The Words None Dare Say:
Nuclear War
Published on Wednesday,
February 28, 2007 by
CommonDreams.org
by George Lakoff
"The elimination of Natanz
would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the
conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure
the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth
and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."
—Seymour Hersh,
The New Yorker, April 17, 2006
"The second concern is that
if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also
confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz
facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground
- is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called
bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100
feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost
entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That
said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail."
—Michael Levi,
New York Times, April 18, 2006
A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the
words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is
to keep reality from being described.
In such circumstances, silence
and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in
the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major
presidential candidates, are now complicit.
The stories in the major media
suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and
that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one
target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note,
military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the
GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility,
especially with repeated bombings. But on the other hand, they
also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not
work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes
liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear
weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.
If the Bush administration, for
example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack"
would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are
nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war — a first
strike nuclear war.
We don't know what exactly is
being planned — conventional GBU-28's or nuclear B61-11's. And
that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war
is not a minor matter.
The Euphemism
As early as August 13, 2005,
Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy
failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush
replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day
after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report
on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war
against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was
asked,
- "Sir, when you talk about
Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts,
you also say all options are on the table. Does that include
the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that
your administration will plan for?"
He replied,
- "All options are on the
table."
The President never actually
said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to
tacitly acknowledge the preparations — without further
discussion.
Vice-President Dick Cheney,
speaking in Australia last week,
backed up the President.
- "We worked with the
European community and the United Nations to put together a
set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their
aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is
still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the
president has made the point, that all options are on the
table."
Republican Presidential
Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August 14, 2005,
said the same.
- "For us to say that the
Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under
any circumstances exercise a military option would be for
them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So
I think the president's comment that we won't take anything
off the table was entirely appropriate."
But it's not just Republicans.
Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in
Herzliyah, Israel,
echoed Bush.
- "To ensure that Iran never
gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the
table. Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the
table."
Although, Edwards has said,
when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful
solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless
repeated the "all options on the table" position — making clear
that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war,
but without using the fateful words.
Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC
dinner in NY,
said,
- "We cannot, we should not,
we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear
weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for
a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."
Translation: Nuclear weapons
can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama, asked on 60
Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference
for diplomacy by
responding, "I think we should keep all options on the
table."
Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards,
Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously
consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not
engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That
contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along
with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.
If the consequences of nuclear
war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an
appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a
chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.
Of course, there is a rationale
for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think
that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not
raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to
the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must
have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go
along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going
indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for
candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say
what candidates are advised not to say.
More Euphemisms
The euphemisms used include
"tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons.
"Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics,
relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall
strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use
of any nuclear weapons at all would be anything but "tactical."
It would be a major world event – in Vladimir Putin's words,
"lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making
the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting
off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to
lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their
very use would constitute a nuclear war.
What is "low yield"? Perhaps
the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11,
which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3
kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power
of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb
can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the
Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a
hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward,
leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that
it would explode underground and be harmless to those above
ground is false — and, anyway, an underground release of
radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long
time and over wide distance.
To use words like "low yield"
or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a
little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It
crosses the moral line.
Any discussion of roadside
canister bombs made in Iran justifying an attack on Iran should
be put in perspective: Little canister bombs (EFP's —
explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal
ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.
Incidentally, the
administration may be focusing on the canister bombs because it
seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of military
force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In that
case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for
an attack on Iran.
The journalistic point is
clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about
an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is
really at stake: nuclear war — in boldface.
Then, there is the scale of the
proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge
(mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000
targets — a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's
infrastructure the way the US bombing destroyed Iraq's. The
targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch
reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an
attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political
infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile
launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports,
rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers,
power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings,
and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was
attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just
military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble,
and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness,
impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape,
and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options
appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what
the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without
discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the
American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and
the media must ask. The words must be used.
Even if the attack were limited
to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with
Iran would have terrible consequences — and not just for
Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic
fundamentalists — exactly the opposite of the effect US planners
would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on
Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to
recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become
violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would
become a world pariah. Any idea of the US as a peaceful nation
would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread
of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make
countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more.
Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war
is self-defeating.
As Einstein said, "You cannot
simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
Why would the Bush
administration do it? Here is what conservative strategist
William Kristol
wrote last summer during Israel's war with Hezbollah.
- "For while Syria and
Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the
United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to
them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly
than one would have thought possible a few years ago.
Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have
allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
-
The right
response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments
of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in
pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter,
we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression
with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained?
That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It
would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there
would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones,
showing a strong America that has rejected further
appeasement."
—Willam Kristol, Weekly
Standard 7/24/06
"Renewed strength" is just the
Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us
to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans
want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to
kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak
in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because,
if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at
least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran
would really put us in a world-wide war with fundamentalist
Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been
claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear — real fear — in
America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to
make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.
Kristol's neoconservative view
that "weakness is provocative" is echoed in Iran, but by the
other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was
quoted in the New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having
"vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show
weakness in front of the enemies, they will increase their
expectations.'" If both sides refuse to back off for fear of
showing weakness, then prospects for conflict are real, despite
the repeated analyses, like
that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons
against Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one
unnamed administration official has
said (New York Times, February 24, 2007), "No one has
defined where the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians
step over."
What we are seeing now is the
conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the
ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction
against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is
done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water –
if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat
and eventually boils to death – the American public is getting
gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.
- First, describe Iran as evil – part of the axis of evil.
An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and
can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat
to other nations.
- Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is
inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to
negotiate with him.
- Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having
nuclear weapons —weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years
away.
- Call nuclear development "an existential threat" – a
threat to our very existence.
- Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and
make it seem acceptable.
- Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" —
or better protection for our troops from the EFP's, or
single-shot canister bombs.
- Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking
responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at
its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite
militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact
that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our
troops.
- Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking
Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim
that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing
"whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian
intervention in Iraq.
- Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our
troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up
escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
- Get the press to go along with each step.
- Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war"
or "national destruction." When asked, say "All
options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war
and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the
national media.
- Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into
agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should
be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and
nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.
Progressives managed to blunt
the "surge" idea by telling the truth about "escalation."
Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction
constitute the ultimate escalation.
The time has come to stop the
attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to
the American public. We do not believe that most Americans want
to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction
on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support
a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in retaliation for
small canister bombs and to end Iran's early nuclear capacity.
It is time for America's
journalists and political leaders to put two and two together,
and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration
seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation
destruction? If the conventional GBU-28's will do the job,
then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of
controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28's won't do
the job, then it is all the more important to have that
discussion.
This should not be a
distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a
policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not
separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public
scrutiny does.
--
George Lakoff is the author of
Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff) and
Whose Freedom? He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished
Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University
of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the
Rockridge Institute.
Source |
