mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-10-01 01:15:38 -04:00
269 lines
16 KiB
HTML
269 lines
16 KiB
HTML
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>pluton</title>
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../CSSstyle.css"/>
|
|
<!--Fill in your link line for CSS and JS in the XSLT here! -->
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<h1 id="title-index">pluton</h1>
|
|
<div id="conspiracy">
|
|
<p>From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.save.the.earth,alt.individualism
|
|
Subject: A plutonium economy vs. a free democracy
|
|
<span class="info" title="Message-ID"> 1992Nov20.020820.1559@cs.ucla.edu</span>
|
|
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 02:08:20 GMT
|
|
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
|
|
Lines: 269</p>
|
|
<p>[From "The <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Russian</span> Threat, Its Myths and Realities" (c) 1983,
|
|
Gateway Books, London, by Jim Garrison and Pyrae Shivpuri, pp 231-236.]</p>
|
|
<p> The growing erosion of civil liberties in Western Europe and the
|
|
United States is closely linked with the nuclear energy-nuclear
|
|
weapons complex, which mandates a psyche all its own. This complex
|
|
creates the necessity for secrecy on the one hand and greater
|
|
protection of investment on the other. Not only are there high
|
|
financial and environmental risks but also potential ramifications
|
|
beyond national boundaries. Because of the 'plutonium culture'
|
|
generated by the nuclear complex, the age old dilemma of striking a
|
|
balance between state authority and the rights of the individual is
|
|
being forced to opt for increasing state control, and diminishing
|
|
individual freedom. The plutonium culture allows for no other
|
|
choice.
|
|
Each operating nuclear reactor produces between 400 to 600 pounds
|
|
of plutonium waste each year. Less than one millionth of a gram, if
|
|
ingested, can cause cancer and/or genetic mutation. Twenty pounds,
|
|
if properly fashioned, can be made into a nuclear bomb. Because of
|
|
this, *the different aspects of the plutonium economy must be as
|
|
tightly guarded as nuclear weapons themselves*. Nuclear weapons are
|
|
kept at military facilities generally away from population centres
|
|
and specifically under guard in a military system predicated upon
|
|
discipline, hierarchy and authoritarian leadership. Similar
|
|
protection for the 'atoms for peace' programme will have a
|
|
devastating impact upon the democratic freedoms and civil liberties
|
|
of the citizens.
|
|
The potential problem with the plutonium economy and its relation
|
|
to human freedom has been succinctly expressed by a statement made by
|
|
Dr. Bernard Feld, Chairperson of the Atomic and High Energy Physics
|
|
Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:</p>
|
|
<p> Let me tell you about a nightmare I have. The Mayor of
|
|
Boston sends for me for an urgent consultation. He has
|
|
received a note from a terrorist group telling him that they
|
|
have planted a nuclear bomb somewhere in central Boston. The
|
|
Mayor has confirmed that 20 pounds of plutonium is missing
|
|
from Government stocks. He shows me the crude diagram and a
|
|
set of the terrorists outrageous demands. I know--as one of
|
|
those who participated in the assembly of the first atomic
|
|
bomb--that the device would work. Not efficiently, but
|
|
nevertheless with devastating effect. What should I do?
|
|
Surrender to blackmail or risk destroying my home town?[9]</p>
|
|
<p> The dangers are real, so real that government planners in every
|
|
country with nuclear programmes have undertaken steps to be prepared
|
|
for Dr. Feld's scenario. In 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
|
|
(NRC) commissioned a specific study of the problem. One of the
|
|
participants, Professor John Barton, Professor of Jurisprudence at
|
|
Stanford University Law School, prepared a paper entitled
|
|
'Intensified Nuclear Safeguards and Civil Liberties.' The document
|
|
began by stating that:</p>
|
|
<p> Increased public concern with nuclear terrorism, coupled with
|
|
the possibility of greatly increased use of plutonium in
|
|
civilian power reactors, are leading the US Nuclear
|
|
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to consider various forms of
|
|
intensified safeguards against theft or loss of nuclear
|
|
materials and against *sabotage*. The intensified safeguards
|
|
could include expansion of personnel clearance programs, a
|
|
nationwide guard force, *greater surveillance of dissenting
|
|
political groups,* area searches in the event of a loss of
|
|
materials, and creation of *new barriers of secrecy* around
|
|
parts of the nuclear program.[10]</p>
|
|
<p> It is important to be clear what the above statement implies. The
|
|
governments supporting nuclear power are attempting to protect the
|
|
plutonium economy from two perceived enemies: first, those who would
|
|
use the nuclear materials to terrorise the country through some type
|
|
of nuclear sabotage; and second, those who seek to stop nuclear
|
|
power, meaning anti-nuclear 'dissenting political groups'. This
|
|
requires a nationwide guard force to be created specifically to deal
|
|
with any terrorism and the erection of new barriers of secrecy around
|
|
the nuclear programmes to keep public knowledge and participation at
|
|
a minimum. Both sets of enemies would be subject to greater
|
|
surveillance through electronic listening devices such as phone taps.
|
|
In Britain, for instance, it is accepted as a matter of course
|
|
that anyone working for the Atomic Energy Authority be 'positively
|
|
vetted' before being appointed. The Official Secrets Act, moreover,
|
|
allows the government and the atomic industry to keep the nuclear
|
|
installations cloaked in secrecy and the employees forbidden to
|
|
communicate anything about their work. In 1976, Britain also became
|
|
the first country to establish by law a nationwide guard force of
|
|
constables under the direct control of the atomic authorities in
|
|
order to guard nuclear facilities and specifically the plutonium
|
|
stores. This guard force has privileges in relation to carrying
|
|
weapons not granted to any other <span class="NORP" title="NORP">British</span> police unit. Indeed, so
|
|
sensitive are these privileges that under the Official Secrets Act,
|
|
information about them has not been made available to the public.
|
|
This force is mandated not only to guard against possible terrorism
|
|
but to keep tabs on 'dissenting political groups.'
|
|
Jonathan Rosenhead, of the London School of Economics, points out
|
|
that this type of political control is very easily overlooked by the
|
|
general populace because it is specifically designed and intended to
|
|
be used as inconspicuously as possible. In America, political
|
|
scientists refer to this technique as the "politics of the iron fist
|
|
in the velvet glove." "What the ruling groups prefer", he says,</p>
|
|
<p> is to produce a situation in which no one dares oppose their
|
|
plans. Their favourite methods are therefore to exploit
|
|
people's dependence on consumer goods and on their jobs and
|
|
exercising prevention controls by means of intensive
|
|
surveillance. In the event of open conflict breaking out in
|
|
spite of that, they would hope at least to contain it by
|
|
'limited operations.'[11]</p>
|
|
<p> What needs to be remembered in assessing this state of affairs is
|
|
that plutonium, if it is to be used, must be protected by police
|
|
state methods. We just cannot have something that can be used for
|
|
nuclear bombs and can damage and mutate human life with the
|
|
lethalness of millions of cancer doses per pound floating about in a
|
|
free society. *A plutonium economy and a free democracy are a
|
|
contradiction in terms.* This is a fact that has been recognised by
|
|
leading legal experts and politicians alike. Writing in the "Harvard
|
|
Law Review," Russell Ayres states flatly that 'plutonium provides the
|
|
first rational justification for widespread intelligence gathering
|
|
against the civilian population.'[12] The reason for this is that
|
|
the threat of nuclear terrorism justifies such encroachments on civil
|
|
liberties for 'national security' reasons. It is inevitable,
|
|
therefore, says Ayres, that "plutonium use would create pressures for
|
|
infiltration into civic, political, environmental and professional
|
|
groups to a far greater extent than previously encountered and with a
|
|
greater impact on speech and associated rights". Sir Brian Flowers,
|
|
in Britain, has come to similar conclusions. At the end of his
|
|
environmental impact statement for the plutonium economy in the
|
|
United Kingdom, known as the Flowers Report, he made it quite clear
|
|
that Britain could not have both plutonium and civil liberties.
