WHY WAR?

John Scales Avery

June 22, 2021

 INTRODUCTION1

Albert Einstein’s letter to Sigmund Freud

Why War?, the title of this book, was also the title of a famous letter written
to Sigmund Freud by Albert Einstein.
In 1931, the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation invited
Albert Einstein to enter correspondence with a prominent person of his own
choosing on a subject of importance to society. The Institute planned to pub-
lish a collection of such dialogues. Einstein accepted at once, and decided to
write to Sigmund Freud to ask his opinion about how humanity could free
itself from the curse of war. Here are some quotations from Einsteins’s letter,
translated from the original German:

“Dear Professor Freud,

“Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?
“It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern
science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for
civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed,
every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.
“I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the
problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware
of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire
to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science,
can see world-problems in the perspective distance lends. As for
me, the normal objective of my thought affords no insight into the
dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the enquiry now
proposed, I can do little more than seek to clarify the question
at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions,
enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of
man’s instinctive life to bear upon the problem...
“As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple
way of dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a leg-
1
This book makes use of my previously published book chapters, but a considerable
amount of new material has also been added.

1
islative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between
nations. Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued
by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to
accept its judgments unreservedly and to carry out every measure
the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees. But
here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a
human institution which, in proportion as the power at its disposal
is inadequate to enforce its verdicts, is all the more prone to suffer
these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure... ”

Freud replied with a long and thoughtful letter in which he said that a
tendency towards conflict is an intrinsic part of human emotional nature, but
that emotions can be overridden by rationality, and that rational behavior is
the only hope for humankind.

Tribalism, and its relationship to nationalism

Can we give better answers today to the questions raised by the exchange of
letters between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud?
Charles Darwin’s observations convinced him that in humans, just as in
other mammals, the emotions and their expression are to a very large extent
inherited universal characteristics of the species.
The study of inherited behavior patterns in animals (and humans) was
continued in the 20th century by such researchers as Karl von Frisch (1886-
1982), Nikolaas Tinbergen (1907-1988), and Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989),
three scientists who shared a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973.
The third of the 1973 prizewinners, Konrad Lorenz, is the most contro-
versial, but at the same time very interesting in the context of studies of
the causes of war and discussions of how war may be avoided. As a young
boy, he was very fond of animals, and his tolerant parents allowed him to
build up a large menagerie in their house in Altenberg, Austria. Even as
a child, he became an expert on waterfowl behavior, and he discovered the
phenomenon of imprinting. He was given a one day old duckling, and found,
to his intense joy, that it transferred its following response to his person.
As Lorenz discovered, young waterfowl have a short period immediately af-
ter being hatched, when they identify as their “mother” whomever they see
first. In later life, Lorenz continued his studies of imprinting, and there exists
a touching photograph of him, with his white beard, standing waist-deep in

2
a pond, surrounded by an adoring group of goslings who believe him to be
their mother. Lorenz also studied bonding behavior in waterfowl.
It is, however, for his controversial book On Aggression that Konrad
Lorenz is best known. In this book, Lorenz makes a distinction between
intergroup aggression and intragroup aggression. Among animals, he points
out, rank-determining fights are seldom fatal. Thus, for example, the fights
that determine leadership within a wolf pack end when the loser makes a
gesture of submission. By contrast, fights between groups of animals are
often fights to the death, examples being wars between ant colonies, or of
bees against intruders, or the defense of a rat pack against strange rats.
Many animals, humans included, seem willing to kill or be killed in de-
fense of the communities to which they belong. Lorenz calls this behavioral
tendency a “communal defense response”. He points out that the “holy
shiver” - the tingling of the spine that humans experience when performing a
heroic act in defense of their communities - is related to the prehuman reflex
for raising the hair on the back of an animal as it confronts an enemy - a
reflex that makes the animal seem larger than it really is.
In an essay entitled The Urge to Self-Destruction 2 , Arthur Koestler says:

“Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that in-

dividual crimes, committed for selfish motives, play a quite in-
significant role in the human tragedy compared with the numbers
massacred in unselfish love of one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church
or ideology... Wars are not fought for personal gain, but out of
loyalty and devotion to king, country or cause...”
“We have seen on the screen the radiant love of the Führer on
the faces of the Hitler Youth... They are transfixed with love, like
monks in ecstasy on religious paintings. The sound of the nation’s
anthem, the sight of its proud flag, makes you feel part of a won-
derfully loving community. The fanatic is prepared to lay down his
life for the object of his worship, as the lover is prepared to die for
his idol. He is, alas, also prepared to kill anybody who represents
a supposed threat to the idol.”

The emotion described here by Koestler is the same as the communal

2
in The Place of Value in a World of Facts, A. Tiselius and S. Nielsson editors, Wiley,
New York, (1970)

3
defense mechanism (“militant enthusiasm”) described in biological terms by
Lorenz.

Population genetics
Human emotions evolved during the long period when our ancestors lived in
small, genetically homogeneous tribes, competing for territory on the grass-
lands of Africa.
To explain from an evolutionary point of view the communal defense
mechanism discussed by Lorenz - the willingness of humans to kill and be
killed in defense of their communities - we have only to imagine that our an-
cestors lived in small tribes and that marriage was likely to take place within
a tribe rather than across tribal boundaries. Under these circumstances, each
tribe would tend to consist of genetically similar individuals. The tribe it-
self, rather than the individual, would be the unit on which the evolutionary
forces of natural selection would act. The idea of group selection in evolution
was first proposed by J.B.S. Haldane and R.A. Fischer, and more recently it
has been discussed by W.D. Hamilton and E.O. Wilson.

Military-industrial complexes
In his farewell address, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned his na-
tion against the excessive power that had been acquired during World War
II by the military-industrial complex: “We have been compelled to create an
armaments industry of vast proportions,” Eisenhower said, “...Now this con-
junction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is
new in American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even
spiritual - is felt in every city, every state house, every office in the federal
government. ... We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our
toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our
society. ... We must stand guard against the acquisition of unwarranted in-
fluence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The
potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our democratic
processes. We should take nothing for granted.”
Because the world spends roughly two trillion dollars each year on arma-
ments, it follows that very many people make their living from war. This is
the reason why it is correct to speak of war as a social, political and economic

4
institution, and also one of the main reasons why war persists, although ev-
eryone realizes that it is the cause of much of the suffering of humanity.
We know that war is madness, but it persists. We know that it threatens
the survival of our species, but it persists, entrenched in the attitudes of
historians, newspaper editors and television producers, entrenched in the
methods by which politicians finance their campaigns, and entrenched in the
financial power of arms manufacturers - entrenched also in the ponderous
and costly hardware of war, the fleets of warships, bombers, tanks, nuclear
missiles and so on.

Colonialism
The Industrial Revolution opened up an enormous gap in military strength
between the industrialized nations and the rest of the world. Taking advan-
tage of their superior weaponry, Europe, the United States and Japan rapidly
carved up the remainder of the world into colonies, which acted as sources
of raw materials and food, and as markets for manufactured goods. Between
1800 and 1914, the percentage of the earth under the domination of colonial
powers increased to 85 percent, if former colonies are included.
The English economist and Fabian, John Atkinson Hobson (1858-1940),
offered a famous explanation of the colonial era in his book “Imperialism: A
Study” (1902). According to Hobson, the basic problem that led to colonial
expansion was an excessively unequal distribution of incomes in the indus-
trialized countries. The result of this unequal distribution was that neither
the rich nor the poor could buy back the total output of their society. The
incomes of the poor were insufficient, and rich were too few in number. The
rich had finite needs, and tended to reinvest their money. As Hobson pointed
out, reinvestment in new factories only made the situation worse by increas-
ing output.
Hobson had been sent as a reporter by the Manchester Guardian to cover
the Second Boer War. His experiences had convinced him that colonial wars
have an economic motive. Such wars are fought, he believed, to facilitate
investment of the excess money of the rich in African or Asian plantations and
mines, and to make possible the overseas sale of excess manufactured goods.
Hobson believed imperialism to be immoral. The cure that he recommended
was a more equal distribution of incomes in the manufacturing countries.

5
Nuclear war
Do our “Defense Departments” really defend us? Absolutely not! Their
very title is a lie. The military-industrial complex sells itself by claiming to
defend civilians. It justifies vast and crippling budgets by this claim; but it
is a fraud. For the military-industrial complex, the only goal is money and
power. Civilians like ourselves are just hostages. We are expendable. We are
pawns in the power game, the money game.
Nations possessing nuclear weapons threaten each other with “Mutually
Assured Destruction”, which has the very appropriate acronym MAD.
What does this mean? Does it mean that civilians are being protected?
Not at all. Instead they are threatened with complete destruction. Civilians
here play the role of hostages in the power games of their leaders.
A thermonuclear war today would be not only genocidal but also omnici-
dal. It would kill people of all ages, babies, children, young people, mothers,
fathers and grandparents, without any regard whatever for guilt or inno-
cence. Such a war would be the ultimate ecological catastrophe, destroying
not only human civilization but also much of the biosphere.

Nuclear weapons are criminal! Every war is a crime!

War was always madness, always immoral, always the cause of unspeakable
suffering, economic waste and widespread destruction, and always a source of
poverty, hate, barbarism and endless cycles of revenge and counter-revenge.
It has always been a crime for soldiers to kill people, just as it is a crime
for murderers in civil society to kill people. No flag has ever been wide
enough to cover up atrocities. But today, the development of all-destroying
thermonuclear weapons has put war completely beyond the bounds of sanity
and elementary humanity.
Can we not rid the world of these insane and antihuman weapons before
everything of value in our beautiful world is reduced to radioactive ashes?

6
8
Contents

1 ALBERT EINSTEIN, SCIENTIST AND PACIFIST 13

1.1 Family background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2 Special relativity theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.3 General relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4 Einstein’s letter to Freud: Why war? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5 The fateful letter to Roosevelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.6 A few more things that Einstein said about peace: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2 TRIBALISM 55
2.1 Ethology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.2 Population genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.3 Formation of group identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.4 Religion and ethnic identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.5 Tribal markings; ethnicity; pseudospeciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.6 The mystery of self-sacrifice in war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.7 Fischer, Haldane, Hamilton and Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.8 Cooperation in groups of animals and human groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.9 Trading in primitive societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.10 Interdependence in modern human society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.11 Two sides of human nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.12 Tribalism and agreed-upon lies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.13 From tribalism to nationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.14 Nationalism in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3 MALTHUS: POPULATION PRESSURE AND WAR 105

3.1 The education of Malthus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.2 Debate on the views of Godwin and Condorcet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.3 Publication of the first essay in 1798 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.4 The second essay published in 1803 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.5 Systems of equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.6 The Poor Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.7 Replies to Malthus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.8 Ricardo’s Iron Law of Wages; the Corn Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

9
10 CONTENTS

3.9 The Irish Potato Famine of 1845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

3.10 The impact of Malthus on biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

4 RESOURCE WARS 141

4.1 Adam Smith’s invisible hand is at our throats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.2 Our greed-based economic system today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3 Human motivations were not always so selfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.4 Neocolonialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.5 The resource curse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.6 Confessions of an economic hit-man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.7 Debt slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.8 Blood for oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.9 Excessive inequality maintained by military force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.10 Oxfam’s report on inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.11 Persistent effects of colonialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
4.12 Historical conflicts related to water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4.13 Conflicts over water in the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.14 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

5 ECOLOGY AND THE VIETNAM WAR 183

5.1 McNamara’s Evil Lives On . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
5.2 The Pentagon Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
5.3 Effects of Agent Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
5.4 Bombing of Cambodia and Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

6 THE THREATS AND COSTS OF WAR 199

6.1 The training of soldiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6.2 Killing civilians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6.3 The direct and indirect costs of war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
6.4 Medical and psychological consequences; loss of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
6.5 Effects of war on children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
6.6 Refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
6.7 Damage to infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
6.8 Ecological damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
6.9 Links between poverty and war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
6.10 The threat of nuclear war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
6.11 Atoms for peace? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
6.12 Cancer threat from radioactive leaks at Hanford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
6.13 An accident waiting to happen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
6.14 Flaws in the concept of nuclear deterrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
6.15 Nuclear weapons are criminal! Every war is a crime! . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
CONTENTS 11

7 MUST WE HAVE PERPETUAL WAR? 255

7.1 War as a political, economic and social institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
7.2 Eisenhower’s farewell address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
7.3 The “War on Terror” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
7.4 We are militarism’s hostages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
7.5 We have come within a hair’s breadth of disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
7.6 Biden’s aggressive foreign policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
7.7 Biden and Putin meet on June 16, 2021, in Geneva . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

8 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GOVERNANCE 277

8.1 The future of international law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
8.2 Nuclear warfare as genocide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.3 Protecting whistleblowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
8.4 The illegality of NATO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
8.5 Violations of Article VI: Marshall Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
8.6 Reform of the United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
8.7 Federations, past, present and future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
8.8 The Tobin tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
8.9 An international police force? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
8.10 A few concrete steps towards United Nations reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
8.11 Governments of large nations and global government . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

9 ICAN AWARDED THE 2017 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 327

9.1 What is ICAN? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
9.2 The ICAN Nobel Lecture by Beatrice Fihn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
9.3 The Nobel Lecture continued by Setsuko Thurlow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
9.4 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
12 CONTENTS
Chapter 1

ALBERT EINSTEIN, SCIENTIST

AND PACIFIST

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our ways of thinking, and
thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophes.”

“I don’t know what will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with stones.”

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Besides being one of the greatest physicists of all time, Albert Einstein was a lifelong
pacifist, and his thoughts on peace can speak eloquently to us today. We need his wisdom
today, when the search for peace has become vital to our survival as a species.

1.1 Family background

Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany, in 1879. He was the son of middle-class,
irreligious Jewish parents, who sent him to a Catholic school. Einstein was slow in learning
to speak, and at first his parents feared that he might be retarded; but by the time he was
eight, his grandfather could say in a letter: “Dear Albert has been back in school for a
week. I just love that boy, because you cannot imagine how good and intelligent he has
become.”
Remembering his boyhood, Einstein himself later wrote: “When I was 12, a little book
dealing with Euclidean plane geometry came into my hands at the beginning of the school
year. Here were assertions, as for example the intersection of the altitudes of a triangle in
one point, which, though by no means self-evident, could nevertheless be proved with such
certainty that any doubt appeared to be out of the question. The lucidity and certainty
made an indescribable impression on me.”
When Albert Einstein was in his teens, the factory owned by his father and uncle began
to encounter hard times. The two Einstein families moved to Italy, leaving Albert alone

13
14 WHY WAR?

and miserable in Munich, where he was supposed to finish his course at the gymnasium.
Einstein’s classmates had given him the nickname “Beidermeier”, which means something
like “Honest John”; and his tactlessness in criticizing authority soon got him into trouble.
In Einstein’s words, what happened next was the following: “When I was in the seventh
grade at the Lutpold Gymnasium, I was summoned by my home-room teacher, who ex-
pressed the wish that I leave the school. To my remark that I had done nothing wrong, he
replied only, ‘Your mere presence spoils the respect of the class for me’.”
Einstein left gymnasium without graduating, and followed his parents to Italy, where
he spent a joyous and carefree year. He also decided to change his citizenship. “The
over-emphasized military mentality of the German State was alien to me, even as a boy”,
Einstein wrote later. “When my father moved to Italy, he took steps, at my request, to
have me released from German citizenship, because I wanted to be a Swiss citizen.”

The financial circumstances of the Einstein family were now precarious, and it was clear
that Albert would have to think seriously about a practical career. In 1896, he entered
the famous Zürich Polytechnic Institute with the intention of becoming a teacher of math-
ematics and physics. However, his undisciplined and nonconformist attitudes again got
him into trouble. His mathematics professor, Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), considered
Einstein to be a “lazy dog”; and his physics professor, Heinrich Weber, who originally had
gone out of his way to help Einstein, said to him in anger and exasperation: “You’re a
clever fellow, but you have one fault: You won’t let anyone tell you a thing! You won’t let
anyone tell you a thing!”
Einstein missed most of his classes, and read only the subjects which interested him. He
was interested most of all in Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetism, a subject which was
too “modern” for Weber. There were two major examinations at the Zürich Polytechnic
Institute, and Einstein would certainly have failed them had it not been for the help of his
loyal friend, the mathematician Marcel Grossman.
Grossman was an excellent and conscientious student, who attended every class and
took meticulous notes. With the help of these notes, Einstein managed to pass his ex-
aminations; but because he had alienated Weber and the other professors who could have
helped him, he found himself completely unable to get a job. In a letter to Professor F.
Ostwald on behalf of his son, Einstein’s father wrote: “My son is profoundly unhappy
because of his present joblessness; and every day the idea becomes more firmly implanted
in his mind that he is a failure, and will not be able to find the way back again.”
From this painful situation, Einstein was rescued (again!) by his friend Marcel Gross-
man, whose influential father obtained for Einstein a position at the Swiss Patent Office:
Technical Expert (Third Class). Anchored at last in a safe, though humble, position, Ein-
stein married one of his classmates. He learned to do his work at the Patent Office very
efficiently; and he used the remainder of his time on his own calculations, hiding them
guiltily in a drawer when footsteps approached.
In 1905, this Technical Expert (Third Class) astonished the world of science with five
papers, written within a few weeks of each other, and published in the Annalen der Physik.
Of these five papers, three were classics: One of these was the paper in which Einstein ap-
1.1. FAMILY BACKGROUND 15

Figure 1.1: Einstein at the age of three in 1882.

