Scare This!
July 12th, 2009I recently heard on NPR that President Obama considers “Nuclear Terrorism” to be the greatest global threat.
What struck me as so odd about that statement is the redundancy of that term. How can those two words ever be exclusive? The concept of nuclear weapons has always been terrorism of the highest order by their very design.
The two words that don’t seem to fit together are Nuclear Warfare; Warfare being a military struggle between two opposing armies. Nukes however, were designed to annihilate entire cities full of civilian populations.
In fact, the phrase “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD…coincidence?) given to us by Henry Kissenger under the Nixon administration (the second worst president ever) set forth global terrorism on the largest scale. During the cold war we lived with this “peace keeping agreement” in which the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. agreed that any use of Nuclear weapons would incur a crushing response from the other. In short, the entire world henceforth had to live with the threat of complete destruction if either of the world’s two superpowers got an itchy trigger finger.
People are so much easier to manage when they’re scared. Isn’t that right, Satan?
So now we get to the heart of the whole terrorism paradigm. It’s a word that is used by everyone to describe their enemy’s scare tactics…but never their own. Intimidation through brutal violence which, let’s face it, is the ever-present darker side of our human nature. To me, this is much more frightening.
In August of 1945 World War II was brought to an end by use of nuclear terrorism. President Truman warned Emperor Hirohito that unless the Japanese surrendered unconditionally they would incur complete destruction. He was then convinced by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, courtesy of “Nuclear Warfare”.
I know many people suggest it was justified by the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor and that by doing so Truman saved many more lives that would have been lost in the fighting had the war continued, but I’m not arguing the justifications. That’s a topic for another day. I’m simply arguing semantics, because it was intimidation through brutal violence perpetrated against civilian populations.
There are many other examples of terrorism used in war; the firebombing of Dresden, the bombing campaign in Kosovo, “Shock and Awe” …etc… In fact, one might argue that wars are always fought and won by terrorism. Battles and invasions are always preceded by saber rattling, shows of force, threats, ultimatums, in hopes that the other side will lose their nerve or at least become psychologically defeated before the first shot is fired.
Fail that? … The most brutal violence imaginable ensues.
Terrorism is a handy, catch-all word loosely used without ever being clearly defined. It speaks to the fear within us, or perhaps more accurately it speaks to the fear OF WHAT IS within us.