|
|
Rather, he said, to adopt the plutonium economy would make
|
|
'inevitable' the erosion of the freedoms that <span class="NORP" title="NORP">British</span> people had
|
|
fought for over the centuries and have come to assume and accept as
|
|
inalienable rights.
|
|
What is happening to Western Europe and the US should not be seen
|
|
as an abnormal occurrence; rather, it should be viewed as the
|
|
*logical progression* of what the adoption of the plutonium economy
|
|
in any country implies. There are certain psychological implications
|
|
inherent in the use and development of nuclear weapons. There are
|
|
direct physical results on both workers and public alike from the
|
|
nuclear fuel cycle. So, too, the plutonium economy makes inevitable
|
|
the erosion of human rights.
|
|
Observers in the Netherlands and West Germany refer to the decline
|
|
of the "Rechtsstadt" (meaning a state guided by laws which are both
|
|
just and accepted) and the rise of the "Machtstadt," where state
|
|
authority is based on power equations. In the US, it is sometimes
|
|
referred to as a 'national security state'. We prefer the term
|
|
"totalitarian democracy" to characterise the governments of the US
|
|
and Western Europe. It denotes a governmental system of
|
|
parliamentary democracy within which the official bureaucracy, the
|
|
police, and the legal authorities are vested with almost total power
|
|
over the individual.
|
|
It has been apparent for some time that the drive in the West for
|
|
all-out growth, dictated by the need for capital accumulation and
|
|
profits, has been creating problems that existing institutions, be
|
|
they national or international, are simply not equipped to handle.
|
|
These include:</p>
|
|
<p> * the alienation through and ruthlessness of the
|
|
multinational corporations;</p>
|
|
<p> * the frustrations of an economy where automation and
|
|
machinery are replacing human skills and ingenuity;</p>
|
|
<p> * the gnawing fears and anxieties aroused by the 'diseases
|
|
of affluence,' notably cancer, heart disease and stress;</p>
|
|
<p> * and the looming threat of environmental destruction, be
|
|
it at the local or planetary level, from chemical
|
|
pollution, or the plutonium economy.</p>
|
|
<p> As long as the boom lasted, and Western affluence was sustained
|
|
these pressures could be ignored. But that 'boom-balloon' has burst.
|
|
The energy crisis is deepening. The economic reality of increased
|
|
unemployment and inflation is becoming more and more depressing. The
|
|
pressures of burgeoning populations, as also the youth demanding
|
|
employment and a piece of the good life, are becoming unbearable.
|
|
In order to survive this 'crisis of capitalism', the dominant
|
|
forces in industry and government are forcing through a ruthless
|
|
restructuring and re-grouping of the economic system. In Western
|
|
Europe this is reflected in the wholesale writing-off of vast sectors
|
|
of traditional industry such as steel and textiles and the resultant
|
|
social decline of whole areas. The trend is to form blocs such as
|
|
the EEC but this in turn places increased strain on the member states
|
|
and does little more than paper over the fundamental problems with
|
|
another layer of bureaucracy. Under this weight, the welfare state
|
|
that grew up in the decades after World War II is being dismantled,
|
|
to squeeze just a bit more money to spend, as often as not, on more
|
|
weapon systems. In the process, yet another safety net is removed
|
|
for the individual who is the victim of the capitalist system. If it
|
|
is any consolation, Marxism hasn't come up with any answers either.
|
|
Those in power know they have no way to solve the problems or meet
|
|
the demands of their youth, of the millions of unemployed, of the
|
|
anti-nuclear movement, of the populations in economically depressed
|
|
areas, of the victims of industrial disasters, or of any other
|
|
discontented groups. The only valid answers are ones which involve
|
|
fundamental changes in our thinking and in our system itself, and
|
|
these are ones which those in power are not in a position to offer.
|
|
So they placate their constituencies with promises which they know
|
|
they cannot fulfil.