16 WHY WAR?

Figure 1.2: Albert Einstein in 1893 (age 14).

1.1. FAMILY BACKGROUND 17

Figure 1.3: Albert Einstein in 1904 (age 25).

18 WHY WAR?

Figure 1.4: Olympia Academy founders: Conrad Habicht, Maurice Solovine and
Einstein.
1.1. FAMILY BACKGROUND 19

Figure 1.5: Albert and Mileva Einstein, 1912.

20 WHY WAR?

Figure 1.6: Einstein with his second wife, Elsa, in 1921.

1.1. FAMILY BACKGROUND 21

Figure 1.7: Albert Einstein during a lecture in Vienna in 1921.

22 WHY WAR?

Figure 1.8: Einstein and Niels Bohr, 1925.

1.1. FAMILY BACKGROUND 23

Figure 1.9: Einstein (left) and Charlie Chaplin at the Hollywood premiere of
City Lights, January 1931.
24 WHY WAR?

Figure 1.10: Einstein in 1947.

1.2. SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY 25

plied Planck’s quantum hypothesis to the photoelectric effect. The second paper discussed
“Brownian motion”, the zig-zag motion of small particles suspended in a liquid and hit
randomly by the molecules of the liquid. This paper supplied a direct proof of the validity
of atomic ideas and of Boltzmann’s kinetic theory. The third paper was destined to estab-
lish Einstein’s reputation as one of the greatest physicists of all time. It was entitled “On
the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, and in this paper, Albert Einstein formulated his
special theory of relativity. Essentially, this theory maintained that all of the fundamental
laws of nature exhibit a symmetry with respect to rotations in a 4-dimensional space-time
continuum.

1.2 Special relativity theory

The theory of relativity grew out of problems connected with Maxwell’s electromagnetic
theory of light. Ever since the wavelike nature of light had first been demonstrated, it had
been supposed that there must be some medium to carry the light waves, just as there must
be some medium (for example air) to carry sound waves. A word was even invented for the
medium which was supposed to carry electromagnetic waves: It was called the “ether”.
By analogy with sound, it was believed that the velocity of light would depend on
the velocity of the observer relative to the “ether”. However, all attempts to measure
differences in the velocity of light in different directions had failed, including an especially
sensitive experiment which was performed in America in 1887 by A.A. Michelson and E.W.
Morley.
Even if the earth had, by a coincidence, been stationary with respect to the “ether”
when Michelson and Morley first performed their experiment, they should have found an
“ether wind” when they repeated their experiment half a year later, with the earth at the
other side of its orbit. Strangely, the observed velocity of light seemed to be completely
independent of the motion of the observer!
In his famous 1905 paper on relativity, Einstein made the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment the basis of a far-reaching principle: He asserted that no experiment
whatever can tell us whether we are at rest or whether we are in a state of uniform motion.
With this assumption, the Michelson-Morley experiment of course had to fail, and the
measured velocity of light had to be independent of the motion of the observer.
Einstein’s Principle of Special Relativity had other extremely important consequences:
He soon saw that if his principle were to hold, then Newtonian mechanics would have to be
modified. In fact, Einstein’s Principle of Special Relativity required that all fundamental
physical laws exhibit a symmetry between space and time. The three space dimensions,
and a fourth dimension, ict, had to enter every fundamental physical law in a symmetrical
way. (Here i is the square root of -1, c is the velocity of light, and t is time.)
When this symmetry requirement is fulfilled, a physical law is said to be “Lorentz-
invariant” (in honor of the Dutch physicist H.A. Lorentz, who anticipated some of Ein-
stein’s ideas). Today, we would express Einstein’s principle by saying that every funda-
mental physical law must be Lorentz-invariant (i.e. symmetrical in the space and time
26 WHY WAR?

coordinates). The law will then be independent of the motion of the observer, provided
that the observer is moving uniformly.
Einstein was able to show that, when properly expressed, Maxwell’s equations are
already Lorentz-invariant; but Newton’s equations of motion have to be modified. When
the needed modifications are made, Einstein found, then the mass of a moving particle
appears to increase as it is accelerated. A particle can never be accelerated to a velocity
greater than the velocity of light; it merely becomes heavier and heavier, the added energy
being converted into mass.
From his 1905 theory, Einstein deduced his famous formula equating the energy of a
system to its mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. As we shall see, his
formula was soon used to explain the source of the energy produced by decaying uranium
and radium; and eventually it led to the construction of the atomic bomb. Thus Einstein,
a lifelong pacifist, who renounced his German citizenship as a protest against militarism,
became instrumental in the construction of the most destructive weapon ever invented - a
weapon which casts an ominous shadow over the future of humankind.
Just as Einstein was one of the first to take Planck’s quantum hypothesis seriously, so
Planck was one of the first physicists to take Einstein’s relativity seriously. Another early
enthusiast for relativity was Hermann Minkowski, Einstein’s former professor of mathe-
matics. Although he once had characterized Einstein as a “lazy dog”, Minkowski now
contributed importantly to the mathematical formalism of Einstein’s theory; and in 1907,
he published the first book on relativity. In honor of Minkowski’s contributions to relativity,
the 4-dimensional space-time continuum in which we live is sometimes called “Minkowski
space”.
In 1908, Minkowski began a lecture to the Eightieth Congress of German Scientists and
Physicians with the following words:
“ From now on, space by itself, and time by itself, are destined to sink completely into
the shadows; and only a kind of union of both will retain an independent existence.”
Gradually, the importance of Einstein’s work began to be realized, and he was much
sought after. He was first made Assistant Professor at the University of Zürich, then full
Professor in Prague, then Professor at the Zürich Polytechnic Institute; and finally, in
1913, Planck and Nernst persuaded Einstein to become Director of Scientific Research at
the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. He was at this post when the First World War
broke out
While many other German intellectuals produced manifestos justifying Germany’s in-
vasion of Belgium, Einstein dared to write and sign an anti-war manifesto. Einstein’s
manifesto appealed for cooperation and understanding among the scholars of Europe for
the sake of the future; and it proposed the eventual establishment of a League of Euro-
peans. During the war, Einstein remained in Berlin, doing whatever he could for the cause
of peace, burying himself unhappily in his work, and trying to forget the agony of Europe,
whose civilization was dying in a rain of shells, machine-gun bullets, and poison gas.
1.3. GENERAL RELATIVITY 27

1.3 General relativity

The work into which Einstein threw himself during this period was an extension of his
theory of relativity. He already had modified Newton’s equations of motion so that they
exhibited the space-time symmetry required by his Principle of Special Relativity. However,
Newton’s law of gravitation. remained a problem.
Obviously it had to be modified, since it disagreed with his Special Theory of Relativity;
but how should it be changed? What principles could Einstein use in his search for a more
correct law of gravitation? Certainly whatever new law he found would have to give results
very close to Newton’s law, since Newton’s theory could predict the motions of the planets
with almost perfect accuracy. This was the deep problem with which he struggled.
In 1907, Einstein had found one of the principles which was to guide him, the Principle
of Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. After turning Newton’s theory over and
over in his mind, Einstein realized that Newton had used mass in two distinct ways: His
laws of motion stated that the force acting on a body is equal to the mass of the body
multiplied by its acceleration; but according to Newton, the gravitational force on a body
is also proportional to its mass. In Newton’s theory, gravitational mass, by a coincidence,
is equal to inertial mass; and this holds for all bodies. Einstein decided to construct a
theory in which gravitational and inertial mass necessarily have to be the same.
He then imagined an experimenter inside a box, unable to see anything outside it. If
the box is on the surface of the earth, the person inside it will feel the pull of the earth’s
gravitational field. If the experimenter drops an object, it will fall to the floor with an
acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. Now suppose that the box is taken out into
empty space, far away from strong gravitational fields, and accelerated by exactly 32 feet
per second per second. Will the enclosed experimenter be able to tell the difference between
these two situations? Certainly no difference can be detected by dropping an object, since
in the accelerated box, the object will fall to the floor in exactly the same way as before.
With this “thought experiment” in mind, Einstein formulated a general Principle of
Equivalence: He asserted that no experiment whatever can tell an observer enclosed in a
small box whether the box is being accelerated, or whether it is in a gravitational field.
According to this principle, gravitation and acceleration are locally equivalent, or, to say
the same thing in different words, gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent.
Einstein soon realized that his Principle of Equivalence implied that a ray of light must
be bent by a gravitational field. This conclusion followed because, to an observer in an
accelerated frame, a light beam which would appear straight to a stationary observer, must
necessarily appear very slightly curved. If the Principle of Equivalence held, then the same
slight bending of the light ray would be observed by an experimenter in a stationary frame
in a gravitational field.
Another consequence of the Principle of Equivalence was that a light wave propagating
upwards in a gravitational field should be very slightly shifted to the red. This followed
because in an accelerated frame, the wave crests would be slightly farther apart than they
normally would be, and the same must then be true for a stationary frame in a gravitational
field. It seemed to Einstein that it ought to be possible to test experimentally both the
28 WHY WAR?

gravitational bending of a light ray and the gravitational red shift.

This seemed promising; but how was Einstein to proceed from the Principle of Equiva-
lence to a formulation of the law of gravitation? Perhaps the theory ought to be modeled
after Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, which was a field theory, rather than an “action at
a distance” theory. Part of the trouble with Newton’s law of gravitation was that it allowed
a signal to be propagated instantaneously, contrary to the Principle of Special Relativity.
A field theory of gravitation might cure this defect, but how was Einstein to find such a
theory? There seemed to be no way.
From these troubles Albert Einstein was rescued (a third time!) by his staunch friend
Marcel Grossman. By this time, Grossman had become a professor of mathematics in
Zürich, after having written a doctoral dissertation on tensor analysis and non-Euclidean
geometry, the very things that Einstein needed. The year was then 1912, and Einstein had
just returned to Zürich as Professor of Physics at the Polytechnic Institute. For two years,
Einstein and Grossman worked together; and by the time Einstein left for Berlin in 1914,
the way was clear. With Grossman’s help, Einstein saw that the gravitational field could
be expressed as a curvature of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum.
In 1919, a British expedition, headed by Sir Arthur Eddington, sailed to a small island
off the coast of West Africa. Their purpose was to test Einstein’s prediction of the bending
of light in a gravitational field by observing stars close to the sun during a total eclipse.
The observed bending agreed exactly with Einstein’s predictions; and as a result he became
world-famous. The general public was fascinated by relativity, in spite of the abstruseness
of the theory (or perhaps because of it). Einstein, the absent-minded professor, with long,
uncombed hair, became a symbol of science. The world was tired of war, and wanted
something else to think about.
Einstein met President Harding, Winston Churchill and Charlie Chaplin; and he was
invited to lunch by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although adulated elsewhere, he was
soon attacked in Germany. Many Germans, looking for an excuse for the defeat of their
nation, blamed it on the pacifists and Jews; and Einstein was both these things.
1.3. GENERAL RELATIVITY 29

Figure 1.11: Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein (public domain). Their ex-
change of letters entitled “Why War?” deserves to be read by everyone con-
cerned with the human future.
30 WHY WAR?

1.4 Einstein’s letter to Freud: Why war?

Because of his fame, Einstein was asked to make several speeches at the Reichstag. and in
all these speeches he condemned violence and nationalism, urging that these be replaced by
and international cooperation and law under an effective international authority. He also
wrote many letters and articles pleading for peace and for the renunciation of militarism
and violence.
Einstein believed that the production of armaments is damaging, not only economically,
but also spiritually. In 1930 he signed a manifesto for world disarmament sponsored by
the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom. In December of the same year,
he made his famous statement in New York that if two percent of those called for military
service were to refuse to fight, governments would become powerless, since they could
not imprison that many people. He also argued strongly against compulsory military
service and urged that conscientious objectors should be protected by the international
community. He argued that peace, freedom of individuals, and security of societies could
only be achieved through disarmament, the alternative being “slavery of the individual
and annihilation of civilization”.
In letters, and articles, Einstein wrote that the welfare of humanity as a whole must
take precedence over the goals of individual nations, and that we cannot wait until leaders
give up their preparations for war. Civil society, and especially public figures, must take
the lead. He asked how decent and self-respecting people can wage war, knowing how
many innocent people will be killed.
In 1931, the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation invited Albert Ein-
stein to enter correspondence with a prominent person of his own choosing on a subject
of importance to society. The Institute planned to publish a collection of such dialogues.
Einstein accepted at once, and decided to write to Sigmund Freud to ask his opinion about
how humanity could free itself from the curse of war. A translation from German of the
long letter that he wrote to Freud is as follows:

“Dear Professor Freud,

“Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?
“It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this
issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for civilization as we know
it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has
ended in a lamentable breakdown.
“I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the problem
professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to
deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who,
absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world-problems in the perspective
distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thought affords no
insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the enquiry
now proposed, I can do little more than seek to clarify the question at issue
1.4. EINSTEIN’S LETTER TO FREUD: WHY WAR? 31

and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring
the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man’s instinctive life to bear upon
the problem...
“As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of the problem: the
setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle
every conflict arising between nations. Each nation would undertake to abide
by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every
dispute, to accept its judgments unreservedly and to carry out every measure
the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees. But here, at the
outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a human institution which,
in proportion as the power at its disposal is inadequate to enforce its verdicts,
is all the more prone to suffer these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure.
This is a fact with which we have to reckon; law and might inevitably go hand in
hand, and juridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal justice demanded
by the community (in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced)
in so far as the community has effective power to compel respect of its juridical
ideal. But at present we are far from possessing any supranational organization
competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute
submission to the execution of its verdicts. Thus I am led to my first axiom: the
quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every
nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is
to say, and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such
security.
“The ill-success, despite their obvious sincerity, of all the efforts made during
the last decade to reach this goal leaves us no room to doubt that strong psycho-
logical factors are at work, which paralyse these efforts. Some of these factors
are not far to seek. The craving for power which characterizes the govern-
ing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty.
This political power-hunger is wont to batten on the activities of another group,
whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have specially in
mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of
individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard war-
fare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their
personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.
“But recognition of this obvious fact is merely the first step towards an
appreciation of the actual state of affairs. Another question follows hard upon
it: how is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who
stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions?
(In speaking of the majority, I do not exclude soldiers of every rank who have
chosen war as their profession, in the belief that they are serving to defend
the highest interests of their race, and that attack is often the best method
of defense.) An obvious answer to this question would seem to be that the
32 WHY WAR?

minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the
Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the
emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.
“Yet even this answer does not provide a complete solution. Another ques-
tion arises from it: How is it these devices succeed so well in rousing men to
such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives? Only one answer is possible.
Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times
this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances;
but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the power
of a collective psychosis. Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex of fac-
tors we are considering, an enigma that only the expert in the lore of human
instincts can resolve.
“And so we come to our last question. Is it possible to control man’s mental
evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destruc-
tiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured
masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called ‘Intelligentzia’ that is
most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellec-
tual has no direct contact with life in the raw, but encounters it in its easiest,
synthetic form upon the printed page.
“To conclude: I have so far been speaking only of wars between nations;
what are known as international conflicts. But I am well aware that the ag-
gressive instinct operates under other forms and in other circumstances. (I am
thinking of civil wars, for instance, due in earlier days to religious zeal, but
nowadays to social factors; or, again, the persecution of racial minorities). But
my insistence on what is the most typical, most cruel and extravagant form of
conflict between man and man was deliberate, for here we have the best occa-
sion of discovering ways and means to render all armed conflicts impossible.

“Yours very sincerely,

“A. Einstein”

Freud replied with a long and thoughtful letter in which he said that a tendency towards
conflict is an intrinsic part of human emotional nature, but that emotions can be overridden
by rationality, and that rational behavior is the only hope for humankind.

