FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Nightmare Waiting at the Back Door

The Bush and Blair administrations are right about one thing: Terrorism threatens our world as never before. Terrorism is the great game of pain that is now playing out as power politics in many parts of the world.. The “winners” are the ones who can cause the most harm and horror, yet can harden themselves to be unfeeling and unmoved by that harm and horror. The “losers” are the rest of us.

Humans are naturally sympathetic beings: We learn by imitation. We perceive ourselves in others. We can imagine emotions and empathize. We can love. We can grieve. Terrorism is inhuman. It requires unusual mental states of mind. To choose to be inhuman requires extreme confidence and some form of moral immunity. Terrorists need words and rhetoric and ways to say they themselves personally did not choose to do it. For example,

* by seeing themselves as actors in historical drama;

* by saying their actions are caused by those they hurt;

* by self-righteously doing the will of God.

War is formalized terrorism by a state, and a war on terrorism is sure a cycle of escalating horror.

The Bush and Blair administrations are right about a second thing: 9-11 changed everything. What changed was the scale of non-state terrorism. Previously in history, such terrorism was limited, for example, to killing people by assassination, hijacking an air plane, bombing a market, blowing a hole in a ship, or using a car bomb to tear the facade off a building. Such terrorist actions were most often in remote areas with least security. In contrast, the 9-11 terrorists completely destroyed two of the greatest buildings in America, in the very heart of America’s greatest city, and then hit the headquarters of American military command in the national capital. The political and economic consequences of 9-11 are still beyond measure.

What could plausibly be an escalation beyond that?

The Bush and Blair administrations are right about a third thing: It is technology that gives non-state terrorists ways to match the terror of the nation states’ war machines. On one hand, our globally interlocked, technological economy is more vulnerable than its size suggests. Hurt it any where and it hurts every where. On the other hand, modest knowledge and modest equipment can create germs for warfare and poison gas. But biological and poison gas terrorism, while deadly and horrible, would still be localized, contained, and the consequences containable.

But the Bush and Blair administrations are wrong to now mount a war on Iraq in order to find biological and chemical weapons. Iraq may or may not have such weapons, and if so, might or might not have distributed them to terrorists. More importantly, this war is proof that our governments did not learn the lesson of 9-11. The terrorists that attacked America did not build or buy the airliners they used, and did not smuggle them into America from Iraq. They simply weaponized the large scale technology that was already in America waiting to be used. What other technology is now waiting to be weaponized and would be an escalation beyond 9-11?

While the world is watching the war in Iraq, there is a nightmare waiting at the back door. No one seems to be paying attention to the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station. The horror and economic consequences of breaching a nuclear power reactor would certainly exceed 9-11. It would be the escalation that matches the American war machine now in action in Iraq and elsewhere.

Even best-case nuclear security seems to be a sham. The UK is a militarized nation long experienced with terrorism. The UK has sided with the USA knowing that this might make it the target of more terrorism. Therefore, the UK’s nuclear reactors are very well protected, right? Wrong. Just to demonstrate this, Greenpeace on October 14, 2002, had 150 activists breach security at the UK’s Sizewell reactor. Then things tightened up, right? Wrong. On January 13, 2003, 30 Greenpeace activists again penetrated security at the very same reactor site and climbed onto the dome. The British government’s security response was to simply deny these events, but has recently admitted them. Fortunately for us, Greenpeace carries banners, not bombs.

Is nuclear plant security any better in America? The US is the world’s most militarized nation knowing that its current actions make it the target of terrorism. What is their priority on nuclear plant security? The International Nuclear Safety Center, headquartered at the US government’s National Argonne Laboratories, publicly posts handy maps showing even the most amateur terrorists where the world’s nuclear reactors are all located.

As best case examples of nuclear security, the US and UK are not a cause of confidence. Nuclear security is worse in the rest of the world. Less militarized nations, who know they have no enemies, probably cannot imagine someone shooting their nuclear plant with a military missile, or crashing a commercial plane into it, or placing a bomb in the underwater cooling pipes, or sabotaging it from the inside. Once state and non-state terrorists bring out their rhetoric that they are all doing the will of God, then some private person with a wrong bent of mind might believe the rhetoric and independently act on it. .

To severely damage the US or the UK, or France or Russia, it is not necessary to breach the nation’s own reactor. A neighbor’s reactor would do. To “win” a war of escalating horror, any reactor anywhere in the world would do. Worrisome are the reactors in the do-gooder nations who naively think their self-image protects them, including here Canada. Sweden, and Finland. However, most worrisome are the reactors in the former communist countries of Lithuania, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, and Russia. Many of these reactors lack concrete containment domes and suffer from lax management and poor financing. Chechnyan terrorists or Al-Qaida, or anyone wishing to seem to be these terrorists, may seek revenge by breaching a reactor. Anyone, anywhere, could do it, and the consequences would not be contained or containable.

Proponents and opponents of the Iraq war would be wise to both agree that we need better security at nuclear power plants every where in the world.

FLOYD RUDMIN is professor of social and community psychology at the University of Tromsø in Norway, where he also teaches in the Master’s Program in Peace and Conflict Transformation. He is a board member of Science for Peace and vice-president of the Canadian Peace Research & Education Association. He can be contacted at frudmin@psyk.uit.no

 

 

More articles by:

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail