One thing that becomes clear to me when I wander into the world, and the minds, of geopolitical professionals \u2013 government people \u2013 is how limited and linear their thinking seems to be.<\/p>\n
When I do so, an internal distress signal starts beeping and won\u2019t stop, especially when the issue under discussion is war and mass destruction, i.e., suicide by nukes, which has a freshly intense relevance these days as Team Trump plays war with Iran.<\/p>\n
The question for me goes well beyond democracy \u2013 the right of the public to have a say in what "we" do as a nation \u2013 and penetrates the decision-making process itself and the prevailing definition of what matters . . . and what doesn\u2019t. What doesn\u2019t matter, apparently, is any awareness that we live in one world, connected at the core: that the problems confronting this planet transcend the fragmentary "interests" of single, sovereign entities, even if the primary interest is survival itself.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I fear that this country\u2019s geopolitical thinking and decision-making are incapable of stepping beyond the concept of violent (including thermonuclear) self-defense, or even, indeed, acknowledging that consequences emerge from such actions that go well beyond the strategic considerations that summon them.<\/p>\n
Recently, for instance, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists<\/a>, keeper of the annually updated Doomsday Clock, which serves as an international warning signal on the state of global danger from nuclear war and climate change, published an essay by James N. Miller, former undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration, defending the fact that the U.S. government maintains a policy that allows "first use" of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances.<\/p>\n The issue of the Bulletin itself, which contained an array of viewpoints, focused on the idea that nuclear decision-making should be a focus of the 2020 presidential race, which certainly makes sense, considering that we live in a country with a national media whose raison d\u2019etre is to simplify presidential elections down to the level of a horse race: complex matters not allowed!<\/p>\n But Miller\u2019s essay<\/a>, titled "No to No First Use \u2013 for Now," set off, as I say, an internal distress signal that wouldn\u2019t shut up, beginning with the fact that the essay addressed simply this country\u2019s self-granted permission to use nuclear weapons first, before the other guy did, under "extreme circumstances," if it so chose. What was missing from this essay was any suggestion that nuclear disarmament \u2013 no use ever<\/em> \u2013 deserved consideration. This was not up for discussion.<\/p>\n This is thinking contained within artificial borders!<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that Miller isn\u2019t looking at real threats. The US allows itself to consider nuclear first-use if its enemy uses biological or cyber weaponry to ravage America. He writes:<\/p>\n "A biological weapons attack by a nuclear-capable country (such as North Korea) that kills hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans, while seemingly unlikely, is unfortunately a plausible threat in the coming years or decades. In this scenario, a responsible president could reasonably determine that a conventional attack was inadequate, and that it was appropriate to employ nuclear weapons in response."<\/p>\n Anyone else feel the thought-squeeze? My amazement and despair begin thus: If an attack or any sort kills "hundreds of thousands or even millions" of . . . uh, people . . . their deaths are instantly belittled if the concern here is that they are Americans. If such an attack is in the realm of possibility \u2013 against human beings of any and every nationality \u2013 there\u2019s a wider hole in the universe than this author is addressing. The first question put out there must be: Why?<\/p>\n Earlier in the essay, Miller discusses the fact that an attack on the country with chemical weapons probably would not merit a nuclear response, pointing out: "The US military has more than sufficient firepower to inflict proportionate damage (and if desired, more than proportionate damage) in response to any plausible chemical weapons use."<\/p>\n Inflict proportionate damage?<\/em> This is national security talk? I mean, this is a discussion at the highest level of government, and it\u2019s reducing national security to a matter of killing them back if they try to kill us, and if we kill a sufficient number of them (but not too many), we\u2019re cool. Here\u2019s where I felt my soul freeze.<\/p>\n