1.5 The fateful letter to Roosevelt

Albert Einstein’s famous relativistic formula, relating energy to mass, soon yielded an
understanding of the enormous amounts of energy released in radioactive decay. Marie
and Pierre Curie had noticed that radium maintains itself at a temperature higher than
its surroundings. Their measurements and calculations showed that a gram of radium
1.5. THE FATEFUL LETTER TO ROOSEVELT 33

produces roughly 100 gram-calories of heat per hour. This did not seem like much energy
until Rutherford found that radium has a half-life of about 1,000 years. In other words,
after a thousand years, a gram of radium will still be producing heat, its radioactivity only
reduced to one-half its original value. During a thousand years, a gram of radium produces
about a million kilocalories, an enormous amount of energy in relation to the tiny size of
its source! Where did this huge amount of energy come from? Conservation of energy was
one of the most basic principles of physics. Would it have to be abandoned?
The source of the almost-unbelievable amounts of energy released in radioactive decay
could be understood through Einstein’s formula equating the energy of a system to its
mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, and through accurate measurements
of atomic weights. Einstein’s formula asserted that mass and energy are equivalent. It
was realized that in radioactive decay, neither mass nor energy is conserved, but only a
quantity more general than both, of which mass and energy are particular forms. Scientists
in several parts of the world realized that Einstein’s discovery of the relationship between
mass and energy, together with the discovery of fission of the heavy element uranium meant
that it might be possible to construct a uranium-fission bomb of immense power.
Meanwhile night was falling on Europe. In 1929, an economic depression had begun
in the United States and had spread to Europe. Without the influx of American capital,
the postwar reconstruction of the German economy collapsed. The German middle class,
which had been dealt a severe blow by the great inflation of 1923, now received a second
heavy blow. The desperate economic chaos drove German voters into the hands of political
extremists.
On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor and leader of a coalition
cabinet by President Hindenburg. Although Hitler was appointed legally to this post,
he quickly consolidated his power by unconstitutional means: On May 2, Hitler’s police
seized the headquarters of all trade unions, and arrested labor leaders. The Communist
and Socialist parties were also banned, their assets seized and their leaders arrested. Other
political parties were also smashed. Acts were passed eliminating Jews from public service;
and innocent Jewish citizens were boycotted, beaten and arrested. On March 11, 1938,
Nazi troops entered Austria.
On March 16, 1939, the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi (who by then was a refugee in
America) went to Washington to inform the Office of Naval Operations that it might be
possible to construct an atomic bomb; and on the same day, German troops poured into
Czechoslovakia.
A few days later, a meeting of six German atomic physicists was held in Berlin to
discuss the applications of uranium fission. Otto Hahn, the discoverer of fission, was not
present, since it was known that he was opposed to the Nazi regime. He was even said to
have exclaimed: “I only hope that you physicists will never construct a uranium bomb! If
Hitler ever gets a weapon like that, I’ll commit suicide.”
The meeting of German atomic physicists was supposed to be secret; but one of the
participants reported what had been said to Dr. S. Flügge, who wrote an article about
uranium fission and about the possibility of a chain reaction. Flügge’s article appeared in
the July issue of Naturwissenschaften, and a popular version in the Deutsche Allgemeine
34 WHY WAR?

Zeitung. These articles greatly increased the alarm of American atomic scientists, who
reasoned that if the Nazis permitted so much to be printed, they must be far advanced on
the road to building an atomic bomb.
In the summer of 1939, while Hitler was preparing to invade Poland, alarming news
reached the physicists in the United States: A second meeting of German atomic scientists
had been held in Berlin, this time under the auspices of the Research Division of the
German Army Weapons Department. Furthermore, Germany had stopped the sale of
uranium from mines in Czechoslovakia.
The world’s most abundant supply of uranium, however, was not in Czechoslovakia,
but in Belgian Congo. Leo Szilard, a refugee Hungarian physicist who had worked with
Fermi to measure the number of neutrons produced in uranium fission, was deeply worried
that the Nazis were about to construct atomic bombs; and it occurred to him that uranium
from Belgian Congo should not be allowed to fall into their hands.
Szilard knew that his former teacher, Albert Einstein, was a personal friend of Elizabeth,
the Belgian Queen Mother. Einstein had met Queen Elizabeth and King Albert of Belgium
at the Solvay Conferences, and mutual love of music had cemented a friendship between
them. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein had moved to the Institute of Advanced
Studies at Princeton; and Szilard decided to visit him there. Szilard reasoned that because
of Einstein’s great prestige, and because of his long-standing friendship with the Belgian
Royal Family, he would be the proper person to warn the Belgians not to let their uranium
fall into the hands of the Nazis. Einstein agreed to write to the Belgian king and queen.
On August 2, 1939, Szilard again visited Einstein, accompanied by Edward Teller
and Eugene Wigner, who (like Szilard) were refugee Hungarian physicists. By this time,
Szilard’s plans had grown more ambitious; and he carried with him the draft of another
letter, this time to the American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein made a few
corrections, and then signed the fateful letter, which reads (in part) as follows:
“Some recent work of E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in
manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into an important
source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation seem to call for
watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe,
therefore, that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following..”
“It is conceivable that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may be constructed.
A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded a port, might very well destroy
the whole port, together with some of the surrounding territory..”
The letter also called Roosevelt’s attention to the fact that Germany had already
stopped the export of uranium from the Czech mines under German control. After making
a few corrections, Einstein signed it. On October 11, 1939, three weeks after the defeat
of Poland, Roosevelt’s economic adviser, Alexander Sachs, personally delivered the letter
to the President. After discussing it with Sachs, the President commented,“This calls for
action.” Later, when atomic bombs were dropped on civilian populations in an already
virtually-defeated Japan, Einstein bitterly regretted having signed Szilard’s letter to Roo-
sevelt. He said repeatedly that signing the letter was the greatest mistake of his life, and
his remorse was extreme.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 35

Throughout the remainder of his life, in addition to his scientific work, Einstein worked
tirelessly for peace, international understanding and nuclear disarmament. His last public
act, only a few days before his death in 1955, was to sign the Russell-Einstein Manifesto,
warning humankind of the catastrophic consequences that would follow from a war with
nuclear weapons.

1.6 A few more things that Einstein said about peace:

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that we used when we created them.

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.

Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because
of the people who don’t do anything about it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results.

Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.

Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent war.

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it.

Taken as a whole, I would believe that Gandhi’s views were the most enlightened of all
political men of our time.

Without ethical culture, there is no salvation for humanity.

War seems to me to be a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces

than take part in such an abominable business. And yet so high, in spite of everything, is
my opinion of the human race that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago,
had the sound sense of the nations not been systematically corrupted by commercial and
political interests acting through the schools and the Press.
36 WHY WAR?

Suggestions for further reading

1. Paul Arthur Schlipp (editor), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Open Court
Publishing Co., Lasalle Illinois (1970).
2. Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, Creator and Rebel, The Viking Press, New York
(1972).
3. Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, Cambridge University
Press (1971).
4. P C Aichelburg and Roman U Sexl (ed.), Albert Einstein: his influence on physics,
philosophy and politics (Braunschweig, 1979).
5. L Barnett, The Universe and Dr Einstein (1974).
6. M Beller, J Renn and R S Cohen (eds.), Einstein in context (Cambridge, 1993).
7. J Bernstein, Einstein (1973).
8. D Brian, Einstein - a life (New York, 1996).
9. E Broda, The intellectual quadrangle : Mach - Boltzmann - Planck - Einstein (Geneva,
1981).
10. W Buchheim, Albert Einstein als Wegbereiter nachklassischer Physik (Berlin, 1981).
11. U Charpa, Albert Einstein (Frankfurt, 1993).
12. E M Chudinov (ed.), Einstein and philosophical problems of physics of the twentieth
century (Russian) ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1979).
13. R W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (1979).
14. H Dukas and B Hoffmann (eds.), Albert Einstein : the human side. New glimpses
from his archives (Princeton, N.J., 1979).
15. J Earman, M Janssen and J D Norton (eds.), The attraction of gravitation : new
studies in the history of general relativity (Boston, 1993).
16. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 1 : The early years, 1879-
1902 (Princeton, NJ, 1987).
17. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 2 : The Swiss years:
writings, 1900-1909 (Princeton, NJ, 1989).
18. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 3 : The Swiss years:
writings, 1909-1911 (German) (Princeton, NJ, 1993).
19. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 3 : The Swiss years:
writings, 1909-1911 (Princeton, NJ, 1993).
20. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4. The Swiss years: writ-
ings, 1912-1914 (German) (Princeton, NJ, 1995).
21. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4 : The Swiss years:
writings, 1912-1914 (Princeton, NJ, 1996).
22. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 5 : The Swiss years :
correspondence, 1902-1914 (German) (Princeton, NJ, 1993).
23. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 5 : The Swiss years:
correspondence, 1902-1914 (Princeton, NJ, 1995).
24. A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 6 : The Berlin years:
writings, 1914-1917 (German) (Princeton, NJ, 1996).
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 37

25. A Forsee, Albert Einstein : theoretical physicist (New York, 1963).

26. P Frank, Einstein : His Life and Times (1972).
27. P Frank, Einstein : Sein Leben und seine Zeit (Braunschweig, 1979).
28. A P French (ed.), Einstein. A centenary volume (Cambridge, Mass., 1979).
29. V Ya Frenkel and B E Yavelov, Einstein the inventor (Russian) ’Nauka’ (Moscow,
1981).
30. V Ya Frenkel and B E Yavelov, Einstein : inventions and experiment (Russian)
’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1990).
31. H Freudenthal, Inleiding tot het denken van Einstein (Assen, 1952).
32. D P Gribanov, Albert Einstein’s philosophical views and the theory of relativity ’Progress’
(Moscow, 1987).
33. D P Gribanov, The philosophical views of A Einstein and the development of the
theory of relativity (Russian) ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1987).
34. W Heisenberg, Encounters with Einstein. And other essays on people, places, and
particles (Princeton, NJ, 1989).
35. F Herneck, Albert Einstein. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage (Leipzig, 1975).
36. T Hey and P Walters, Einstein’s mirror (Cambridge, 1997).
37. G Holton and Y Elkana (eds.), Albert Einstein : Historical and cultural perspectives
(Princeton, NJ, 1982).
38. G Holton, Einstein, history, and other passions (Woodbury, NY, 1995).
39. D Howard and J Stachel (eds.), Einstein and the history of general relativity (Boston,
MA, 1989).
40. C Jungnickel and R McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery of Nature 2 Vols (Chicago,
1986).
41. B Khofman, Albert Einstein : creator and rebel (Russian) ’Progress’ (Moscow, 1983).
42. C Kirsten and H-J Treder (eds.), Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913-1933. Teil I. Darstel-
lung und Dokumente (Berlin, 1979).
43. C Kirsten and H-J Treder (eds.), Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913-1933. Teil II. Spezial-
inventar (Berlin, 1979).
44. B G Kuznetsov, Einstein (French) (Moscow, 1989).
45. B G Kuznetsov, Einstein. Life, death, immortality (Rusian) ’Nauka’, (Moscow,
1979).
46. B G Kuznetsov, Einstein: Leben -Tod - Unsterblichkeit (German) (Berlin, 1979).
47. B G Kuznetsov, Einstein (Moscow, 1965).
48. B G Kuznetsov, Einstein : Vida. Muerte. Inmortalidad (Moscow, 1990).
49. C Lánczos, The Einstein decade (1905-1915) (New York-London, 1974).
50. H Melcher, Albert Einstein wider Vorurteile und Denkgewohnheiten (Berlin, 1979).
51. A I Miller, Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity : Emergence (1905) and early
interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, Mass., 1981).
52. L Navarro Veguillas, Einstein, profeta y hereje (Barcelona, 1990).
53. A Pais , ’Subtle is the Lord...’ The Science and the life of Albert Einstein (Oxford,
1982).
54. A Pais, The science and life of Albert Einstein (Russian) ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1989).
38 WHY WAR?

55. A Pais, Raffiniert ist der Herrgott ... : Albert Einstein-eine wissenschaftliche Biogra-
phie (Braunschweig, 1986).
56. M Pantaleo and F de Finis (ed.), Relativity, quanta, and cosmology in the development
of the scientific thought of Albert Einstein. Vol. I, II. (New York, 1979).
57. W Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a. Band
I: 1919-1929 (New York-Berlin, 1979).
58. W Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a. Band
II (Berlin-New York, 1985).
59. I Rosenthal-Schneider, Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck (Braun-
schweig, 1988).
60. P A Schilipp (ed.), Albert Einstein : Philosopher- Scientist (2 Vols) (1969).
61. P A Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein als Philosoph und Naturforscher (Braunschweig,
1979).
62. P A Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein : Philosopher-Scientist (Evanston, Ill., 1949).
63. C Seelig, Albert Einstein : A Documentary Biography (London, 1956).
64. H-J Treder (ed.), Einstein-Centenarium 1979 (German) (Berlin, 1979).
65. A Whitaker, Einstein, Bohr and the quantum dilemma (Cambridge, 1996).
66. M White, Albert Einstein : a life in science (London, 1993).
67. J Wickert, Albert Einstein (German) (Reinbek, 1983).
68. J Wickert, Albert Einstein in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Reinbek bei
Hamburg, 1972).
69. G Wolters, Mach I, Mach II, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie (Berlin-New York,
1987).
70. A I Akhiezer, Einstein and modern physics (Russian), in The scientific picture of the
world ’Naukova Dumka’ (Kiev, 1983), 175-194.
71. R A Aronov, B M Bolotovskii and N V Mickevic, Elements of materialism and
dialectics in shaping A Einstein’s philosophical views (Russian), Voprosy Filos. (11)
(1979), 56-66; 187.
72. R A Aronov and B Ya Pakhomov, Philosophy and physics in the discussions of N
Bohr and A Einstein (Russian), Voprosy Filos. (10) (1985), 59-73; 172-173.
73. A Avramesco, The Einstein-Bohr debate. I. The background, in Microphysical reality
and quantum formalism (Dordrecht, 1988), 299-308.
74. A Bach, Eine Fehlinterpretation mit Folgen : Albert Einstein und der Welle-Teilchen
Dualismus, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 40 (2) (1989), 173-206.
75. N L Balazs, The acceptability of physical theories : Poincaré versus Einstein, in
General relativity : papers in honour of J. L Synge (Oxford, 1972), 21-34.
76. A Baracca and R Rechtman, Einstein’s statistical mechanics, Rev. Mexicana Fis. 31
(4) (1985), 695-722.
77. J B Barbour, Einstein and Mach’s principle, in Studies in the history of general
relativity (Boston, MA, 1992), 125-153, 460.
78. M Beller, Einstein and Bohr’s rhetoric of complementarity, in Einstein in context
(Cambridge, 1993), 241-255.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 39

79. D W Belousek, Einstein’s 1927 unpublished hidden-variable theory : its background,

context and significance, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. B Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern
Phys. 27 (4) (1996), 437-461.
80. Y Ben-Menahem, Struggling with causality : Einstein’s case, in Einstein in context
(Cambridge, 1993), 291-310.
81. G Berg, On the origin of the concept of an Einstein space, in Studies in the history
of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1992), 336-343; 460.
82. S Bergia and L Navarro, Recurrences and continuity in Einstein’s research on radia-
tion between 1905 and 1916, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 38 (1) (1988), 79-99.
83. S Bergia, Who discovered the Bose-Einstein statistics?, in Symmetries in physics
(1600-1980) (Barcelona, 1987), 221-250.
84. P Bernardini, Einstein’s statistics and second quantization : what continuity? (Ital-
ian), Physis-Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 23 (3) (1981), 337-374.
85. J Bicák, Einstein’s Prague articles on gravitation, in Proceedings of the Fifth Marcel
Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (Teaneck, NJ, 1989), 1325-1333.
86. M Biezunski, Inside the coconut : the Einstein-Cartan discussion on distant paral-
lelism, in Einstein and the history of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1989), 315-324.
87. J Blackmore, Mach competes with Planck for Einstein’s favor, Historia Sci. No. 35
(1988), 45-89.
88. M Born, Erinnerungen an Albert Einstein, Math. Naturwiss. Unterricht 9 (1956/57),
97-105.
89. M Born, Recollections of Einstein (Bulgarian), Fiz.-Mat. Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk.
22(55) (3) (1979), 204-216.
90. M Born, Albert Einstein und das Lichtquantum, Naturwissenschaften 42 (1955), 425-
431.
91. J Bosquet, Théophile De Donder et la gravifique einsteinienne, Acad. Roy. Belg.
Bull. Cl. Sci. (5) 73 (5) (1987), 209-253.
92. E Broda, The intellectual quadrangle Mach-Boltzmann-Planck-Einstein (Bulgarian),
Fiz.-Mat. Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk. 25(58) (3) (1983), 195-211.
93. P H Byrne, Statistical and causal concepts in Einstein’s early thought, Ann. of Sci.
37 (2) (1980), 215-228.
94. P H Byrne, The origins of Einstein’s use of formal asymmetries, Ann. of Sci. 38 (2)
(1981), 191-206.
95. P H Byrne, The significance of Einstein’s use of the history of science, Dialectica 34
(4) (1980), 263-276.
96. B Carazza, Historical considerations on the conceptual experiment by Einstein, Podol-
sky and Rosen, in The nature of quantum paradoxes (Dordrecht, 1988), 355-369.
97. D C Cassidy, Biographies of Einstein (Polish), Kwart. Hist. Nauk. Tech. 24 (4)
(1979), 813-822.
98. D C Cassidy, Biographies of Einstein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 (Berlin-
New York, 1979), 490-500.
40 WHY WAR?

