If the world feels out of control, it’s because it is. The challenges of the moment include – but are not limited to – an open-ended war in the Middle East, a new nuclear arms race, a rush to deploy unproven weapons systems controlled by AI, a flurry of tariffs and immigration restrictions disrupting the U.S. and global economies, and a growing disrespect for basic international agreements by a growing group of governments, led by the United States – the country that helped create many of these institutions in the first place.
Each of the above-mentioned problems has its own causal drivers and its own pecularities, so deep knowledge of each will be necessary to “solve” them, or at least bring them to a low simmer that poses a lesser risk to the future of humanity. But we also need a new overarching framework to guide the overall effort to build a more peaceful, more stable, more tolerant, more just, and yes – more joyful – planet. On one level this may seem like pie in the sky, yet the seeds of all of these possibilities already exist, and are firmly planted at the small-scale level of family, friendship and community at the local and hyper-local level. So part of the challenge is to build a structure that tamps down the diverse risks to our lives and livelihoods and create a greater opening for these positive local trends to grow and fluorish on the national and international level.
That’s asking a lot. But we should ask for a lot. In fact, we should demand it, both of ourselves and of our leaders. Without big goals we will never muster the effort and energy needed to turn around our current situation.
One large framework that can help guide the struggle for a more secure world is an initiative called SCRAP – (The Strategic Concept for the Removal of Arms and Proliferation). I will leave you to dig into the complexities of the proposal at the SCRAP website. The basic goal is to pursue the original objective of the United Nations – general and complete disarmament, an approach that would curb both nuclear AND non-nuclear weapons. Going after both types of systems is essential at a time when the accuracy and destructive power of non-nuclear weapons is on the rise, and when relatively cheap, widely available weapons like drones can wreak havoc and fuel and sustain conflicts.
Credible sources have reported that the United States, for one, has deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) armed with conventional warheads. Since all other U.S. SLBMs have nuclear warheads, actually using the non-nuclear-armed ones to attack another nation could provoke a nuclear conflagration if the target nation’s leaders assume that the missile is armed with nuclear warheads – a fair assumption given that ALL such missiles have been nuclear-armed since early in the atomic age.
Equally concerning is the fact that the United States has used non-nuclear weapons and wars to kill leaders and change the regimes of nuclear-aspiring nations like Iraq, Libya, and Iran. In fact, the only leader of a nation included in George W. Bush’s sp-callled “axis of evil” is Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons, and can therefore do serious damage to South Korea and beyond should his life or rule be threatened by a mass conventional attack. So, it ends up, the U.S. policy of regime change against potential nuclear weapons states is more likely to encourage proliferation than restrain it, with nuclear weapons seen by at least some U.S. adversaries as protection against being killed or overthrown by force.
The basic point is that reducing nuclear weapons alone will not bring peace and stability, and indeed may not be possible without also restraining the production and deployment of non-nuclear weapons. In a future column I will address the detail of the SCRAP blueprint for doing just that, and delve into its possibities, practicalities, and impediments.