Product Description
Never before have so many people worried about the effects of military conflict. At a time when terrorism is opening the way for new forms of warfare worldwide, this book provides a much-needed account of the real dangers we face, and argues that the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and of war are attainable and necessary goals.Written by Nobel Peace prizewinner and former nuclear physicist Joseph Rotblat, and biologist/ psychologist Robert Hinde, War No More provides expert insight into the nature of modern warfare -- including 'weapons of mass destruction'. Examining the key factors that are believed to contribute to conflict, they explain how best to approach a peaceful future. If war is ever to be eliminated, Hinde and Rotblat argue that we must address key issues such as the gap between rich and poor; we must have fully effective arms controls; and above all we must have better education. The authors emphasize the United Nations -- as well as non-governmental organizations, religious groups, and grassroots movements -- also have important parts to play.Joseph Rotblat was involved in the creation of the first atom bomb, but left the project during the war, when it became clear that Nazi Germany was not building its own bomb. Since the end of the Second World War he has dedicated his life to campaigning against nuclear weapons and co-founded the Pugwash conferences. Robert Hinde was a pilot in World War 2, is now a Cambridge University Professor and has written extensively on war and strategies for peace. ... Read more Customer Reviews (1) 
World Citizenship As Both an Option and Obligation in Averting Nuclear Warfare
Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto that sought to put the world on guard about the dangers of the hydrogen bomb. The last surviving signatory to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto was Joseph Rotblat, who died August 31, 2005. In 1995, Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.
During World War II, Joseph Rotblat participated in the Manhattan Project to develop an atomic bomb. An Encyclopædia Britannica article on his Nobel prize explains that "Although he was uncomfortable about participating in the creation of an atomic bomb, Rotblat initially believed that the weapon would be used to deter only a German threat. After learning in 1944 that it would be used to contain the Soviet Union, a World War II ally, he left the project...." Upon returning to England in 1945, Rotblat left defense work for medicine. He served as founding secretary general and later as president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which began in 1957, and at which key scientists and other people from different countries could confer about the peril of nuclear weapons facing the world. In his capacity as a physics professor and a medical physicist at St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College (1950-76) both part of the University of London, Rotblat was dedicated to directing attention toward the biological hazards of nuclear radiation and the severity of fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.
Robert Hinde, CBE of Cambridge University, is the author of many books and articles in psychology. He earned a degree at Oxford University in 1950. In 2003, Robert Hinde and Joseph Rotblat together published their book, War No More.
The book addresses the planet's current state in terms of weapons of mass destruction. It features many great tables, or charts, pertaining to matters ranging from the varying levels of the super-powers' nuclear warhead stockpiles to the principal nuclear arms control treaties to estimates of military deaths in individual wars during the last sixty years.
Since this book is an earnest endeavor to address in a thorough and organized fashion the issue of weapons of mass destruction, many of its most fundamental prescriptions are bound to sound basic to the point of seeming somewhat banal. To be sure, the authors acknowledge that "Any attempt to discuss ways of preventing war must address very basic issues, and in so doing lays itself open to accusations of mushy idealism." In War No More, the authors have clearly opted for erring in the direction of invoking moral truisms as a small price to pay if there is even the slightest chance of their contributing to a discussion prompting the global community to eventually compel the world's political leaders to heed such moral considerations. They also make the interesting point that, in the prevention and alleviation of conflict, "Often the success of such efforts may be unknown to the wider world just because the criterion of success is simply that nothing happens."
In any event, Hinde and Rotblat urge their readers to understand the absolute need to abolish war if humanity is to endure in this nuclear age. Their position is that "the very possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. Their enormous destructive power, inflicted on civilians even more than on the military, would make their use unforgiveable [sic]." The authors expressly credit Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein with having taken the initiative for international action on this front. And as was the view of Russell and Einstein fifty years earlier, Hinde and Rotblat proclaim in their book that "The only solution is international agreement on the total abolition of nuclear weapons."
The Pugwash Movement was an outgrowth of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. The original goal of the Pugwash movement had been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and war as such. From its inception, the movement was sidetracked by its immediate mission of preventing the Cold War from becoming a hot war. In the wake of the Cold War, Pugwash's efforts were able to be redirected toward its original objectives of averting war as such.
Hinde and Rotblat concede the ease with which people can be pessimistic about the prospects of abolishing war. However, the formidable challenge posed by such a task is deemed "no excuse for inaction." They cite historic instances in which humanity has overcome the apparently impossible, and they stress the urgency both of identifying war's causes (with a view to eliminating them) and of developing alternative means of resolving conflicts. Not only weapons of mass destruction but even conventional weapons of war are continually becoming more devastating. And the current state of technology renders wars much less feasible to contain, or isolate.