99. C Cattani and M De Maria, Einstein’s path toward the generally covariant formula-
tion of gravitational field equations : the contribution of Tullio Levi-Civita, in Pro-
ceedings of the fourth Marcel Grossmann meeting on general relativity (Amsterdam-
New York, 1986), 1805-1826.
100. C Cattani and M De Maria, Gravitational waves and conservation laws in general
relativity : A Einstein and T Levi-Civita, 1917 correspondence, in Proceedings of
the Fifth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (Teaneck, NJ, 1989),
1335-1342.
101. C Cattani and M De Maria, Max Abraham and the reception of relativity in Italy :
his 1912 and 1914 controversies with Einstein, in Einstein and the history of general
relativity (Boston, MA, 1989), 160-174.
102. C Cattani and M De Maria, The 1915 epistolary controversy between Einstein and
Tullio Levi-Civita, in Einstein and the history of general relativity (Boston, MA,
1989), 175-200.
103. S Chandrasekhar, Einstein and general relativity : historical perspectives, Amer. J.
Phys. 47 (3) (1979), 212-217.
104. S D Chatterji, Two documents on Albert Einstein, in Yearbook : surveys of mathe-
matics 1980 (Mannheim, 1980), 143-154.
105. B Cimbleris, Einstein’s works on thermodynamics (1902-1904) and the statistical
mechanics of Gibbs (Portuguese), in The XIXth century : the birth of modern sci-
ence (Campinas, 1992), 405-412. D M Clark, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox : a
mathematically complete exposition, Bol. Soc. Parana. Mat. (2) 15 (1-2) (1995),
67-81.
106. L F Cook, Einstein and DtDE, Amer. J. Phys. 48 (2) (1980), 142-145.
107. Correspondence of A Einstein and M Besso, 1903-1955 (Russian), in Einstein col-
lection, 1977 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1980), 5-72; 327.
108. O Costa de Beauregard, The 1927 Einstein and 1935 EPR paradox, Physis-Riv.
Internaz. Storia Sci. 22 (2) (1980), 211-242.
109. C Curry, The naturalness of the cosmological constant in the general theory of rela-
tivity, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 23 (4) (1992), 657-664.
110. S D’Agostino and L Orlando, The correspondence principle and the origin of Ein-
stein’s theory of gravity (Italian), Riv. Stor. Sci. (2) 2 (1) (1994), 51-74.
111. S D’Agostino, The problem of the empirical bases of Einstein’s general theory of
relativity : some recent historico-critical research (Italian), Riv. Stor. Sci. (2) 3 (2)
(1995), 191-207.
112. B d’Espagnat, Einstein et la causalité, in Einstein : 1879-1955 (Paris, 1980), 31-44.
113. B K Datta, Development of Einstein’s general theory of relativity (1907-1916), Bull.
Satyendranath Bose Inst. Phys. Sci. 5 (2) (1980), 3-20.
114. M De Maria, The first reactions to general relativity in Italy : the polemics between
Max Abraham and Albert Einstein (Italian), in Italian mathematics between the two
world wars (Bologna, 1987), 143-159.
115. L de Broglie, Notice nécrologique sur Albert Einstein, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 240
(1955), 1741-1745.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 41

116. B de Finetti, Einstein : originality and intuition, Scientia (Milano) 113 (1-4) (1978),
115-128.
117. R Debever, Publication de la correspondance Cartan-Einstein, Acad. Roy. Belg.
Bull. Cl. Sci. (5) (3) 64 (1978), 61-63.
118. L Debnath, Albert Einstein-scientific epistemology, in Selected studies : physics-
astrophysics, mathematics, history of science (Amsterdam-New York, 1982), 315-327.
119. L Debnath, and N C Debnath, Albert Einstein-the man-scientist duality, Internat. J.
Math. Ed. Sci. Tech. 10 (4) (1979), 475-491.
120. R Deltete and R Guy, Einstein and EPR, Philos. Sci. 58 (3) (1991), 377-397.
121. P A M Dirac, The perfection of Einstein’s theory of gravitation (Bulgarian), Fiz.-Mat.
Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk. 22(55) (3) (1979), 216-218.
122. R Disalle, Gereon Wolters’ ’Mach I, Mach II, Einstein, und die Relativitätstheorie’,
Philos. Sci. 57 (4) (1990), 712-723.
123. R Dugas, Einstein et Gibbs devant la thermodynamique statistique, C. R. Acad. Sci.
Paris 241 (1955), 1685-1687.
124. J Earman and C Glymour, Einstein and Hilbert : two months in the history of general
relativity, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 19 (3) (1978/79), 291-308. Einstein and quantum
theory : Excerpts from the correspondence of A Einstein with M Besso (Russian),
Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975), 30-37; 101.
125. A Einstein, Le memorie fondamentali di Albert Einstein (Italian), in Cinquant’anni
di Relatività , 1905-1955 (Firenze, 1955), 477-611.
126. J Eisenstaedt, Toward a history of Einstein’s theory of gravitation, in Fifth Brazilian
School of Cosmology and Gravitation (Teaneck, NJ, 1987), 552-565.
127. M A Elyashevich, Einstein’s part in the development of quantum concepts, Soviet
Phys. Uspekhi 22 (7) (1979), 555-575.
128. M A Elyashevich, Einstein’s part in the development of quantum concepts (Russian),
Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 128 (3) (1979), 503-536.
129. H Ezawa, Einstein’s contribution to statistical mechanics, classical and quantum,
Japan. Stud. Hist. Sci. No. 18 (1979), 27-72.
130. Y Ezrahi, Einstein and the light of reason, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979
(Princeton, NJ, 1982), 253-278.
131. W L Fadner, Did Einstein really discover E = mc2 ?, Amer. J. Phys. 56 (2) (1988),
114-122.
132. E L Feinberg, The relation between science and art in Einstein’s world view (Russian),
in Einstein collection, 1977 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1980), 187-213; 327.
133. M Ferraris, M Francaviglia and C Reina, Variational formulation of general rela-
tivity from 1915 to 1925 : ’Palatini’s method’ discovered by Einstein in 1925, Gen.
Relativity Gravitation 14 (3) (1982), 243-254.
134. P K Feyerabend, Mach’s theory of research and its relation to Einstein, Stud. Hist.
Philos. Sci. 15 (1) (1984), 1-22.
135. P K Feyerabend, Machs Theorie der Forschung und ihre Beziehung zu Einstein, in
Ernst Mach-Werk und Wirkung (Vienna, 1988), 435-462.
42 WHY WAR?

136. A Fine, Einstein’s interpretations of the quantum theory, in Einstein in context (Cam-
bridge, 1993), 257-273.
137. A Fine, What is Einstein’s statistical interpretation, or, is it Einstein for whom Bell’s
theorem tolls?, Topoi 3 (1) (1984), 23-36.
138. B Finzi, Commemorazione di Alberto Einstein, Ist. Lombardo Sci. Lett. Rend.
Parte Gen. Atti Ufficiali (3) 19 (88) (1955), 106-120.
139. A D Fokker, Albert Einstein, inventor of chronogeometry, Synthese 9 (1954), 442-444.
140. A D Fokker, Albert Einstein : 14 March 1878-18 April 1955 (Dutch), Nederl. Tijd-
schr. Natuurk. 21 (1955), 125-129.
141. M Francaviglia, History of a work of Albert Einstein (Italian), Atti Accad. Sci.
Torino Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. 112 (1-2) (1978), 43-48.
142. I M Frank, Einstein und die Probleme der Optik, Astronom. Nachr. 301 (6) (1980),
261-275.
143. P G Frank, Einstein, Synthese 9 (1954), 435-437.
144. A Franke and F Franke, Paul Langevin und Albert Einstein-eine Freundschaft zwis-
chen Relativitätstheorie und politischer Realität, Ber. Wiss.-Gesch. 20 (2-3) (1997),
199-215.
145. V Ya Frenkel, Einstein and the Soviet physicists (Russian), Voprosy Istor. Estestvoz-
nan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975), 25-30; 101.
146. V Ya Frenkel, A Einstein’s doctoral dissertation (Russian), Voprosy Istor. Estestvoz-
nan. i Tekhn. (2) (1983), 136-141.
147. H Freudenthal, Einstein und das wissenschaftliche Weltbild des 20. Jahrhunderts,
Janus 46 (1957), 63-76.
148. D Galletto, The ideas of Einstein in the works of Guido Fubini and Francesco Severi
(Italian), Atti Accad. Sci. Torino Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. 115 (Suppl.) (1981),
205-216.
149. M Garcia Doncel, The genesis of special relativity and Einstein’s epistemology (Span-
ish), Three lectures about Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona
45 (4) (1981), 7-35.
150. C Gearhart, A Einstein before 1905 : the early papers on statistical mechanics, Amer.
J. Phys. 58 (5) (1990), 468-480. Gh Gheorghiev, Albert Einstein and the development
of differential geometry (Romanian), An. Stiint. Univ. ’Al. I. Cuza’ Iasi Sect. I a
Mat. (N.S.) 25 (2) (1979), 435-438.
151. O Godart, and M Heller, Einstein-Lemaitre: rencontre d’idées, Rev. Questions Sci.
150 (1) (1979), 23-43.
152. H Goenner, The reaction to relativity theory. I. The anti-Einstein campaign in Ger-
many in 1920, in Einstein in context (Cambridge, 1993), 107-133.
153. H Goenner and G Castagnetti, Albert Einstein as pacifist and Democrat during World
War I, Sci. Context 9 (4) (1996), 325-386.
154. I Gottlieb, Albert Einstein-a pathfinder in physics, An. Stiint. Univ. ’Al. I. Cuza’
Iasi Sect. I b Fiz. (N.S.) 25 (1979), i-v.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 43

155. L R Graham, The reception of Einstein’s ideas : two examples from contrasting
political cultures, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 (Princeton, NJ, 1982), 107-
136.
156. J J Gray, Poincaré, Einstein, and the theory of special relativity, Math. Intelligencer
17 (1) (1995), 65-67; 75.
157. D P Gribanov, The relationship between the empirical and the rational in Einstein’s
scientific creation (Russian), Voprosy Filos. (9) (1980), 40-50; 185-186.
158. D Gribanov, The philosophy of Albert Einstein, in Science and technology: humanism
and progress I (Moscow, 1981), 158-180.
159. A T Grigorian, On the centenary of Einstein’s birth (Polish), Kwart. Hist. Nauk.
Tech. 24 (4) (1979), 805-811.
160. A T Grigorjan, Albert Einstein as a historian of natural science (Russian), Vestnik
Akad. Nauk SSSR (4) (1979), 99-104.
161. A T Grigoryan, Albert Einstein as a historian of natural science (Russian), Voprosy
Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (1) (1990), 85-89.
162. F Gürsey, Obituary : Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Rev. Fac. Sci. Univ. Istanbul.
Sér. A. 20 (1955), 101-104.
163. A Harder, The Copernican character of Einstein’s cosmology, Ann. of Sci. 29 (1972),
339-347.
164. Hentschel, Die Korrespondenz Einstein - Schlick : zum Verhältnis der Physik zur
Philosophie, Ann. of Sci. 43 (5) (1986), 475-488.
165. K Hentschel, Einstein’s attitude towards experiments : testing relativity theory 1907-
1927, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 23 (4) (1992), 593-624.
166. K Hentschel, Erwin Finlay Freundlich and testing Einstein’s theory of relativity, Arch.
Hist. Exact Sci. 47 (2) (1994), 143-201.
167. A Hermann, Einstein und Deutschland, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 (Berlin-
New York, 1979), 537-550.
168. F Herneck, Die Einstein-Dokumente im Archiv der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin,
NTM Schr. Geschichte Naturwiss. Tech. Medizin 10 (2) (1973), 32-38.
169. F R Hickman, Electrodynamical origins of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, In-
ternat. J. Theoret. Phys. 23 (6) (1984), 535-566.
170. C Hoefer, Einstein’s struggle for a Machian gravitation theory, Stud. Hist. Philos.
Sci. 25 (3) (1994), 287-335.
171. C Hoenselaers, Correspondence: Einstein - Kaluza, in Unified field theories of more
than 4 dimensions (Singapore, 1983), 447-457.
172. B Hoffmann,Einstein and Zionism, in General relativity and gravitation , in Proc.
Seventh Internat. Conf. (GR7) Ramat-Aviv, 1974 (New York, 1975), 233-242.
173. B Hoffmann, Some Einstein anomalies, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 (Prince-
ton, NJ, 1982), 91-105.
174. S H Hollingdale, Albert Einstein, born March 14th, 1879, Bull. Inst. Math. Appl.
15 (2-3) (1979), 34-50.
175. G Holton, Introduction : Einstein and the shaping of our imagination, in Albert
Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 (Princeton, NJ, 1982), vii-xxxii.
44 WHY WAR?

176. G Holton, Spengler, Einstein and the controversy over the end of science, Physis Riv.
Internaz. Storia Sci. (N.S.) 28 (2) (1991), 543-556.
177. G Hon, Disturbing, but not surprising : did Gödel surprise Einstein with a rotating
universe and time travel?, Found. Phys. 26 (4) (1996), 501-521.
178. C A Hooker, Projection, physical intelligibility, objectivity and completeness : the
divergent ideals of Bohr and Einstein, British J. Philos. Sci. 42 (4) (1991), 491-511.
179. H Hora, Einstein’s photon distribution for blackbodies and the discovery of the laser,
in General relativity and gravitation 1 (New York-London, 1980), 17-21.
180. D Howard, Einstein and Eindeutigkeit : a neglected theme in the philosophical back-
ground to general relativity, in Studies in the history of general relativity (Boston,
MA, 1992), 154-243; 462.
181. D Howard, Einstein on locality and separability, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 16 (3)
(1985), 171-201.
182. D Howard, Realism and conventionalism in Einstein’s philosophy of science : the
Einstein - Schlick correspondence, Philos. Natur. 21 (2-4) (1984), 616-629.
183. D Howard, Was Einstein really a realist?, Perspect. Sci. 1 (2) (1993), 204-251.
184. T P Hughes, Einstein, inventors, and invention, in Einstein in context (Cambridge,
1993), 25-42.
185. J Illy, Albert Einstein and Prague (Czech), DVT-Dejiny Ved Tech. 12 (2) (1979),
65-79.
186. J Illy, Albert Einstein in Prague, Isis 70 (251) (1979), 76-84.
187. J Illy, Einstein teaches Lorentz, Lorentz teaches Einstein : Their collaboration in
general relativity, 1913-1920, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 39 (3) (1989), 247-289.
188. J Illy, Einstein und der Eotvos-Versuch : Ein Brief Albert Einsteins an Willy Wien,
Ann. of Sci. 46 (4) (1989), 17-422.
189. J Illy, The correspondence of Albert Einstein and Gustav Mie, 1917-1918, in Studies
in the history of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1992), 244-259; 462.
190. In commemoration of the centenary of the birth of Einstein (Chinese), J. Huazhong
Inst. Tech. 7 (1) (1979), 1-6.
191. J Ishiwara, Jun Ishiwaras Text über Albert Einsteins Gastvortrag an der Universität
zu Kyoto am 14. Dezember 1922, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 36 (3) (1986), 271-279.
192. T Isnardi, Albert Einstein (Spanish), An. Soc. Ci. Argentina 159 (1955), 3-8.
193. D D Ivanenko, The timeliness of Einstein’s works (Russian), Voprosy Istor. Es-
testvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975), 13-16; 101.
194. M Jammer, Albert Einstein und das Quantenproblem, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin
1979 (Berlin-New York, 1979), 146-167.
195. M Jammer, Einstein and quantum physics, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979
(Princeton, NJ, 1982), 59-76.
196. D Jedinák, Statements of Albert Einstein (Slovak), Pokroky Mat. Fyz. Astronom.
20 (6) (1975), 315-319.
197. J L Jiménez and G del Valle, The Einstein and Hopf work revisited, Rev. Mexicana
Fis. 29 (2) (1983), 259-266.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 45