|
|
This only adds to the frustration of those who can no longer wait.
|
|
The next stage after fruitless protest cannot fail to be a challenge
|
|
to that part of the system of which the individual has become the
|
|
victim. If this challenge is met with either refusal or with
|
|
repression, the frustration of those in protest can lead to violent
|
|
action. Protest by violence against the system which cannot meet
|
|
their demands when peacefully presented is labelled by those in power
|
|
as 'terrorism.'
|
|
Foreseeing this scenario, the reaction of the dominant groups is
|
|
to proclaim the necessity to prepare in time to deal effectively with
|
|
those who are discontented. When there are violations that cannot be
|
|
put right, then freedom to criticise and, in the end, democracy
|
|
itself become hostage to 'effective governance.' It is an axiom of
|
|
history that when the people begin to question the right of their
|
|
leaders to govern, the leaders question the right of the people to
|
|
question.
|
|
The irony of this situation within the conflict of East-West
|
|
relations is that although the starting point of their analyses are
|
|
different, the conclusions drawn by the Soviet leaders and the
|
|
governing groups in the West are the same: both regard effective
|
|
governance as being hindered by a genuine democratic government. The
|
|
result in the East has been the 'dictatorship of the proletariat';
|
|
in the West, 'totalitarian democracy.'
|
|
While it is true that the system of repression in the West is not
|
|
as extensive or as brutal as in the East, except in isolated cases,
|
|
what is necessary to remember is that the *mentality* of the
|
|
oppressor, whether in the Kremlin or in 10 Downing Street or in the
|
|
White House, is the same. What is different are the *mechanisms*
|
|
which oppress the people below. In both cases what is achieved is
|
|
the setting up of a *standard of behaviour* which, because there are
|
|
no alternatives allowed, becomes the *pattern of behaviour.* This
|
|
creates a dangerous person-into-machine social norm. In the Soviet
|
|
Union this has been done with a ruthlessness that needed only the
|
|
unity and discipline of the Party; in the West mass control has been
|
|
achieved by subtle manipulation that needs either public ignorance or
|
|
public apathy to be effective. Social control is justified,
|
|
particularly as far as the plutonium economy is concerned, by the
|
|
over-riding necessity to avoid the catastrophe which might occur
|
|
either through carelessness, disobedience, or 'terrorism.' This
|
|
cultivated attitude enables the Western technocrats to represent
|
|
themselves to the public as the guardians of the society in the
|
|
emergency situation they themselves inspired and engineered.
|
|
The tragedy of the <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Russian</span> people is the suffering of individuals
|
|
endowed with a passion for personal freedom so profound as to verge
|
|
on the anarchic, and yet who have been forced to live under a
|
|
despotism resolutely intent upon the suppression of that freedom.
|
|
The tragedy unfolding in the West is of a people who achieved
|
|
liberty at great cost, but who now, faced with the despotism inherent
|
|
in the plutonium economy, are abnegating it. They are rendering
|
|
themselves subservient to those few who wish to build a national
|
|
security state supplied with nuclear energy and armed with nuclear
|
|
weapons. Our leaders are depriving us of the very liberties they
|
|
have been entrusted to defend. Moreover, they are manipulating the
|
|
'<span class="NORP" title="NORP">Russian</span> threat' to justify such actions, all the while claiming that
|
|
they are protecting democracy. Never before have so few asked so
|
|
many for so much for the sake of so little.</p>
|
|
<p> [9] In Robert Jungk, "The Nuclear State," trans. Eric Mosbacher,
|
|
London, 1979, pp. 118, 19.</p>
|
|
<p>[10] "Intensified Nuclear Safeguards and Civil Liberties," Nuclear Reg.
|
|
Comm. Cont. No. AT(49-24)-0190, Washington, DC, 31 Oct. 1975, p. 1.</p>
|
|
<p>[11] In Jungk, "Nuclear State, op. cit., p. 132.
|
|
|
|
[12] In Ibid., p. 142
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|