Review: Countdown to Zero - the need for Nuclear Fearism didn't end in the 1980's

How many nuclear weapons are there in the world? How many nuclear weapons should there be in the world? Is there a safe level of use of nuclear material in the world? Can you put toothpaste back in the tube after you've squeezed it out?

That last question is more a great analogy than a random tangent. Really.

The knowledge to make and use nuclear weapons is known, and construction of nuclear weapons an engineering exercise. They are incredibly dangerous and an unfortunate string of accidents could leave us with hundreds of millions dead and a burning planet that's barely habitable. Much as we want to stop use of nuclear weapons, just as it's impossible to put toothpaste back in the tube, it's not possible to put that knowledge out of our collective minds and stop having them around.

Movie: Countdown to Zero

The recent movie, Countdown to Zero, goes into the nuclear threat very well. It's a scary movie and expect to come away from it highly alarmed by the threats - either of those evil dirty rotten terrorists getting their hands on some material, or an accidental launch of nuclear missiles, or proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, or... gosh, when fear is on the table any crazy scenario can be imagined, eh?

Part of this is about engendering fear. The movie lays out a laundry list of information, stories and scenarios to make anybody get scared. The people in the movie are top notch experts in the field, from Valerie Plame (the former CIA agent outed by Dick Cheney in one of his many acts of treason) to Jimmy Carter, to Mikhail Gorbachev and plenty of other top level people who were in positions of decision making on nuclear security or terrorism.

Real Dangers portrayed in Cowntdown to Zero

Highly enriched uranium is within the reach of any reasonably advanced country - and once you have the uranium, a bomb is relatively easy.

The movie showed, getting highly enriched uranium is simply a logistical problem of acquiring and running centrifuges long enough to enrich uranium to a high enough purity to be weapons grade. With high purity uranium, constructing it into a bomb is relatively simple 1950's era technology.

The movie pointed at a long laundry list of terrible scenarios that could result in nuclear weapons being used. Either in an isolated incident (a terrorist group constructs a weapon and blows up a city) or in an all out nuclear exchange.

One main threat was those dirty evil terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material, sneaking it into the U.S., and constructing a bomb. They showed rusting ships that presumably are the former Soviet Union's former nuclear powered naval fleet, rusting industrial complexes which were part of Russias former nuclear industry, and talked about nonexistent security at nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union. The message one was to take is getting highly enriched uranium is relatively easy within Russia, and that the Republic of Georgia routinely catches smugglers with uranium headed to the West. Then once uranium is outside Russia, it would be straightforward to put it in lead pipes, then package it deep within a shipping container, and send it to the U.S. The volume of shipping containers arriving in the U.S. makes it impossible to ensure no contraband (much less uranium) sneaks into the country.

The other main threat is proliferation in the Middle East, especially due to Iran.

The movie frequently showed aerial photos of cities with circles marking different blast radius's. I can imagine being a resident of one of those cities, and having a sinking feeling recognizing that you're within the blast zone of a target city. I had the same sinking feeling while watching An Inconvenient Truth and realizing I live in a neighborhood due to be inundated by rising waters if the sea level rises as expected.

The environment of fearism

Those of us old enough grew up with the nuclear threat being hung over us. Young people today are growing up with a different threat being hung over us, terrorism. But just because some terrorists used airplanes to destroy a few buildings does not make us safe from the threat of nuclear weapons. The previous situation with nuclear weapons has not changed, and in fact it has gotten horribly worse.

While these threats have some truth, both threats are hung over our whole society in a way that makes everyone afraid. One wonders to what extent these threats are pushed on society, to make society afraid, to facilitate implementation of policies friendly to the military-industrial complex.

Fearism

Fearism is the policy of political leadership to spread fear stories to cause a fearfilled populace to fall in line with the agenda of that leadership.

There is fearism where they show you a cockamamie story, but in a way that makes you very very afraid. Then there is fearism where the threat is real and highly dangerous. This threat of nuclear war falls in the second category of real and highly dangerous. But still the movie is in the format of fearism, and is geared to shock the viewer into demanding some action or another.

For example the movie contains a lot of information about the nuclear proliferation network operated from Pakistan by AQ Khan. He was their chief Nuclear Scientist, and also operated an extensive network of selling nuclear technology around the world.

One of his clients was Iran, and there is a lot of concern about nuclear proliferation in Iran. If Iran were to achieve nuclear weapons, the movie contends that Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc will also work to achieve nuclear weapons. The result will be a Middle East with more nuclear states than the one already there - Israel.

Conclusion

There are a zillion threats facing our society. Some of them are real and justified. Some of them are cockamamie. Our political leaders are using fears for political gain.

It pays to not take the fearism stories at face value, but to stay in ones position of internal clear choice and stability. Rather than be sucked in - consciously evaluating the stories should help one see the truth more clearly.

References: 

C.I.A. Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid

References: 

Iran says wants to stay within nuclear rules

References: 

The cost of the Iraq war? Nuclear proliferation?

References: 

Nuclear proliferation in the wake of Iran

External Media

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

Nuke detectors to ring New York, official says

New York City will be protected by a ring of devices to detect nuclear or dirty bombs before the end of the year, the Department of Homeland Security said Friday.

...Under the "Securing the Cities" initiative, detectors will be placed along highways, at truck stops, in weigh stations and at other sites on the perimeter of New York, as well as locations closer to the city center, an official said.

Article Reference: 

Nuke detectors to ring New York, official says

Hmmm.. U.S. Asked to leave Uzbekistan air base

One of the side games to the U.S. invasion of the middle east (a.k.a. The War on Terror) is the oil situation in the Central Asia countries that are of the former Soviet Union. There's quite a bit of oil up there, and I gather that there's a game afoot to control that oil. One of the games is the U.S. plan to run a pipeline through Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to the sea from there.