198. R Jost, Boltzmann und Planck : die Krise des Atomismus um die Jahrhundertwende
und ihre überwindung durch Einstein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 (Berlin-
New York, 1979), 128-145.
199. N Kalicin, Albert Einstein (on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of his birth)
(Bulgarian), Fiz.-Mat. Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk. 12 (45) (1969), 169-171.
200. N V Karlov and A M Prokhorov, Quantum electronics and Einstein’s theory of radi-
ation, Soviet Phys. Uspekhi 22 (7) (1979), 576-579.
201. N V Karlov and A M Prokhorov, Quantum electronics and Einstein’s theory of radi-
ation (Russian), Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 128 (3) (1979), 537-543.
202. A S Karmin, Scientific thought and intuition: Einstein’s formulation of the problem
(Russian), in The scientific picture of the world ’Naukova Dumka’ (Kiev, 1983),
240-259.
203. A Kastler, Albert Einstein, a propos du centenaire de sa naissance, Acad. Roy. Belg.
Cl. Sci. Mém. Collect. (2) 44 (1) (1981), 13-27.
204. M Katsumori, Einstein’s philosophical turn and the theory of relativity, in Grenzfra-
gen zwischen Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft (Vienna, 1989), 98-101.
205. M Katsumori, The theories of relativity and Einstein’s philosophical turn, Stud. Hist.
Philos. Sci. 23 (4) (1992), 557-592.
206. P Kerszberg, The Einstein-de Sitter controversy of 1916-1917 and the rise of rel-
ativistic cosmology, in Einstein and the history of general relativity (Boston, MA,
1989), 325-366. B Khofman, V Bargman, P Bergman and E Shtraus, Working with
Einstein (Russian), in Einstein collection, 1982-1983 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1986), 170-
195.
207. B Khofman, V Bargman, P Bergman and E Shtraus, Working with Einstein, in Some
strangeness in the proportion (Reading, Mass., 1980), 475-489.
208. D Khofman, Albert Einstein as a patent referee (a new Einstein document) (Russian),
in Einstein collection, 1984-1985 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1988), 143-147.
209. M J Klein, Fluctuations and statistical physics in Einstein’s early work, in Albert
Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 (Princeton, NJ, 1982), 39-58.
210. M J Klein and A Needell, Some unnoticed publications by Einstein, Isis 68 (244)
(1977), 601-604.
211. A Kleinert, Nationalistische und antisemitische Ressentiments von Wissenschaftlern
gegen Einstein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 (Berlin-New York, 1979), 501-516.
212. L Kostro, An outline of the history of Einstein’s relativistic ether concept, in Studies
in the history of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1992), 260-280; 463.
213. L Kostro, Einstein’s relativistic ether, its history, physical meaning and updated ap-
plications, Organon No. 24 (1988), 219-235.
214. A J Kox, Einstein and Lorentz: more than just good colleagues, in Einstein in context
(Cambridge, 1993), 43-56.
215. A J Kox, Einstein, Lorentz, Leiden and general relativity, Classical Quantum Gravity
10 (Suppl.) (1993) S187-S191.
216. A J Kox, Einstein, specific heats, and residual rays : the history of a retracted paper,
in No truth except in the details (Dordrecht, 1995), 245-257.
46 WHY WAR?

217. A B Kozhevnikov, Einstein’s formula for fluctuations and particle-wave dualism (Rus-
sian), in Einstein collection, 1986-1990 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1990), 102-124.
218. F Krull, Albert Einstein in seinen erkenntnistheoretischen Auss erungen, Sudhoffs
Arch. 78 (2) (1994), 154-170.
219. B G Kuznetsov, Einstein and classical science (Russian), Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR
(4) (1979), 91-98.
220. B G Kuznetsov, Einstein and de Broglie : Historico-scientific and historico-philosophical
notes (Russian), Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (1) (1981), 47-57.
221. B G Kuznetsov, From Einstein’s correspondence with de Broglie (Russian), Voprosy
Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (1) (1981), 58-59.
222. B G Kuznetsov, The Einstein - Bohr dispute, the Einstein - Bergson dispute and the
science of the second half of the twentieth century (Russian), in Einstein collection,
1980-1981 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1985), 49-85, 334.
223. C Lanczos, Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity, Nuovo Cimento (10) 2 (Suppl.)
(1955) 1193-1220.
224. C Lanczos, Einstein’s path from special to general relativity, in General relativity :
papers in honour of J L Synge (Oxford, 1972), 5-19.
225. P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics. I. Relativistic thermody-
namics, European J. Phys. 2 (4) (1981), 203-207.
226. P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics. II. Oscillator quantisation,
European J. Phys. 2 (4) (1981), 208-212.
227. P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics. III. The diffusion-mobility
relation in semiconductors, European J. Phys. 2 (4) (1981), 213-219.
228. P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics, in Proceedings of the Ein-
stein Centennial Symposium on Fundamental Physics (Bogotá, 1981), 73-117.
229. F Laudisa, Physical reality and the principle of separability in the Einstein-Bohr
debate (Italian), Riv. Stor. Sci. (2) 3 (2) (1995), 47-76.
230. K V Laurikainen, Albert Einstein, 14.3.1879 (Finnish), Arkhimedes 31 (2) (1979),
61-67.
231. N B Lavrova, The works by Einstein and the Russian-language papers about him
published in the USSR (Russian), Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52)
(1975), 38-42; 101.
232. F Le Lionnais, Descartes et Einstein, Rev. Hist. Sci. Appl. 5 (1952), 139-154.
233. G Lemaitre, L’oeuvre scientifique d’Albert Einstein, Rev. Questions Sci. (5) 16
(1955), 475-487.
234. T Levi-Chivita, Analytic expression for the gravitation tensor in Einstein’s theory
(Russian), in Einstein collection, 1980-1981 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1985), 191-203, 335.
235. N A Licis and V A Markov, Lobacevskii and Einstein. Sources of the general theory
of relativity (Russian), Latvijas PSR Zinatn. Akad. Vestis (12)(389) (1979), 18-32.
236. C Liu, Einstein and relativistic thermodynamics in 1952 : a historical and critical
study of a strange episode in the history of modern physics, British J. Hist. Sci. 25
(85)(2) (1992), 185-206.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 47

237. G A Lorentz, On Einstein’s theory of gravitation (Russian), in Einstein collection,

1980-1981 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1985), 169-190; 335.
238. A S Luchins and E H Luchins, The Einstein-Wertheimer correspondence on geometric
proofs and mathematical puzzles, Math. Intelligencer 12 (2) (1990), 35-43.
239. V S Lukyanets, The problem of the justification of physics in the works of Einstein
(Russian), in The scientific picture of the world ’Naukova Dumka’ (Kiev, 1983),
195-211.
240. G Maltese, The rejection of the Ricci tensor in Einstein’s first tensorial theory of
gravitation, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 41 (4) (1991), 363-381.
241. G Mannoury, The cultural phenomenon Albert Einstein, Synthese 9 (1954), 438-441.
242. N Maxwell, Induction and scientific realism : Einstein versus van Fraassen. I. How
to solve the problem of induction, British J. Philos. Sci. 44 (1) (1993), 61-79.
243. N Maxwell, Induction and scientific realism : Einstein versus van Fraassen. II. Aim-
oriented empiricism and scientific essentialism, British J. Philos. Sci. 44 (1) (1993),
81-101.
244. N Maxwell, Induction and scientific realism : Einstein versus van Fraassen. III.
Einstein, aim-oriented empiricism and the discovery of special and general relativity,
British J. Philos. Sci. 44 (2) (1993), 275-305.
245. W H McCrea and R W Lawson, Obituary : Albert Einstein, Nature 175 (1955),
925-927.
246. H A Medicus, A comment on the relations between Einstein and Hilbert, Amer. J.
Phys. 52 (3) (1984), 206-208.
247. J Mehra, Niels Bohr’s discussions with Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and
Erwin Schrödinger : the origins of the principles of uncertainty and complementarity,
Found. Phys. 17 (5) (1987), 461-506.
248. J Mehra, Niels Bohr’s discussions with Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and
Erwin Schrödinger: the origins of the principles of uncertainty and complementarity,
in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1987 (Teaneck, NJ, 1987),
19-64.
249. H Melcher, Some supplements to Einstein-documents, in Proceedings of the ninth
international conference on general relativity and gravitation (Cambridge, 1983),
271-284.
250. H Melcher, Atherdrift und Relativität : Michelson, Einstein, Fizeau und Hoek, NTM
Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 19 (1) (1982), 46-67.
251. D Michelson Livingston, Einstein and Michelson-artists in science, Astronom. Nachr.
303 (1) (1982), 15-16.
252. A I Miller, Albert Einstein’s 1907 Jahrbuch paper : the first step from SRT to GRT,
in Studies in the history of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1992), 319-335; 464.
253. A I Miller, Symmetry and imagery in the physics of Bohr, Einstein and Heisenberg,
in Symmetries in physics (1600-1980) (Barcelona, 1987), 299-327.
254. A I Miller, The special relativity theory : Einstein’s response to the physics of 1905,
in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 (Princeton, NJ, 1982), 3-26.
48 WHY WAR?

255. V V Narlikar, Einstein and the unity of nature, in Gravitation, quanta and the
universe (New York, 1980), 1-12.
256. L Navarro, On Einstein’s statistical-mechanical approach to the early quantum theory
(1904-1916), Historia Sci. (2) 1 (1) (1991), 39-58.
257. Z Nikol, Einstein and Langevin (Russian), Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn.
(3)(52) (1975), 37-38; 101.
258. D J F Nonnenmacher, T F Nonnenmacher and P F Zweifel, Kepler, Einstein, and
Ulm, Math. Intelligencer 15 (2) (1993), 50-51.
259. D Norton, Einstein’s battle for general covariance (Russian), in Einstein collection,
1982-1983 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1986), 57-84.
260. J Norton, Erratum: ’What was Einstein’s principle of equivalence?’, Stud. Hist.
Philos. Sci. 17 (1) (1986), 131.
261. J Norton, Coordinates and covariance : Einstein’s view of space-time and the modern
view, Found. Phys. 19 (10) (1989), 1215-1263.
262. J D Norton, Did Einstein stumble? The debate over general covariance. Reflections
on spacetime : foundations, philosophy, history, Erkenntnis 42 (2) (1995), 223-245.
263. J D Norton, Einstein, Nordstrom and the early demise of scalar, Lorentz-covariant
theories of gravitation, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 45 (1) (1992), 17-94.
264. J Norton, John Einstein’s discovery of the field equations of general relativity : some
milestones, in Proceedings of the fourth Marcel Grossmann meeting on general rela-
tivity (Amsterdam-New York, 1986), 1837-1848.
265. J Norton, How Einstein found his field equations, 1912-1915, in Einstein and the
history of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1989), 101-159.
266. J Norton, What was Einstein’s principle of equivalence?, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 16
(3) (1985), 203-246.
267. J Norton, What was Einstein’s principle of equivalence?, in Einstein and the history
of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1989), 5-47.
268. R M Nugayev, The history of quantum mechanics as a decisive argument favoring
Einstein over Lorentz, Philos. Sci. 52 (1) (1985), 44-63.
269. Obituary : Albert Einstein (1879-1955) (Russian), Z. Eksper. Teoret. Fiz. 28 (1955),
637-638.
270. T Ogawa, Japanese evidence for Einstein’s knowledge of the Michelson-Morley ex-
periment, Japan. Stud. Hist. Sci. No. 18 (1979), 73-81.
271. M E Omeljanovskii, Einstein, the foundations of modern physics and dialectics (Rus-
sian), Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR (4) (1979), 74-90.
272. Y A Ono, Einstein’s speech at Kyoto University, December 14, 1922, NTM Schr.
Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 20 (1) (1983), 25-28.
273. N F Ovcinnikov, On the problem of the formation of Einstein’s creative personality
(Russian), Voprosy Filos. (9) (1979), 70-84; 186.
274. A Pais, Einstein and the quantum theory, Rev. Modern Phys. 51 (4) (1979), 863-914.
275. A Pais, How Einstein got the Nobel prize (Russian), in Einstein collection, 1982-1983
’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1986), 85-105.
276. A Pais, How Einstein got the Nobel Prize, Amer. Sci. 70 (4) (1982), 358-365.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 49

277. P Pascual, Einstein and the development of cosmology (Spanish), Three lectures
about Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona 45 (4) (1981),
53-72.
278. M Paty, Einstein et la complémentarité au sens de Bohr: du retrait dans le tumulte
aux arguments d’incomplétude, Bohr et la complémentarité, Rev. Histoire Sci. 38
(3-4) (1985), 325-351.
279. M Paty, Physical geometry and special relativity. Einstein et Poincaré, 1830-1930 :
a century of geometry (Berlin, 1992), 127-149.
280. M Paty, The nature of Einstein’s objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quan-
tum mechanics, Found. Phys. 25 (1) (1995), 183-204.
281. G Petiau, Albert Einstein, 1879-1955, Rev. Gén. Sci. Pures Appl. 62 (1955),
227-236.
282. A Polikarov, Über den Charakter von Einsteins philosophischem Realismus, Philos.
Natur. 26 (1) (1989), 135-158.
283. A Popovici, Albert Einstein (Romanian), Gaz. Mat. Fiz. Ser. A 9 (62) (1957),
207-213.
284. W Purkert, Die Bedeutung von A Einsteins Arbeit über Brownsche Bewegung für die
Entwicklung der modernen Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, Mitt. Math. Ges. DDR No.
3 (1983), 41-49.
285. L Pyenson, Einstein’s education : mathematics and the laws of nature, Isis 71 (258)
(1980), 399-425.
286. C Ray, The cosmological constant : Einstein’s greatest mistake?, Stud. Hist. Philos.
Sci. 21 (4) (1990), 589-604.
287. T Regge, Albert Einstein in the centenary of his birth (Italian), Rend. Accad. Naz.
Sci. XL Mem. Sci. Fis. Natur. 4 (1979/80), 41-47.
288. J Renn,Einstein as a disciple of Galileo : a comparative study of concept development
in physics, in Einstein in context (Cambridge, 1993), 311-341.
289. J Renn, Von der klassischen Trägheit zur dynamischen Raumzeit : Albert Einstein
und Ernst Mach, Ber. Wiss.-Gesch. 20 (2-3) (1997), 189-198.
290. J Renn, T Sauer, and J Stachel, The origin of gravitational lensing. A postscript to
Einstein’s 1936 Science paper: ’Lens-like action of a star by the deviation of light in
the gravitational field’, Science 275 (5297) (1997), 184-186.
291. A Rossi, Mach and Einstein : Influence of Mach’s ’Mechanics’ on Einstein’s thought
(Italian), Physis-Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 22 (2) (1980), 279-292.
292. M Sachs, Einstein and the evolution of twentieth-century physics, Phys. Essays 3 (1)
(1990), 80-85.
293. M Sachs, On Einstein’s later view of the twin paradox, Found. Phys. 15 (9) (1985),
977-980.
294. A Salam, Einstein’s last project : the unification of the basic interactions and prop-
erties of space-time (Russian), in Einstein collection, 1980-1981 ’Nauka’ (Moscow,
1985), 102-110; 334.
295. H E Salzer, Two letters from Einstein concerning his distant parallelism field theory,
Arch. History Exact Sci. 12 (1974), 89-96.
50 WHY WAR?

