State of Denial
By Robert C. Koehler
August 28, 2008, Common Wonders
Talk about naive. The Union of Concerned Scientists
apparently thought the Democratic and Republican national
conventions would be appropriate events at which to bring up
the awkwardly substantive topic of U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpiles (6,000 or so) and policy (insane).
So, as part of a larger campaign of informative ads in the
two convention cities, Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul, they
rented billboard space at the two airports and greeted
travelers with ads depicting an aerial view of that city,
with one of those ground zero bull's-eyes superimposed on the
downtown area, and the words: "When only one nuclear bomb
could destroy a city like ( Minneapolis , Denver ) . . . We
don't need 6,000." Below the picture, the party's
presidential nominee - one per city - was urged "to get
serious about reducing the nuclear threat."
Well, OK. Perhaps you will not be surprised to hear what
happened next: In Minneapolis , some people found the ad
"scary," which it was supposed to be, and "anti-McCain,"
which it wasn't, but airports are the sovereign turf of
Corporate America , which has quite a few values higher than
free speech. Chief among them, I think, is "happy, happy."
And Northwest Airlines, the official airline of the
Republican National Convention, which also controls the
advertising space in Concourse G of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport, found the ad to be in clear violation
of this value. So it requested Clear Channel Outdoor, a
branch of the media conglomerate that originally sold the
billboard space to Union of Concerned Scientists, to remove the ad.
Clear Channel, best known for homogenizing the nation's
airwaves (it owns more than 1,200 radio stations, and pushes
a lineup of right-wing talk show hosts), did Northwest one
better. It yanked the ad in Minneapolis , then preemptively
yanked it again in Denver , where no one had complained.
Phew - threat averted! Let the conventions proceed with all
due hoopla and empty intrigue.
"By maintaining thousands of highly accurate nuclear weapons
on alert, the United States perpetuates the only threat that
could destroy it as a functioning society: a large-scale
attack by Russia launched either without authorization, by
accident, or by mistake because of a false warning of an
incoming U.S. attack."
So UCS points out, in a statement on its Web site called
"Toward True Security." America 's security establishment
remains calcified in Cold War paranoia and, incredibly, hair-
trigger nuclear alert - and no one talks about it. What
threat do we really face? By any rational assessment, the
greatest danger to our survival is from nuclear weapons
themselves. But we don't have the mechanism for such a
discussion, at least not in the common spheres of national
life: politics and popular culture. We continue to maintain
and upgrade our nuclear arsenal and national life simply
moves on around it. Yet:
"By giving nuclear weapons so large and visible a role in
U.S. policy," the UCS statement goes on, ". . . the United
States has increased the incentive for other nations to
acquire nuclear weapons, and reduced the political costs to
them of doing so."
Nuclear technology is more accessible than ever, and more and
more countries feel the need to join "the club," fueling the
arrival of what many observers consider a second nuclear age
- far more "egalitarian" than the first. At least 40 non-
nuclear states currently possess large quantities of highly
enriched uranium, and the risk of terrorists possessing
"suitcase nukes" is greater than ever. The Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, which has been monitoring the state of
global nuclear risk since 1947, recently reset its doomsday
clock to five minutes to midnight.
No, this is not an easy discussion to have, but what is the
cost of not having it? What is the cost of remaining in a
state of suppressed disquiet, fearing some vague "threat
level orange" and watching increasingly bizarre security
measures - especially at the airport - tighten around us?
What is the cost of not making a nuke-free world a political
priority in the United States ?
"By contributing to a climate in which possessing nuclear
weapons is legitimate," the statement continues, "the United
States has also undermined the ability of the international
community to prevent more states from acquiring them. . . .
The United States can, and should, take the lead in promoting
an effort to clear the path to a world free of nuclear weapons."
Like I say, what was the Union of Concerned Scientists
thinking - trying to put this matter on the agenda of
America's major political parties as they meet to choose new
leaders and determine our national direction?
"Eventually we want to live in a world free of nuclear
weapons," UCS spokesman Aaron Huertas told me. But here's the
thing. As Clear Channel and Northwest Airlines understood, we
can live in that world right now just by taking that
unpleasant ad down - no politics in the airport, please - and
maintaining a state of impenetrable denial.
© 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
[Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist,
is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally
syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at
bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.]
No comments:
Post a Comment