This meant that the U.S. was in suport of the Uzbeki government. Conveniently the Uzbeki government has been giving the U.S. land area to operate air bases, that have been used as staging for U.S. forces going to Afghanistan and perhaps other conflict areas. One purpose has been the encirclement of Iran, apparently.

But earlier this year the Uzbeki government brutally supressed a protest. Suppressed, as in killed scores of people. That kinda suppression, where there's blood in the street and lots of crying.

US asked to leave Uzbek air base (Saturday, 30 July 2005, BBC.CO.UK)

Apparently U.S. diplomats have been expressing official consternation over that kinda suppression.

Flights into the K2 (Karshi-Khanabad) base had been reduced at the request of the Uzbek authorities, after the US criticised the government over events in Andijan.

And now the Uzbeki authorities are asking us to leave. The article doesn't quite connect these, perhaps because the U.S. officials are professing to "not know why the request had been made", but anybody who can read between the lines can see there's a disagreement brewing.

The eviction notice came days after US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld returned from a visit to Uzbek neighbours Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Officials in Kyrgyzstan affirmed that US forces could continue to use Manas air base for as long as the Afghan war requires.

Mr Rumsfeld said he did not believe US operations in Afghanistan would be hurt if Tashkent denied continued use of K2, because there are other options in the region.

Oh, whew, at least our subversion of Central Asia can continue unabated. But what about the oil pipeline?

Okay, I'm being a little tongue in cheek about this. It seems to me this is a setback to U.S. plans, but I'm glad it's because the U.S. authorities were complaining about Uzbeki brutality.

But, wait, there's more. Here's the NY Times coverage: Uzbeks Order U.S. From Base in Refugee Rift (By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, and THOM SHANKER, NY Times, Published: July 31, 2005)

Uzbekistan formally ordered the United States to leave an air base that has been a hub for operations in Afghanistan in protest over a predawn United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan in May, senior State Department officials said Saturday.

The article goes on to explain about the refugees. That they went to Kyrgyzstan, and that there have been recommendations to relocate them to Romania (?for safety?). The article goes on to explain how the U.S. is insisting on reforms.

About 450 Uzbek refugees arrive in Romania (Turkish Daily News, Saturday, July 30, 2005) reports that exactly this happened. That 450 Uzbek refugees arrived Friday July 29 in Romania.

CENTRAL ASIA: Weekly news wrap (29 Jul 2005 09:36:11 GMT, Source: IRIN, reported by Reuters, published on AlertNet) This Reuters "central asia wrapup" also reports on the same thing, giving a few more details.

Most of the article is discussing health aid being provided to several of these countries. It's not clear what this health aid has to do with the U.S. being asked to leave Uzbekistan, or the refugees, but this is a "wrap up" article. The article also discusses the general expectation from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) calling on the U.S. to provide a timetable concerning pulling out of central asia. They are accepting of U.S. presence so long as its necessary for the operation in Afghanistan, but apparently not one moment longer.

The NY Times article ends on this interesting note:

Mr. Rumsfeld received assurances from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that the American military could continue to use bases in those Central Asian nations to support relief and counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan.

"We feel we've had a good arrangement and good relationships in a number of those countries in the region," Mr. Rumsfeld said during his travels. "And obviously from time to time things may be adjusted one way or another."

The issue has been a test of the Bush administration as it has tried to balance two of its most prized foreign policy goals: democratization and counterterrorism.

Pentagon and military officials pointed out that it remained unclear whether the eviction from the Uzbek base would halt all bilateral relations with a nation on the rim of one of the most unstable regions in the world.

Those in the United States government and the military who argue for carefully managed engagement, even with dictatorial governments, note that without any formalized Western influence in places like Uzbekistan, there would most likely be influence from less-democratic sponsors, like Russia or China.

Reading between the lines, saying "without formalized western influence" and contrasting it with "influence from less-democratic sponsors, like Russia or China" points in the direction of a game of influence. Both statements are grounded in the thought that large countries are going to control the destiny of certain client countries. And it implies a contest between the U.S., Russia, and China to establish influence over Central Asia.

Strange bedfellows

There's growing evidence that the Uzbekistan government is a very nasty regime. Over the last couple weeks there were mass protests, followed by a mass government killing of the protesters, that killed over 1000 people. There's brutal interrogation and imprisonment tactics. And, the UN is demanding an investigation. etc.

If this were Iraq, the U.S. would be harumphing up a storm and demanding regime change. Well, that's what you would believe from the statements made by our President leading to the Iraq war. Yet, in the case of Uzbekistan, we're not only sending aid to that country, we're keeping troops in the country, and we're providing shielding for them in the UN.

Karimov escapes regime change as America pursues the ‘great game’ (22 May 2005, By Trevor Royle, Diplomatic Editor)

A GLANCE at the map confirms the strategic importance of Uzbekistan, not just in regional terms but also as it is viewed from Washington.

To the south and southwest are Afghanistan and Iran, a fact which inspired President Islam Karimov to push himself into contention as a useful ally in President Bush’s war on terror.

The US operates an air base with 1000 ground troops at Khanabad outside the Uzbek capital Tashkent. The former Soviet facility is used for operations in Afghanistan, and to date the US has supplied the country with some $800 million in military and humanitarian aid.

More to the point, Uzbekistan has a key role to play in supporting Washington’s wider interests. Khanabad is part of the ring of air force bases, or “lily pads