296. R A Sardaryan, The first translations of A Einstein’s work into Armenian (Russian),
in Einstein collection, 1986-1990 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1990), 98-101.
297. W Schlicker, Albert Einstein and the political reaction in imperialist Germany after
the First World War (Czech), Pokroky Mat. Fyz. Astronom. 24 (3) (1979), 153-160.
298. W Schlicker, Genesis and duration of quarrels about Albert Einstein in Germany from
1920 to 1922/23 (Polish), Kwart. Hist. Nauk. Tech. 24 (4) (1979), 789-804.
299. H-G Schöpf, Albert Einstein und die ersten Anfänge der Quantentheorie, Wiss. Z.
Tech. Univ. Dresden 28 (1) (1979), 79-83.
300. H-G Schöpf, Zum 100. Geburtstag von A Einstein : Albert Einsteins annus mirabilis
1905, NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 15 (2) (1978), 1-17.
301. W Schroder, Albert Einstein in seinen Beziehungen zu Mitgliedern der Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 39 (2) (1988), 157-171.
302. W Schröder and H-J Treder, Zu Einsteins letzter Vorlesung-Beobachtbarkeit, Realität
und Vollständigkeit in Quanten- und Relativitätstheorie, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 48
(2) (1994), 149-154.
303. R Schulmann, Einstein at the Patent Office : exile, salvation, or tactical retreat?, in
Einstein in context (Cambridge, 1993), 17-24.
304. R Schulmann, From periphery to center : Einstein’s path from Bern to Berlin (1902-
1914), in No truth except in the details (Dordrecht, 1995), 259-271.
305. K K Sen, Life of Einstein, Math. Medley 7 (1) (1979), 8-12.
306. F Severi, An effort to clarify Einstein’s doctrine, recalling the man (Italian), Archimede
31 (4) (1979), 238-244.
307. J Shelton, The role of observation and simplicity in Einstein’s epistemology, Stud.
Hist. Philos. Sci. 19 (1) (1988), 103-118.
308. J Soucek and V Soucek, ’Einstein’s model A’ deduced by de Sitter is not that of
Einstein, Astrophys. Space Sci. 159 (2) (1989), 317-331.
309. J Stachel, Einstein and Michelson : the context of discovery and the context of jus-
tification, Astronom. Nachr. 303 (1) (1982), 47-53.
310. J Stachel,How Einstein discovered general relativity : a historical tale with some
contemporary morals, in General relativity and gravitation (Cambridge-New York,
1987), 200-208.
311. J Stachel, ’A man of my type’-editing the Einstein papers, British J. Hist. Sci. 20
(64)(1) (1987), 57-66.
312. J Stachel, Einstein and quantum mechanics, in Conceptual problems of quantum
gravity (Boston, MA, 1991), 13-42.
313. J Stachel, Einstein and the quantum : fifty years of struggle, in From quarks to
quasars (Pittsburgh, PA, 1986), 349-385.
314. J Stachel, Einstein’s search for general covariance, 1912-1915, in Einstein and the
history of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1989), 63-100.
315. J Stachel, Lanczos’s early contributions to relativity and his relationship with Ein-
stein, in Proceedings of the Cornelius Lanczos International Centenary Conference,
Raleigh 1993 (Philadelphia, PA, 1994), 201-221.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 51

316. J Stachel, The other Einstein : Einstein contra field theory., in Einstein in context
(Cambridge, 1993), 275-290.
317. J Stachel and R Torretti, Einstein’s first derivation of mass-energy equivalence, Amer.
J. Phys. 50 (8) (1982), 760-763.
318. E Stipanich, Boskovic and Einstein (Russian), in Investigations in the history of
mechanics ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1983), 219-245.
319. P Straneo, Genesi ed evoluzione della concezione relativistica di Albert Einstein, in
Cinquant’anni di Relatività , 1905-1955 (Firenze, 1955), 29-134.
320. J Strnad, Einstein and Planck’s law (Slovenian), Obzornik Mat. Fiz. 26 (3) (1979),
74-85.
321. J Strnad, Einstein and quanta (Slovenian), Obzornik Mat. Fiz. 42 (3) (1995), 80-87.
322. S G Suvorov, Einstein : the creation of the theory of relativity and some gnosiological
lessons, Soviet Phys. Uspekhi 22 (7) (1979), 528-554.
323. S G Suvorov, Einstein : the creation of the theory of relativity and some gnosiological
lessons (Russian), Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 128 (3) (1979), 459-501.
324. Y Tanaka, Einstein and Whitehead : The principle of relativity reconsidered, Historia
Sci. No. 32 (1987), 43-61.
325. G Temple, Obituary : Albert Einstein, J. London Math. Soc. 31 (1956), 501-507.
326. J Thiele, Briefe Albert Einsteins an Joseph Petzoldt, NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur-
wiss. Tech. Medizin 8 (1) (1971), 70-74.
327. V Tonini, Continuity and discontinuity : the Einstein-Bohr conflict of ideas and
the Bohr-Fock discussion, in The nature of quantum paradoxes (Dordrecht, 1988),
371-384.
328. M-A Tonnelat, Einstein : les influences philosophiques, in Einstein : 1879-1955
(Paris, 1980), 11-30.
329. M-A Tonnelat, Science et philosophie : Einstein et Spinoza, Bull. Soc. Math. Belg.
Sér. A 33 (2) (1981), 183-205.
330. M-A Tonnelat, Einstein, mythe et réalité, Scientia (Milano) 114 (5-8) (1979), 297-369.
331. I Toth, Spekulationen über die Möglichkeit eines nicht euklidischen Raumes vor Ein-
stein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 (Berlin-New York, 1979), 46-83.
332. H-J Treder, Antimatter and the particle problem in Einstein’s cosmology and field
theory of elementary particles : an historical essay on Einstein’s work at the Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Astronom. Nachr. 296 (4) (1975), 149-161. Tres
conferencias sobre Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona 45 (4)
(1981), 1-72.
333. I Z Tsekhmistro, The Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paradox and the concept of integrity
(Russian), Voprosy Filos. (4) (1985), 84-94.
334. J M Vidal Llenas, Einstein and his nonrelativistic contributions to physics (Spanish),
Three lectures about Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona 45
(4) (1981), 37-51.
335. E Vigner, Thirty years of knowing Einstein (Russian), in Einstein collection, 1982-
1983 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1986), 149-169.
52 WHY WAR?

336. E Vigner, Thirty years of knowing Einstein, Some strangeness in the proportion
(Reading, Mass., 1980)), 461-472
337. V P Vizgin, Einstein, Hilbert, Weyl : Genesis des Programms der einheitlichen ge-
ometrischen Feldtheorien, NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 21 (2)
(1984), 23-33.
338. V P Vizgin, Einstein, Hilbert, Weyl: the genesis of the program of unified geometrized
field theories (Russian), in Einstein collection, 1980-1981 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1985),
86-101; 334.
339. V P Vizgin, Correspondence between Einstein and de Broglie in the early fifties (Rus-
sian), Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (3) (1982) 169-170.
340. V P Vizgin, Eötvös and Einstein (Russian), in History of science ’Metsniereba’ (Tbil-
isi, 1984), 86-89.
341. V P Vizgin, On the history of the discovery of equations of gravitation (Einstein and
Hilbert) (Russian), Istor.-Mat. Issled. No. 25 (1980), 261-265; 379.
342. V P Vizgin, One of the aspects of Einstein’s methodology (Russian), Voprosy Istor.
Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975), 16-24; 101.
343. V P Vizgin, Einstein, Hilbert, and Weyl : the genesis of the geometrical unified field
theory program, in Einstein and the history of general relativity (Boston, MA, 1989),
300-314.
344. M von Laue, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie, Naturwissenschaften 43 (1956),
1-8.
345. K von Meyenn, Einsteins Dialog mit den Kollegen, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin
1979 (Berlin-New York, 1979), 464-489.
346. E T Whittaker, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Philos. Mag. (7) 34 (1943), 266-280.
347. E T Whittaker, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh A 61 (1942),
231-246.
348. J Wickert, Zum produktiven Denken bei Einstein. Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntnispsy-
chologie, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 (Berlin-New York, 1979), 443-463.
349. C M Will, General relativity at 75 : how right was Einstein?, in The Sixth Marcel
Grossmann Meeting, Kyoto 1991 (River Edge, NJ, 1992), 769-786.
350. A M Yaglom, Einstein’s 1914 paper on the theory of randomly fluctuating series of
observations (Russian), Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 21 (4) (1985), 101-107.
351. C N Yang, Einstein and the physics of the second half of the twentieth century, in
Selected studies : physics-astrophysics, mathematics, history of science (Amsterdam-
New York, 1982), 139-146.
352. C N Yang, Einstein’s impact on theoretical physics, Phys. Today 33 (6) (1980), 42-44;
48-49.
353. L V Yatsenko, The problem of scientific work and A Einstein (Russian), in The
scientific picture of the world ’Naukova Dumka’ (Kiev, 1983), 211-240.
354. B E Yavelov, Einstein and the problem of superconductivity (Russian), in Einstein
collection, 1977 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1980), 158-186; 327.
355. B E Yavelov, Einstein’s Zurich colloquium (Russian), in Einstein collection, 1982-
1983 ’Nauka’ (Moscow, 1986), 106-148.
1.6. A FEW MORE THINGS THAT EINSTEIN SAID ABOUT PEACE: 53

356. E Zahar, Einstein, Meyerson and the role of mathematics in physical discovery,
British J. Philos. Sci. 31 (1) (1980), 1-43.
357. R Zajac, Albert Einstein and twentieth century physics (Czech), Pokroky Mat. Fyz.
Astronom. 24 (2) (1979), 61-77.
358. A Zeilinger, Physik und Wirklichkeit-neuere Entwicklungen zum Einstein-Podolsky-
Rosen Paradoxon, in Naturwissenschaft und Weltbild (Vienna, 1992), 99-121.
359. Ja B Zeldovic, A Einstein and modern science (Russian), Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR
(7) (1980), 40-46.
360. R E Zimmermann, Albert Einstein-Versuch einer totalisierenden Würdigung, Philos.
Natur. 21 (1) (1984), 126-138.
361. P F Zweifel, The scientific work of Albert Einstein, Ann. Nuclear Energy 7 (4-5)
(1980), 279-287.
54 WHY WAR?
Chapter 2

TRIBALISM

2.1 Ethology
In the long run, because of the terrible weapons that have already been produced through
the misuse of science, and because of the even more terrible weapons that are likely to be
invented in the future, the only way in which we can ensure the survival of civilization is
to abolish the institution of war. But is this possible? Or are the emotions that make
war possible so much a part of human nature that we cannot stop humans from fighting
any more than we can stop cats and dogs from fighting? Can biological science throw any
light on the problem of why our supposedly rational species seems intent on choosing war,
pain and death instead of peace, happiness and life? To answer this question, we need to
turn to the science of ethology - the study of inherited emotional tendencies and behavior
patterns in animals and humans.
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin devoted a chapter to the evolution of instincts,
and he later published a separate book on The Expression of the Emotions in Man and
Animals. Because of these pioneering studies, Darwin is considered to be the founder of
ethology.
Behind Darwin’s work in this field is the observation that instinctive behavior patterns
are just as reliably inherited as morphological characteristics. Darwin was also impressed by
the fact that within a given species, behavior patterns have some degree of uniformity, and
the fact that the different species within a family are related by similarities of instinctive
behavior, just as they are related by similarities of bodily form. For example, certain
elements of cat-like behavior can be found among all members of the cat family; and
certain elements of dog-like or wolf-like behavior can be found among all members of the
dog family. On the other hand, there are small variations in instinct among the members
of a given species. For example, not all domestic dogs behave in the same way.
“Let us look at the familiar case of breeds of dogs”, Darwin wrote in The Origin of
Species, “It cannot be doubted that young pointers will sometimes point and even back
other dogs the very first time they are taken out; retrieving is certainly in some degree
inherited by retrievers; and a tendency to run round, instead of at, a flock of sheep by

55
56 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.1: Because of Charles Darwin’s book “The Expression of Emotions in

Man and Animals”, he is considered to be the founder of the field of Ethology,
the study of inherited behavior patterns.
2.1. ETHOLOGY 57

Figure 2.2: A dog expressing affection towards its master.

shepherd dogs. I cannot see that these actions, performed without experience by the
young, and in nearly the same manner by each individual, and without the end being
known - for the young pointer can no more know that he points to aid his master than the
white butterfly knows why she lays her eggs on the leaf of the cabbage - I cannot see that
these actions differ essentially from true instincts...”
“How strongly these domestic instincts habits and dispositions are inherited, and how
curiously they become mingled, is well shown when different breeds of dogs are crossed.
Thus it is known that a cross with a bulldog has affected for many generations the courage
and obstinacy of greyhounds; and a cross with a greyhound has given to a whole family of
shepherd dogs a tendency to hunt hares...”
Darwin believed that in nature, desirable variations of instinct are propagated by nat-
ural selection, just as in the domestication of animals, favorable variations of instinct
are selected and propagated by kennelmen and stock breeders. In this way, according
to Darwin, complex and highly developed instincts, such as the comb-making instinct of
honey-bees, have evolved by natural selection from simpler instincts, such as the instinct
by which bumble bees use their old cocoons to hold honey and sometimes add a short wax
tube.
In the introduction of his book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,
Darwin says “I thought it very important to ascertain whether the same expressions and
gestures prevail, as has often been asserted without much evidence, with all the races of
mankind, especially with those who have associated but little with Europeans. Whenever
the same movements of the features or body express the same emotions in several distinct
races of man, we may infer with much probability, that such expressions are true ones, -
that is, are innate or instinctive.”
To gather evidence on this point, Darwin sent a printed questionnaire on the expression
58 WHY WAR?

of human emotions and sent it to missionaries and colonial administrators in many parts
of the world. There were 16 questions to be answered:

1. Is astonishment expressed by the eyes and mouth being opened wide, and by the
eyebrows being raised?

2. Does shame excite a blush when the colour of the skin allows it to be visible? and
especially how low down on the body does the blush extend?

3. When a man is indignant or defiant does he frown, hold his body and head erect,
square his shoulders and clench his fists?

4. When considering deeply on any subject, or trying to understand any puzzle, does he
frown, or wrinkle the skin beneath the lower eyelids?

and so on.
Darwin received 36 replies to his questionnaire, many coming from people who were
in contact with extremely distinct and isolated groups of humans. The results convinced
him that our emotions and the means by which they are expressed are to a very large
extent innate, rather than culturally determined, since the answers to his questionnaire
were so uniform and so independent of both culture and race. In preparation for his
book, he also closely observed the emotions and their expression in very young babies and
children, hoping to see inherited characteristics in subjects too young to have been greatly
influenced by culture. Darwin’s observations convinced him that in humans, just as in
other mammals, the emotions and their expression are to a very large extent inherited
universal characteristics of the species.
The study of inherited behavior patterns in animals (and humans) was continued in
the 20th century by such researchers as Karl von Frisch (1886-1982), Nikolaas Tinbergen
(1907-1988), and Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), three scientists who shared a Nobel Prize in
Medicine and Physiology in 1973.
Karl von Frisch, the first of the three ethologists who shared the 1973 prize, is famous
for his studies of the waggle-dance of honeybees. Bees guide each other to sources of food
by a genetically programmed signaling method - the famous waggle dance, deciphered in
1945 by von Frisch. When a worker bee has found a promising food source, she returns to
the hive and performs a complex dance, the pattern of which indicates both the direction
and distance of the food. The dancer moves repeatedly in a pattern resembling the Greek
letter Θ. If the food-discoverer is able to perform her dance on a horizontal flat surface in
view of the sun, the line in the center of the pattern points in the direction of the food.
However, if the dance is performed in the interior of the hive on a vertical surface, gravity
takes the place of the sun, and the angle between the central line and the vertical represents
the angle between the food source and the sun.
The central part of the dance is, in a way, a re-enactment of the excited forager’s flight
to the food. As she traverses the central portion of the pattern, she buzzes her wings and
waggles her abdomen rapidly, the number of waggles indicating the approximate distance
2.1. ETHOLOGY 59

to the food 1 . After this central portion of the dance, she turns alternately to the left or
to the right, following one or the other of the semicircles, and repeats the performance.
Studies of the accuracy with which her hive-mates follow these instructions show that the
waggle dance is able to convey approximately 7 bits of information - 3 bits concerning
distance and 4 bits concerning direction. After making his initial discovery of the meaning
of the dance, von Frisch studied the waggle dance in many species of bees. He was able
to distinguish species-specific dialects, and to establish a plausible explanation for the
evolution of the dance.
Among the achievements for which Tinbergen is famous are his classic studies of instinct
in herring gulls. He noticed that the newly-hatched chick of a herring gull pecks at the beak
of its parent, and this signal causes the parent gull to regurgitate food into the gaping beak
of the chick. Tinbergen wondered what signal causes the chick to initiate this response by
pecking at the beak of the parent gull. Therefore he constructed a series of models of the
parent in which certain features of the adult gull were realistically represented while other
features were crudely represented or left out entirely. He found by trial and error that
the essential signal to which the chick responds is the red spot on the tip of its parent’s
beak. Models which lacked the red spot produced almost no response from the young chick,
although in other respects they were realistic models; and the red spot on an otherwise
crude model would make the chick peck with great regularity.
In other experiments, Tinbergen explored the response of newly-hatched chicks of the
common domestic hen to models representing a hawk. Since the chicks were able to rec-
ognize a hawk immediately after hatching, he knew that the response must be genetically
programmed. Just as he had done in his experiments with herring gulls, Tinbergen ex-
perimented with various models, trying to determine the crucial characteristic that was
recognized by the chicks, causing them to run for cover. He discovered that a crude model
in the shape of the letter T invariable caused the response if pulled across the sky with the
wings first and tail last. (Pulled backwards, the T shape caused no response.)
In the case of a newly-hatched herring gull chick pecking at the red spot on the beak
of its parent, the program in the chick’s brain must be entirely genetically determined,
without any environmental component at all. Learning cannot play a part in this behav-
ioral pattern, since the pattern is present in the young chick from the very moment when
it breaks out of the egg. On the other hand (Tinbergen pointed out) many behavioral
patterns in animals and in man have both an hereditary component and an environmen-
tal component. Learning is often very important, but learning seems to be built on a
foundation of genetic predisposition.
To illustrate this point, Tinbergen called attention to the case of sheep-dogs, whose
remote ancestors were wolves. These dogs, Tinbergen tells us, can easily be trained to
drive a flock of sheep towards the shepherd. However, it is difficult to train them to drive
the sheep away from their master. Tinbergen explained this by saying that the sheep-dogs
regard the shepherd as their “pack leader”; and since driving the prey towards the pack
1
The number of waggles is largest when the source of food is near, and for extremely nearby food, the
bees use another dance, the “round dance”.
60 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.3: The red spot on the beak of the parent gull proved to be the crucial
signal needed to activate the instinctive response of the chick.