There is discussion of how wars come in various forms and can elude exact definition. Wars' causes, as a result, are no less diverse and difficult to pinpoint. In any case, Hinde and Rotblat are of the view that there is no scientific basis for concluding that war is an inevitable part of human societies' conduct.
Of course, a sole, indispensable, common denominator to all wars is the availability of weaponry.For centuries, societies have formulated their foreign policy in the light of the Roman dictum "If you want peace, prepare for war." However, as Bertrand Russell warned the world in 1916, "when the means of offense exist, even though their original purpose may have been defensive, the temptation to use them is likely, sooner or later, to prove overwhelming." Hinde and Rotblat discuss how "during the Cold War years there was a general assumption in the West--still widely accepted today--that the possession of nuclear weapons prevented a Soviet military attack. This is one of the deliberately propagated myths of the Cold War. Careful studies by reputable historians from the West have found no evidence for this assertion." The authors also reflect on how "Thousands of these [nuclear] weapons are kept in the arsenals, presumably for deterrence purposes,...but sooner or later they will be used deliberately. There is a historical precedent for this: the reason the Allies began developing the atom bomb during the Second World War was specifically to prevent its use by Hitler, yet nuclear weapons were used against Japan as soon as they were made." In fine, the doctrine of deterrence is part of the problem rather than the solution.
The authors argue that humans are not essentially aggressive or war-prone, but they are essentially disposed to aggressive self-defense in response to warlike conditions. "Often secular ideals of patriotism and territorial rights are closely interwoven with religious ideals, so that support for the `Just War' is derived from a mixture of the sacred and the secular." To be sure, religious fervor is certainly conducive to warfare, and "Religious labels are especially dangerous in that they both legitimize war and portray it as a sacred endeavour." In addition to people's identification with religious labels comes their indignation and vengeance stemming from the perceived mistreatment of their ancestors, which facilitates conflict.
According to Hinde and Rotblat, people are clearly all too susceptible to political, religious, and ethnic manipulation when it comes to motivating them to support wars. Moreover, the vested interests of the military-industrial-scientific complex are geared toward anything but the prevalence of peace. It is also noteworthy that, as far as the typical citizen's reaction to war is concerned, the sense of "duty" looms increasingly large as one traces the history of warfare from pre-agricultural communities to modern ones.
In the 1980s, the nuclear physicist Edward Teller persuaded Ronald Reagan to pursue space-based ballistic missile defense systems. The Pugwash movement criticized this Strategic Defense Initiative on two counts. First of all, no technology is completely effective. Secondly, since anti-ballistic missiles are more expensive to manufacture than offensive missiles, a simple increase in the volume of offensive missiles would be the predictable upshot. The movement to develop ballistic missile defense systems subsided after Reagan but was considered with some seriousness by the Clinton administration when the U.S. Senate's Republican majority was championing it. With the George W. Bush administration, however, the zeal for promoting such systems has been rekindled.
Hinde and Rotblat discuss how "The tragedy of Rwanda was due in part to the feeling that it was a far-away country, and that happenings there were not so important to the West. From some perspectives, this is a matter that may have grown worse since the end of the Cold War because, while the international political climate was still a major determinant of international politics, wars were mostly proxy wars for the two major power blocs. With the end of the Cold War, the major powers have simply lost interest."
Hinde and Rotblat discuss how, at one time, over 40 per cent of people ranked nuclear weapons among the most crucial issues. Since the end of the Cold War, though, the percentage of people associating this urgency with nuclear weapons has plummeted to about 1 per cent. There is a grim irony here, and the authors express their grave concern with the turn that the George W. Bush administration has caused things to take:
At the time of writing, in 2003, the general world situation is far from being a happy one; indeed, as far as the nuclear peril is concerned it is much worse than would have been expected 14 years after the end of the nuclear arms race. With the end of the Cold War, and the termination of the ideological divide between East and West, the imminent danger of a nuclear holocaust has diminished, but it has not gone away; and now it is on the rise again.
To a large extent this is a result of the policies of the only remaining superpower, the United States of America, particularly those of the George W. Bush administration. Since the end of the Cold War, there has been an awesome increase in the military strength of the USA. Making use of the latest advances in science and achievements in technology, and supported by astronomical budgets, the United States has become the greatest military power that ever existed, exceeding in military potential all other nations combined. And it shows every sign of intending to use this power to impose its policies on the rest of the world. Many see those policies as threatening the basic guidelines of a civilized society: morality in the conduct of world affairs and adherence to the rules of international law.
The Iraq war of 2003 was an illustration of these developments and a portent of the shape of things to come (p. 211).
War No More denounces as a sham the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty signed by Bush and Putin, in May 2002. It is criticized as lacking a timetable for removing warheads during the treaty's duration, requiring that the removed warheads be stored rather than destroyed, and providing for the withdrawal of either side from the treaty on three months' notice. Further reductions in the arsenals is not at all addressed. "A far cry from total nuclear disarmament envisaged under the NPT."
The authors express their hope that increased globalization will prompt countries to adopt a more long-term view and appreciate the eventually global aftershocks of war anywhere. Both the advantages and disadvantages of science and technology's uses have made world citizenship both an option and an obligation. "There is the need for a new educational process that teaches loyalty to humankind; the need to preserve the human species and the continuation of our civilization."
The good news is that democracies are less prone to warfare and that democracies are on the rise as a percentage of the world's political systems. The bad news, though, is that, however necessary it can seem to retaliate against perpetrators of violent deeds, the fact of the matter is that violence begets violence. Consequently, it is prudent to understand the circumstances prompting different groups to terrorist activities and to focus on such factors with a view to ameliorating the predicaments that potential terrorists perceive as their afflictions.
The book acknowledges the proper place of grassroots activities in directing political leaders' attention, along with that of non-governmental organizations and religious groups. In the case of religious organizations, though, Hinde and Rotblat are certainly wise to the fact that "religious differences are often seen as a cause of war, and the brotherhood inherent in sharing a religious faith is no bar to war between two countries...."
Hinde and Rotblat argue that all countries in possession of nuclear weapons, including the original five, must get rid of them as soon as they can. The Republic of South Africa is commended for having relinquished its nuclear weapons and its capacity to make them. And Sweden, Brazil and Argentina are praised for having refrained from developing nuclear weapons in the light of their own convictions that the world will be safer as a result. Such welcome conditions, though, could very well be unsettled and jeopardized ifthe current nuclear weapon states persist in ignoring the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Predictably, the authors see our salvation in an empowered and improved United Nations serving as the world's policemen. Their ideal is that armaments would be eventually possessed by just the U.N. and, possibly, some authorized intra-state police forces.
The authors are, however, under no delusions concerning the United Nations' strength, and they acknowledge that presently the U.N. may act as a sort of brake but it cannot force cooperation. While they credit the U.N. with some successes, they are keenly aware of the U.N.'s shortcomings, and they propound concrete measures for its reform. They explain much of the problem as being individual nations' resentment towards any infringements on their national sovereignty with the all too likely consequence of a single nation enjoying hegemony. They also see much of the solution as lying in the areas of reforming the U.N.'s internal structure by, for example, making the Security Council more representativeand eliminating the veto.
On an optimistic note, Hinde and Rotblat reflect on how, no thanks to the United States, democratic values and respect for international law are becoming more prevalent, as is evidenced by the jurisdictionof the International Criminal Court and the success of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Along with one of War No More's overarching messages being that the international community would do well to promote democracy, the authors make the point that, on account of democracies' experiences with handling disputes domestically, democracies are more likely to excel at handling disputes internationally. Democracies are the form of government most likely to set good examples and precedents in the way of societal progress, human rights, and arms control. "In recent years, alliances of democracies, notably the European Union, have acted with a mandate from the United Nations to prevent war in or between other countries."
It is urged that increased attention should be paid to early warning signs of instability. This both gives more powerful nations plenty of time to prepare for the provision of "peace-keeping troops" and also enhances the chances of nipping the less powerful countries' problems in the bud. In the wake of the Rwanda tragedy, the Carnegie Commission and the Commander of the UN Mission ascertained that an April 1994 intervention of 5,000 truly competent troops could have prevented much of the slaughter. However, the Organization for African Unity, NATO, and NATO's members were unable and/or unwilling to provide the requisite numbers of troops.The book then discusses proper modes of third-party nations intervening in conflicts. And Hinde and Rotblat counsel against any covert interventions, such as those perpetrated by the CIA in South and Central America. For the furtive nature of such missions is bound to make the intervener's conduct seem self-serving.
Finally, in a wistful vein, Hinde and Rotblat ponder how:
The threat of the extinction of the human race hangs over our heads like the Sword of Damocles. We cannot allow the miraculous products of billions of years of evolution to come to an end. We are beholden to our ancestors, to all the previous generations, for bequeathing to us the enormous cultural riches that we enjoy. It is our sacred duty to pass them on to future generations. The continuation of the human species must be ensured. We owe an allegiance to humanity (p. 214). In the course of many thousands of years, the human species has established a great civilization; ...it has created the magnificent edifice of science. It is indeed the supreme irony that the very intellectual achievements of humankind have provided the tools of self-destruction, in a social system ready to contemplate such destruction (p. 217).
... Read more
|
