NP? War On Terrorism: Winking At Nuclear Terror

[Doug Millison]

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:17:45 -0700
From: ZNet Commentaries <sysop at zmag.org>
Subject: Solomon / War On Terrorism: Winking At Nuclear Terror / Jun 03

ZNet Commentary
War On Terrorism: Winking At Nuclear Terror June 03, 2002
By Norman Solomon

Two countries -- each with dozens of atomic bombs -- are threatening to
make war on each other. Large numbers of troops have mobilized. Deadly
cross-border clashes are intense. And people in charge of both governments
have become more bellicose by the day.

Maybe you think this situation calls for U.S. officials and American media
outlets to focus on ways of preventing the outbreak of a war that could
quickly turn into a nuclear conflagration. If so, your mode of thinking is
distinctly out of step with the "war on terrorism."

You see, as the summer of 2002 begins, what matters most is the Pentagon's
determination to kill as many Al Qaeda fighters as possible. Some of them
are located in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and perhaps also Kashmir,
the region that's under bitter dispute by India and Pakistan.

Since the leaders in New Delhi and Islamabad have their fingers on nuclear
buttons, their escalating threats ought to concentrate our minds on the
very real perils of the situation. An attack with a single 10-kiloton
atomic warhead could cause immediate deaths numbering in the hundreds of
thousands.

For starters. "American intelligence estimates put the toll in the event of
a full exchange of the two nuclear arsenals at 12 million dead with maybe 7
million wounded -- an instant slaughter unprecedented in the history of
mankind," Henry Porter wrote in the London-based Guardian.

Such figures, applied to human carnage, may be impossible to grasp. You
might think of the World Trade Center catastrophe occurring simultaneously
about 4,000 times (leaving aside widespread radiation sickness and
longer-term agonies). Such comparisons may be needed to galvanize much
attention from the U.S. media, still transfixed as it is with stories
related to 9/11.

By now, America's "war on terrorism" often seems to be a war of narcissism.
The world view is so extremely self-engrossed -- and so widely accepted by
news media -- that the movers and shakers of the Fourth Estate usually
don't bat an eye even when rationales get positively loopy.

There was a remarkably myopic -- no, let's not beat around the bush --
there was a remarkably deranged moment on May 28 when Pentagon spokeswoman
Victoria Clarke voiced concern about the increasing chances of war between
the two nuclear-armed states. Why? Because, in order to confront India with
additional ground forces, Pakistan was about to pull troops away from its
border with Afghanistan and thus weaken efforts against Al Qaeda and
Taliban soldiers.

Noting that Pakistani troops at the Afghan border have been "enormously,
enormously helpful" to the U.S. government, Clarke worried aloud.
"Attention and troops that cannot be focused there because they're focused
elsewhere, that's a concern for us because we need as much assistance as
possible in guarding that very porous border," she said. Those comments
didn't raise many eyebrows in America's newsrooms.

Hello? While events are rapidly careening in the direction of a war that
could bring nuclear disaster to the Indian subcontinent, the Bush
administration contends that a brake must be applied -- because of the
importance of killing Al Qaeda members this summer?

Like quite a few other regimes, the fanatical Hindu fundamentalists running
India's government have echoed the U.S. "war on terrorism" mantra to
harmonize with their own militaristic intentions. While the Pentagon was
complaining that a slippery slope to nuclear war between India and Pakistan
would be inconvenient for Washington's policymakers, the Indian foreign
minister employed a familiar lexicon.

"The world recognizes that today the epicenter of international terrorism
is in Pakistan," said Jaswant Singh. "Terrorists targeting not only India
but other countries, too, receive support from state structures in
Pakistan."

Although the consequences of any nuclear detonation in the conflict between
India and Pakistan would be a horrific cataclysm, the predictable results
are apt to get little advance media attention from major American outlets.
In the current war of narcissism -- despite all the self-congratulatory
froth after Sept. 11 about the global vistas flung open by the newly
enlightened U.S. media -- the news world still revolves largely around the
USA and Washington's line of the day.

But perhaps, under the news-you-can-use category, some angles can grab
appreciable coverage: If a faraway nuclear exchange takes place, Americans
who feel that Strontium-90 would not be appropriate for their current
lifestyles should forget about consuming dairy products (that includes
lattes and cappuccinos) for at least a few years. They would be wise to
cultivate indoor gardens in a hurry. And they'd be well-advised to stay
indoors with all windows tightly sealed.

___________________

Norman Solomon's books include "Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's
Experience with Atomic Radiation" (Delacorte Press), which he co-authored
with Harvey Wasserman in 1982.


--> If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not
repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to
Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at
http://www.zmag.org


Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-06/02solomon.cfm