Figure 2.4: Nikolaas Tinbergen (1907-1988) on the left, with Konrad Lorenz
(1903-1989). Together with Karl von Frisch (1886-1982) they shared the 1973
Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for their pioneering work in Ethology.
2.1. ETHOLOGY 61

Figure 2.5: Konrad Lorenz with geese who consider him to be their mother.

leader is part of the hunting instinct of wolves, it is easy to teach the dogs this maneuver.
However, driving the prey away from the pack leader would not make sense for wolves
hunting in a pack; it is not part of the instinctive makeup of wolves, nor is it a natural
pattern of behavior for their remote descendants, the sheep-dogs.
As a further example of the fact that learning is usually built on a foundation of genetic
predisposition, Tinbergen mentions the ease with which human babies learn languages. The
language learned is determined by the baby’s environment; but the astonishing ease with
which a human baby learns to speak and understand implies a large degree of genetic
predisposition.
The third of the 1973 prizewinners, Konrad Lorenz, is more controversial, but at the
same time very interesting in the context of studies of the causes of war and discussions
of how war may be avoided. As a young boy, he was very fond of animals, and his
tolerant parents allowed him to build up a large menagerie in their house in Altenberg,
Austria. Even as a child, he became an expert on waterfowl behavior, and he discovered
the phenomenon of imprinting. He was given a one day old duckling, and found, to his
intense joy, that it transferred its following response to his person. As Lorenz discovered,
young waterfowl have a short period immediately after being hatched, when they identify
as their “mother” whomever they see first. In later life, Lorenz continued his studies of
imprinting, and there exists a touching photograph of him, with his white beard, standing
waist-deep in a pond, surrounded by an adoring group of goslings who believe him to be
62 WHY WAR?

their mother. Lorenz also studied bonding behavior in waterfowl.

It is, however, for his controversial book On Aggression that Konrad Lorenz is best
known. In this book, Lorenz makes a distinction between intergroup aggression and in-
tragroup aggression. Among animals, he points out, rank-determining fights are seldom
fatal. Thus, for example, the fights that determine leadership within a wolf pack end when
the loser makes a gesture of submission. By contrast, fights between groups of animals
are often fights to the death, examples being wars between ant colonies, or of bees against
intruders, or the defense of a rat pack against strange rats.
Many animals, humans included, seem willing to kill or be killed in defense of the
communities to which they belong. Lorenz calls this behavioral tendency a “communal
defense response”. He points out that the “holy shiver” - the tingling of the spine that
humans experience when performing a heroic act in defense of their communities - is related
to the prehuman reflex for raising the hair on the back of an animal as it confronts an enemy
- a reflex that makes the animal seem larger than it really is.
Konrad Lorenz and his followers have been criticized for introducing a cathartic model
of instincts. According to Lorenz, if an instinct is not used, a pressure for its use builds up
over a period of time. In the case of human aggression, according to Lorenz, the nervous
energy has to be dissipated in some way, either harmlessly through some substitute for
aggression, or else through actual fighting. Thus, for example, Lorenz believed that violent
team sports help to reduce the actual level of violence in a society. This conclusion has
been challenged by by the distinguished ethologist Prof. R.A. Hinde and by many others
in his field who believe that there is no experimental evidence for the cathartic model of
aggression.2
Professor Hinde points out that unused instincts tend to atrophy; and he concludes
that violent team sports or violence shown on television tend to raise rather than lower the
level of harmful violence in a society. Although the cathartic model of aggression is now
widely considered to be incorrect (and on this point I certainly agree with Professor Hinde)
it seems probable that the communal defense response discussed by Lorenz will prove to be
a correct and useful concept. The communal defense mechanism can be thought of as the
aspect of human emotions which makes it natural for soldiers to kill or be killed in defense
of their countries. In the era before nuclear weapons made war prohibitively dangerous,
such behavior was considered to be the greatest of virtues.
Generations of schoolboys have learned the Latin motto: “Dulce et decorum est pro
patria mori” - it is both sweet and noble to die for one’s country. Even in today’s world,
2
In a 1985 letter to the author, Professor Hinde wrote; “Dear Dr. Avery, I found your pamphlet
‘The World as it is and the World as it could be’ a very inspiring document, and I hope that it will
be widely circulated. But just one comment - amongst the suggestions for further reading you include
Konrad Lorenz’s ‘On Aggression’. The message that comes from this book is that human aggressiveness
is inevitably part of our human nature, and we must seek harmless outlets for it. This rests on a cathartic
model of human behavior that is outdated. A more appropriate message is that we must find ways of
rearing our children so that their propensity to show aggression is reduced, and provide individuals with
environments in which any aggressive propensities are not called forth. I’m sure you would agree with
this. I hope that you will forgive this slight reservation about what seems to me to be a totally admirable
and important statement. With best wishes, Yours sincerely, Robert A. Hinde.
2.1. ETHOLOGY 63

death in battle in defense of country and religion is still praised by nationalists. However,
because of the development of weapons of mass destruction, both nationalism and narrow
patriotism have become dangerous anachronisms.
In thinking of violence and war, we must be extremely careful not to confuse the behav-
ioral patterns that lead to wife-beating or bar-room brawls with those that lead to episodes
like the trench warfare of the First World War, or to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. The first type of aggression is similar to the rank-determining fights of ani-
mals, while the second is more akin to the team-spirit exhibited by a football side. Heroic
behavior in defense of one’s community has been praised throughout the ages, but the
tendency to such behavior has now become a threat to the survival of civilization, since
tribalism makes war possible, and war with thermonuclear weapons threatens civilization
with catastrophe.
In an essay entitled The Urge to Self-Destruction 3 , Arthur Koestler says:
“Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes, committed
for selfish motives, play a quite insignificant role in the human tragedy compared with the
numbers massacred in unselfish love of one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church or ideology...
Wars are not fought for personal gain, but out of loyalty and devotion to king, country or
cause...”
“We have seen on the screen the radiant love of the Führer on the faces of the Hitler
Youth... They are transfixed with love, like monks in ecstasy on religious paintings. The
sound of the nation’s anthem, the sight of its proud flag, makes you feel part of a wonder-
fully loving community. The fanatic is prepared to lay down his life for the object of his
worship, as the lover is prepared to die for his idol. He is, alas, also prepared to kill anybody
who represents a supposed threat to the idol.” The emotion described here by Koestler
is the same as the communal defense mechanism (“militant enthusiasm”) described in
biological terms by Lorenz.
In his book On Aggression, Konrad Lorenz gives the following description of the emo-
tions of a hero preparing to risk his life for the sake of the group:
“In reality, militant enthusiasm is a specialized form of communal aggression, clearly
distinct from and yet functionally related to the more primitive forms of individual ag-
gression. Every man of normally strong emotions knows, from his own experience, the
subjective phenomena that go hand in hand with the response of militant enthusiasm. A
shiver runs down the back and, as more exact observation shows, along the outside of both
arms. One soars elated, above all the ties of everyday life, one is ready to abandon all for
the call of what, in the moment of this specific emotion, seems to be a sacred duty. All
obstacles in its path become unimportant; the instinctive inhibitions against hurting or
killing one’s fellows lose, unfortunately, much of their power. Rational considerations, crit-
icisms, and all reasonable arguments against the behavior dictated by militant enthusiasm
are silenced by an amazing reversal of all values, making them appear not only untenable,
but base and dishonorable.
3
in The Place of Value in a World of Facts, A. Tiselius and S. Nielsson editors, Wiley, New York,
(1970)
64 WHY WAR?

Men may enjoy the feeling of absolute righteousness even while they commit atrocities.
Conceptual thought and moral responsibility are at their lowest ebb. As the Ukrainian
proverb says: ‘When the banner is unfurled, all reason is in the trumpet’.”
“The subjective experiences just described are correlated with the following objectively
demonstrable phenomena. The tone of the striated musculature is raised, the carriage is
stiffened, the arms are raised from the sides and slightly rotated inward, so that the elbows
point outward. The head is proudly raised, the chin stuck out, and the facial muscles
mime the ‘hero face’ familiar from the films. On the back and along the outer surface of
the arms, the hair stands on end. This is the objectively observed aspect of the shiver!”
“Anybody who has ever seen the corresponding behavior of the male chimpanzee de-
fending his band or family with self-sacrificing courage will doubt the purely spiritual
character of human enthusiasm. The chimp, too, sticks out his chin, stiffens his body, and
raises his elbows; his hair stands on end, producing a terrifying magnification of his body
contours as seen from the front. The inward rotation of the arms obviously has the purpose
of turning the longest-haired side outward to enhance the effect. The whole combination
of body attitude and hair-raising constitutes a bluff. This is also seen when a cat humps
its back, and is calculated to make the animal appear bigger and more dangerous than it
really is. Our shiver, which in German poetry is called a ‘heiliger Schauer’, a ‘holy’ shiver,
turns out to be the vestige of a prehuman vegetative response for making a fur bristle which
we no longer have. To the humble seeker for biological truth, there cannot be the slightest
doubt that human militant enthusiasm evolved out of a communal defense response of our
prehuman ancestor.”
Lorenz goes on to say, “An impartial visitor from another planet, looking at man as
he is today - in his hand the atom bomb, the product of his intelligence - in his heart
the aggression drive, inherited from his anthropoid ancestors, which the same intelligence
cannot control - such a visitor would not give mankind much chance of survival.”
There are some semantic difficulties connected with discussions of the parts of human
nature that make war possible. In one of the passages quoted above, Konrad Lorenz speaks
of “militant enthusiasm”, which he says is both a form of communal aggression and also
a communal defense response. In their inspiring recent book War No More, Professor
Robert Hinde and Sir Joseph Rotblat use the word “duty” in discussing the same human
emotional tendencies. I will instead use the word “tribalism”.
I prefer the word “tribalism” because from an evolutionary point of view the human
emotions involved in war grew out of the territorial competition between small tribes
during the formative period when our ancestors were hunter-gatherers on the grasslands of
Africa. Members of tribe-like groups are bound together by strong bonds of altruism and
loyalty. Echos of these bonds can be seen in present-day family groups, in team sports, in
the fellowship of religious congregations, and in the bonds that link soldiers to their army
comrades and to their nation.
Warfare involves not only a high degree of aggression, but also an extremely high degree
of altruism. Soldiers kill, but they also sacrifice their own lives. Thus patriotism and duty
are as essential to war as the willingness to kill. As Arthur Koestler points out, “Wars are
not fought for personal gain, but out of loyalty and devotion to king, country or cause...”
2.2. POPULATION GENETICS 65

Tribalism involves passionate attachment to one’s own group, self-sacrifice for the sake
of the group, willingness both to die and to kill if necessary to defend the group from its
enemies, and belief that in case of a conflict, one’s own group is always in the right.

2.2 Population genetics

If we examine altruism and aggression in humans, we notice that members of our species
exhibit great altruism towards their own children. Kindness towards close relatives is also
characteristic of human behavior, and the closer the biological relationship is between
two humans, the greater is the altruism they tend to show towards each other. This
profile of altruism is easy to explain on the basis of Darwinian natural selection since two
closely related individuals share many genes and, if they cooperate, the genes will be more
effectively propagated.
To explain from an evolutionary point of view the communal defense mechanism dis-
cussed by Lorenz - the willingness of humans to kill and be killed in defense of their
communities - we have only to imagine that our ancestors lived in small tribes and that
marriage was likely to take place within a tribe rather than across tribal boundaries. Un-
der these circumstances, each tribe would tend to consist of genetically similar individuals.
The tribe itself, rather than the individual, would be the unit on which the evolutionary
forces of natural selection would act. The idea of group selection in evolution was proposed
in the 1930’s by J.B.S. Haldane and R.A. Fischer, and more recently it has been discussed
by W.D. Hamilton and E.O. Wilson.
According to the group selection model, a tribe whose members showed altruism to-
wards each other would be more likely to survive than a tribe whose members cooperated
less effectively. Since several tribes might be in competition for the same territory, in-
tertribal aggression might, under some circumstances, increase the chances for survival of
one’s own tribe. Thus, on the basis of the group selection model, one would expect hu-
mans to be kind and cooperative towards members of their own group, but at the same
time to sometimes exhibit aggression towards members of other groups, especially in con-
flicts over territory. One would also expect intergroup conflicts to be most severe in cases
where the boundaries between groups are sharpest - where marriage is forbidden across
the boundaries.
66 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.6: Sir Ronald Aylmer Fischer (1890-1962). Together with J.B.S Hal-
dane he pioneered the theory of population genetics. Recent contributions to
this theory have been made by W.D. Hamilton and E.O. Wilson.
2.3. FORMATION OF GROUP IDENTITY 67

2.3 Formation of group identity

Although humans originally lived in small, genetically homogeneous tribes, the social and
political groups of the modern world are much larger, and are often multiracial and mul-
tiethnic.
There are a number of large countries that are remarkable for their diversity, for example
Brazil, Argentina and the United States. Nevertheless it has been possible to establish
social cohesion and group identity within each of these enormous nations. India and China
too, are mosaics of diverse peoples, but nevertheless, they function as coherent societies.
Thus we see that group identity is a social construction, in which artificial “tribal markings”
define the boundaries of the group. These tribal markings will be discussed in more detail
below.
One gains hope for the future by observing how it has been possible to produce both
internal peace and social cohesion over very large areas of the globe - areas that contain
extremely diverse populations. The difference between making large, ethnically diverse
countries function as coherent sociopolitical units and making the entire world function as
a unit is not very great.
Since group identity is a social construction, it is not an impossible goal to think of
enlarging the already-large groups of the modern world to include all of humanity.

2.4 Religion and ethnic identity

For the hominids that formed a bridge between present-day humans and the common
ancestor of ourselves and the anthropoid apes, culture included not only rudimentary
language, but also skills such as methods of tool-making and weapon making.
An acceleration of human cultural development seems to have begun approximately
70,000 years ago. The first art objects date from that period, as do migrations that
ultimately took modern man across the Bering Strait to the western hemisphere. A land
bridge extending from Siberia to Alaska is thought to have been formed approximately
70,000 years ago, disappearing again roughly 10,000 years before the present. Cultural and
genetic studies indicate that migrations from Asia to North America took place during this
period. Shamanism,4 which is found both in Asia and the new world, as well as among
the Sami (Lapps) of northern Scandinavia, is an example of the cultural links between the
hunting societies of these regions.
Before the acceleration of human cultural development just mentioned, genetic change
and cultural change went hand in hand, but during the last 70,000 years, the constantly
accelerating rate of information-accumulation and cultural evolution has increasingly out-
distanced the rate of genetic change in humans. Genetically we are almost identical with
4
A shaman is a special member of a hunting society who, while in a trance, is thought to be able
pass between the upper world, the present world, and the lower world, to cure illnesses, and to insure the
success of a hunt.
68 WHY WAR?

our hunter-gatherer ancestors of 70,000 years ago, but cultural evolution has changed our
way of life beyond recognition.
Humans are capable of cultural evolution because it is so easy to overwrite and modify
our instinctive behavior patterns with learned behavior. Within the animal kingdom,
humans are undoubtedly the champions in this respect. No other species is so good at
learning as we are. During the early stages of cultural evolution, the tendency of humans
to be religious may have facilitated the overwriting of instinctive behavior with the culture
of the tribe. Since religions, like languages, are closely associated with particular cultures,
they serve as marks of ethnic identity.

