If something is immoral to do, then it is also immoral to threaten.
Language is shaped to aid and abet the possession and proliferation of the most heinous weapons known to man – nuclear bombs. The dialogue that surrounds nuclear weapons has been carefully constructed to reflect an uplifting major chord; to profess the grandeur and triumph of the nuclear umbrella and it’s so called ‘deterrence.’ However, nuclear weapons are more accurately described by a mournful minor chord and it is time we accept that the nuclear melody sung by our leaders is off-key.
The language around nuclear weapons has been carefully constructed to defend the indefensible. At the Trinity Atomic Bomb Site in New Mexico in July 1945, the world experienced its first nuclear explosion. At its core was a small bomb capable of eradicating a city in seconds – a war crime just waiting to happen. Yet, this unparalleled weapon, capable of indiscriminate death and destruction, was playfully reduced to being known as ‘The Gadget.’ Indeed, the whole language used to describe nuclear weapons has been warped and twisted from any accurate portrayal of reality since their inception.
The Three Mile Island catastrophe, where a nuclear power plant suffered a severe core meltdown, was dubbed an ‘anomaly,’ an ‘abnormal evolution,’ a ‘normal aberration’ and even a ‘plant transient.’ The accident was called everything but what it really was – a horrific accident. Even radioactive substances such as Strontium-90 are playfully measured in ‘sunshine units.’ And when deadly plutonium somehow goes missing, it is simply labelled a ‘material unaccounted for.’ The US has even managed to ‘lose’ a number of nuclear weapons, much in the same way we ‘lose’ our car keys… except our car keys cannot kill millions of people. In the nuclear mindset, there are never any accidents, only ‘events’ and ‘incidents.’ School children were told by a cheery cartoon turtle to ‘duck and cover’ in the event of a nuclear attack, as though that would do them any good. These gadgets are now hundreds and even thousands of times more destructive than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Yet, the language that surrounds them remains perilously stagnant.
“If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and Hiroshima. The people must unite, or they will perish.”
J. Robert Oppenheimer
‘Deterrence’ becomes the rug under which nuclear disarmament is readily swept under. Phrases such as ‘nuclear exchange’ took the place of astute sensibility that acknowledged the sheer carnage and fatality that would be sure to result. In fact, nuclear deterrence is an idea that has become a potentially lethal ideology, one that continues in influence despite having been increasingly discredited. Following the United States’ bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the overriding purpose of military forces changed from winning to averting. This was where nuclear deterrence was born: a supposed rational arrangement by which peace was to be secured by the threat of mutually assured destruction (‘MAD’, ironically enough). Importantly, deterrence became not merely a strategy, but the very basis on which governments justified nuclear weapons. Indeed, the governments that are in possession of nuclear weapons claim that they deter attacks by their threat of catastrophic retaliation, although countries like the US haven’t ruled out a first strike and countries like Israel have no qualms fighting supposedly preemptive wars. However, even a brief examination of this logic exposes deterrence as not remotely as compelling a principle as its reputation suggests. The Cold War is often taken as the token example of the MAD doctrine at play, deterring the US and former Soviet Union from collision. However, what is often left out is just how close we came to total annihilation. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the only actions of one man, Vasili Arkhipov, prevented a Russian submarine from launching nuclear weapons when the American’s dropped practice depth charges upon them. There have also been a number of miscommunications and computer errors that have almost caused all out nuclear war.. The sad reality is that if the Cold War had turned ‘hot’ it likely would have been in error. There is no need for Skynet when a computer error can easily start a nuclear war that will destroy the human race.
This intentionally detached language was first coined ‘Nukespeak’ in 1982 by Stephen Hilgartner, Richard C. Bell and Rory O’Connor. They dedicated their book to George Orwell, whose literary creation of ‘newspeak’ in the dystopian novel 1984 depicted the ability to control people’s understanding of reality through the manipulation of language. Indeed, the euphemisms, omissions and contradictions employed by nuclear proponents and governments (‘linguistic cosmetics’) are used to disguise uncomfortable, and perhaps threatening thoughts, so that the nuclear industry can maintain Orwellian control over the perceptions of nuclear power.
Who benefits most from controlling the image of nuclear weapons? Well, the very people who encourage their existence. Indeed, most of this universal nuclear language was created by early government boosters as the Atomic Energy Commission (in concert with industry forces) as part of a conscious selling strategy that eliminated ‘scare words’ and replaced them with ‘palpable synonyms.’ This attempt to ‘stabilise people’s attitude’ was augmented through acceptance campaigns which have fundamentally altered the general sensitivity of nuclear weapons. They have removed the stigma associated to them. It is almost unfathomable to consider chemical weapons, for instance, as deterrent mechanism. We are all well aware of their inhumane, torturous, destructive capabilities. In April 2015, when doctors testified at the UN Security Council about chlorine gas attacks in Syria, the Human Rights Watch estimated that over 200 were killed. Then-President Obama insisted that the use of such weapons cross his ‘red line.’ Nuclear weapons could destroy the whole world twice over. And yet, this nuclear weapon, which is able to cause a considerably greater humanitarian loss, is rendered necessary. Language becomes the tool for getting people to accept the unacceptable.
Yet, even world leaders, who should best understand the consequences of nuclear war, seem more than willing to flirt with the unconscionable possibility of all-out destruction. President Donald Trump’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 19 2017 shows little regard to the gravity of his words:
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
Calling Kim Jong-un ‘Rocket Man’ is more suited for a schoolyard spat than the President of the United States. Trump’s mockery obscures the moral consequences of his actions. His claim to be able to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea, ignores the fact that the US has already done this. During the Korean War, Secretary of State Dean Rusk admitted that United States bombed “every brick that was standing on top of another, everything that moved.” In the three short years of direct conflict, the US killed approximately 20% of the North Korean population. To this day, the North Koreans are still digging up thousands of un-exploded bombs from the war, with experts estimating that it may take over 100 years to remove them all. It is for this very reason that the North Korean regime see nuclear weapons as integral to their survival. Consequently, the speech was good for headlines, but it only inflames the tensions which could lead to nuclear war.
As Michael O’Hanlon argued, we cannot ‘un-invent the nuclear bomb.’ If we want a future without nuclear weapons, changing our language may not be the answer; but it is certainly a step towards a solution. We do not need to succumb to Nukespeak. We may not yet have the strategies to globally dismantle nuclear bombs, but we can dismantle the language that has made them possible.