2.5 Tribal markings; ethnicity; pseudospeciation

In biology, a species is defined to be a group of mutually fertile organisms. Thus all humans
form a single species, since mixed marriages between all known races will produce children,
and subsequent generations in mixed marriages are also fertile. However, although there is
never a biological barrier to marriages across ethnic and racial boundaries, there are often
very severe cultural barriers.
Irenäus Eibl-Ebesfeldt, a student of Konrad Lorenz, introduced the word pseudospecia-
tion to denote cases where cultural barriers between two groups of humans are so strongly
marked that marriages across the boundary are difficult and infrequent. In such cases, he
pointed out, the two groups function as though they were separate species, although from
a biological standpoint this is nonsense. When two such groups are competing for the same
land, the same water, the same resources, and the same jobs, the conflicts between them
can become very bitter indeed. Each group regards the other as being “not truly human”.

In his book The Biology of War and Peace, Eibl-Eibesfeldt discusses the “tribal mark-
ings” used by groups of humans to underline their own identity and to clearly mark the
boundary between themselves and other groups. One of the illustrations in the book shows
the marks left by ritual scarification on the faces of the members of certain African tribes.
These scars would be hard to counterfeit, and they help to establish and strengthen tribal
identity. Seeing a photograph of the marks left by ritual scarification on the faces of
African tribesmen, it is impossible not to be reminded of the dueling scars that Prussian
army officers once used to distinguish their caste from outsiders.
Surveying the human scene, one can find endless examples of signs that mark the bearer
as a member of a particular group - signs that can be thought of as “tribal markings”:
tattoos; piercing; bones through the nose or ears; elongated necks or ears; filed teeth;
Chinese binding of feet; circumcision, both male and female; unique hair styles; decorations
of the tongue, nose, or naval; peculiarities of dress, fashions, veils, chadors, and headdresses;
caste markings in India; use or nonuse of perfumes; codes of honor and value systems;
traditions of hospitality and manners; peculiarities of diet (certain foods forbidden, others
preferred); giving traditional names to children; knowledge of dances and songs; knowledge
of recipes; knowledge of common stories, literature, myths, poetry or common history;
2.5. TRIBAL MARKINGS; ETHNICITY; PSEUDOSPECIATION 69

Figure 2.7: Scars help to establish tribal identity

festivals, ceremonies, and rituals; burial customs, treatment of the dead and ancestor
worship; methods of building and decorating homes; games and sports peculiar to a culture;
relationship to animals, knowledge of horses and ability to ride; nonrational systems of
belief. Even a baseball hat worn backwards or the professed ability to enjoy atonal music
can mark a person as a member of a special “tribe”. Undoubtedly there many people in
New York who would never think of marrying someone who could not appreciate the the
paintings of Jasper Johns, and many in London who would consider anyone had not read
all the books of Virginia Wolfe to be entirely outside the bounds of civilization.
By far the most important mark of ethnic identity is language, and within a particular
language, dialect and accent. If the only purpose of language were communication, it would
be logical for the people of a small country like Denmark to stop speaking Danish and go
over to a more universally-understood international language such as English. However,
language has another function in addition to communication: It is also a mark of identity.
It establishes the boundary of the group.
Within a particular language, dialects and accents mark the boundaries of subgroups.
For example, in England, great social significance is attached to accents and diction, a
tendency that George Bernard Shaw satirized in his play, Pygmalion, which later gained
greater fame as the musical comedy, My Fair Lady. This being the case, we can ask why
all citizens of England do not follow the example of Eliza Doolittle in Shaw’s play, and
improve their social positions by acquiring Oxford accents. However, to do so would be
to run the risk of being laughed at by one’s peers and regarded as a traitor to one’s own
local community and friends. School children everywhere can be very cruel to any child
who does not fit into the local pattern. At Eton, an Oxford accent is compulsory; but in
a Yorkshire school, a child with an Oxford accent would suffer for it.
70 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.8: An example of the dueling scars that Prussian army officers once
used to distinguish their caste from outsiders.
2.5. TRIBAL MARKINGS; ETHNICITY; PSEUDOSPECIATION 71

Next after language, the most important “tribal marking” is religion. As mentioned
above, it seems probable that in the early history of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, religion
evolved as a mechanism for perpetuating tribal traditions and culture. Like language, and
like the innate facial expressions studied by Darwin, religion is a universal characteristic
of all human societies. All known races and cultures practice some sort of religion. Thus
a tendency to be religious seems to be built into human nature, or at any rate, the needs
that religion satisfies seem to be a part of our inherited makeup. Otherwise, religion would
not be so universal as it is.

Religion is often strongly associated with ethnicity and nationalism, that is to say, it
is associated with the demarcation of a particular group of people by its culture or race.
For example, the Jewish religion is associated with Zionism and with Jewish nationalism.
Similarly Islam is strongly associated with Arab nationalism. Christianity too has played
an important role in in many aggressive wars, for example in the Crusades, in the European
conquest of the New World, in European colonial conquests in Africa and Asia, and in the
wars between Catholics and Protestants within Europe. We shall see in a later chapter
how the originators of the German nationalist movement (the precursors of the Nazis),
used quasi-religious psychological methods.

Human history seems to be saturated with blood. It would be impossible to enumer-

ate the conflicts with which the story of humankind is stained. Many of the atrocities
of history have involved what Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt called “pseudospeciation”, that is
to say, they were committed in conflicts involving groups between which sharply marked
cultural barriers have made intermarriage difficult and infrequent. Examples include the
present conflict between Israelis and Palestinians; “racial cleansing” in Kosovo; the devas-
tating wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe; the Lebanese civil war; genocide
committed against Jews and Gypsies during World War II; recent genocide in Rwanda;
current intertribal massacres in the Ituri Provence of Congo; use of poison gas against Kur-
dish civilians by Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq; the massacre of Armenians by Turks;
massacres of Hindus by Muslims and of Muslims by Hindus in post-independence India;
massacres of Native Americans by white conquerors and settlers in all parts of the New
World; and massacres committed during the Crusades. The list seems almost endless.

Religion often contributes to conflicts by sharpening the boundaries between ethnic

groups and by making marriage across those boundaries difficult and infrequent. However,
this negative role is balanced by a positive one, whenever religion is the source of ethical
principles, especially the principle of universal human brotherhood.

The religious leaders of today’s world have the opportunity to contribute importantly
to the solution of the problem of war. They have the opportunity to powerfully support
the concept of universal human brotherhood, to build bridges between religious groups, to
make intermarriage across ethnic boundaries easier, and to soften the distinctions between
communities. If they fail to do this, they will have failed humankind at a time of crisis.
72 WHY WAR?

2.6 The mystery of self-sacrifice in war

Warfare involves not only a high degree of aggression, but also an extremely high degree
of altruism. Soldiers kill, but they also sacrifice their own lives. Thus patriotism and duty
are as essential to war as the willingness to kill.
Tribalism involves passionate attachment to one’s own group, self-sacrifice for the sake
of the group, willingness both to die and to kill if necessary to defend the group from
its enemies, and belief that in case of a conflict, one’s own group is always in the right.
Unfortunately these emotions make war possible; and today a Third World War might lead
to the destruction of civilization.
At first sight, the willingness of humans to die defending their social groups seems
hard to explain from the standpoint of Darwinian natural selection. After the heroic
death of such a human, he or she will be unable to produce more children, or to care for
those already born.Therefore one might at first suppose that natural selection would work
strongly to eliminate the trait of self-sacrifice from human nature. However, the theory
of population genetics and group selection can explain both the willingness of humans
to sacrifice themselves for their own group, and also the terrible aggression that they
sometimes exhibit towards competing groups. It can explain both intra-group altruism
and inter-group aggression.

2.7 Fischer, Haldane, Hamilton and Wilson

The idea of group selection in evolution was proposed in the 1930’s by J.B.S. Haldane and
R.A. Fischer, and more recently it has been discussed by W.D. Hamilton and E.O. Wilson.

If we examine altruism and aggression in humans, we notice that members of our species
exhibit great altruism towards their own children. Kindness towards close relatives is also
characteristic of human behavior, and the closer the biological relationship is between
two humans, the greater is the altruism they tend to show towards each other. This
profile of altruism is easy to explain on the basis of Darwinian natural selection since two
closely related individuals share many genes and, if they cooperate, the genes will be more
effectively propagated.
To explain from an evolutionary point of view the communal defense mechanism - the
willingness of humans to kill and be killed in defense of their communities - we have only to
imagine that our ancestors lived in small tribes and that marriage was likely to take place
within a tribe rather than across tribal boundaries. Under these circumstances, each tribe
would tend to consist of genetically similar individuals. The tribe itself, rather than the
individual, would be the unit on which the evolutionary forces of natural selection would
act.
According to the group selection model, a tribe whose members showed altruism to-
wards each other would be more likely to survive than a tribe whose members cooperated
less effectively. Since several tribes might be in competition for the same territory, suc-
2.8. COOPERATION IN GROUPS OF ANIMALS AND HUMAN GROUPS 73

cessful aggression against a neighboring group could increase the chances for survival of
one’s own tribe. Thus, on the basis of the group selection model, one would expect hu-
mans to be kind and cooperative towards members of their own group, but at the same
time to sometimes exhibit aggression towards members of other groups, especially in con-
flicts over territory. One would also expect intergroup conflicts to be most severe in cases
where the boundaries between groups are sharpest - where marriage is forbidden across
the boundaries.

2.8 Cooperation in groups of animals and human groups

The social behavior of groups of animals, flocks of birds and communities of social insects
involves cooperation as well as rudimentary forms of language. Various forms of language,
including chemical signals, postures and vocal signals, are important tools for orchestrating
cooperative behavior.
The highly developed language of humans made possible an entirely new form of evolu-
tion. In cultural evolution (as opposed to genetic evolution), information is passed between
generations not in the form of a genetic code, but in the form of linguistic symbols. With
the invention of writing, and later the invention of printing, the speed of human cultural
evolution greatly increased. Cooperation is central to this new form of evolution. Cultural
advances can be shared by all humans.

2.9 Trading in primitive societies

Although primitive societies engaged in frequent wars, they also cooperated through trade.
Peter Watson, an English historian of ideas, believes that long-distance trade took place as
early as 150,000 before the present. There is evidence that extensive trade in obsidian and
flint took place during the stone age. Evidence for wide ranging prehistoric obsidian and
flint trading networks has been found in North America. Ancient burial sites in Southeast
Asia show that there too, prehistoric trading took place across very large distances. Anal-
ysis of jade jewelry from the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam shows that the
jade originated in Taiwan.
The invention of writing was prompted by the necessities of trade. In prehistoric
Mesopotamia, clay tokens marked with simple symbols were used for accounting as early
as 8,000 BC. Often these tokens were kept in clay jars, and symbols on the outside of the
jars indicated the contents. About 3,500 BC, the use of such tokens and markings led to
the development of pictographic writing in Mesopotamia, and this was soon followed by
the cuneiform script, still using soft clay as a medium. The clay tablets were later dried
and baked to ensure permanency. The invention of writing led to a great acceleration of
human cultural evolution. Since ideas could now be exchanged and preserved with great
ease through writing, new advances in technique could be shared by an ever larger coop-
erating community of humans. Our species became more and more successful as its genius
74 WHY WAR?

for cooperation developed.

Early religions tended to be centered on particular tribes, and the ethics associated
with them were usually tribal in nature. However, the more cosmopolitan societies that
began to form after the Neolithic agricultural revolution required a more universal code of
ethics. It is interesting to notice that many of the great ethical teachers of human history,
for example Moses, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lao-Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, and Jesus,
lived at the time when the change to larger social units was taking place. Tribalism was
no longer appropriate. A wider ethic was needed.
Today the size of the social unit is again being enlarged, this time enlarged to include
the entire world. Narrow loyalties have become inappropriate and there is an urgent need
for a new ethic - a global ethic. Loyalty to one’s nation needs to be supplemented by a
higher loyalty to humanity as a whole.

2.10 Interdependence in modern human society

The enormous success of humans as a species is due to their genius for cooperation. The
success of humans is a success of cultural evolution, a new form of evolution in which
information is passed between generations, not in the form of DNA sequences but in the
form of speech, writing, printing and finally electronic signals. Cultural evolution is built
on cooperation, and has reached great heights of success as the cooperating community
has become larger and larger, ultimately including the entire world.
Without large-scale cooperation, modern science would never have evolved. It devel-
oped as a consequence of the invention of printing, which allowed painfully gained detailed
knowledge to be widely shared. Science derives its great power from concentration. At-
tention and resources are brought to bear on a limited problem until all aspects of it are
understood. It would make no sense to proceed in this way if knowledge were not perma-
nent, and if the results of scientific research were not widely shared. But today the printed
word and the electronic word spread the results of research freely to the entire world. The
whole human community is the repository of shared knowledge.
The achievements of modern society are achievements of cooperation. We can fly, but no
one builds an airplane alone. We can cure diseases, but only through the cooperative efforts
of researchers, doctors and medicinal firms. We can photograph and understand distant
galaxies, but the ability to do so is built on the efforts of many cooperating individuals.
The comfort and well-being that we experience depends on far-away friendly hands and
minds, since trade is global, and the exchange of ideas is also global.

2.11 Two sides of human nature

Looking at human nature, both from the standpoint of evolution and from that of everyday
experience, we see the two faces of Janus; one face shines radiantly; the other is dark
and menacing. Two souls occupy the human breast, one warm and friendly, the other
2.12. TRIBALISM AND AGREED-UPON LIES 75

murderous. Humans have developed a genius for cooperation, the basis for culture and
civilization; but they are also capable of genocide; they were capable of massacres during
the Crusades, capable of genocidal wars against the Amerinds, capable of the Holocaust,
of Hiroshima, of the killing-fields of Cambodia, of Rwanda, and of Darfur
As an example of the two sides of human nature, we can think of Scandinavia. The
Vikings were once feared throughout Europe. The Book of Common Prayer in England
contains the phrase “Protect us from the fury of the Northmen!”. Today the same people
are so peaceful and law-abiding that they can be taken as an example for how we would
like a future world to look. Human nature has the possibility for both kinds of behavior
depending on the circumstances. This being so, there are strong reasons to enlist the help
of education and religion to make the bright side of human nature win over the dark side.
Today, the mass media are an important component of education, and thus the mass media
have a great responsibility for encouraging the cooperative and constructive side of human
nature rather than the dark and destructive side.

2.12 Tribalism and agreed-upon lies

Members of tribelike groups throughout history have marked their identity by adhering
to irrational systems of belief. Like the ritual scarification which is sometimes used by
primitive tribes as a mark of identity, irrational systems of belief are also a mark of tribal
identity. We parade these beliefs to demonstrate that we belong to a special group and
that we are proud of it. The more irrational the belief is, the better it serves this purpose.
When you and I tell each other that we believe the same nonsense, a bond is forged between
us. The worse the nonsense is, the stronger the bond.
Sometimes motives of advantage are mixed in. As the Nobel Laureate biochemist
Albert Szent-Györgyi observed, evolution designed the human mind, not for finding truth,
but for finding advantage. Within the Orwellian framework of many modern nations, it is
extremely disadvantageous to hold the wrong opinions. The wiretappers know what you
are thinking.
Also, people often believe what will make them happy. How else can we explain the
denial of climate change in the face of massive evidence to the contrary?
But truth has the great virtue that it allows us to accurately predict the future. If we
ignore truth because it is unfashionable, or painful, or heretical, the future will catch us
unprepared.

2.13 From tribalism to nationalism

70,000 years ago, our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in tribes. Loyalty to the tribe was
natural for our ancestors, as was collective work on tribal projects. Today, at the start of
the 21st century, we live in nation-states to which we feel emotions of loyalty very similar
to the tribal emotions of our ancestors.
76 WHY WAR?

The enlargement of the fundamental political and social unit has been made necessary
and possible by improved transportation and communication, and by changes in the tech-
niques of warfare. In Europe, for example, the introduction of canons in warfare made
it possible to destroy castles, and thus the power of central monarchs was increased at
the expense of feudal barons. At the same time, improved roads made merchants wish to
trade freely over larger areas. Printing allowed larger groups of people to read the same
books and newspapers, and thus to experience the same emotions. Therefore the size of
the geographical unit over which it was possible to establish social and political cohesion
became enlarged.
The tragedy of our present situation is that the same forces that made the nation-state
replace the tribe as the fundamental political and social unit have continued to operate
with constantly-increasing intensity. For this reason, the totally sovereign nation-state
has become a dangerous anachronism. Although the world now functions as a single unit
because of modern technology, its political structure is based on fragments, on absolutely-
sovereign nation states - large compared to tribes, but too small for present-day technology,
since they do not include all of mankind. Gross injustices mar today’s global economic
interdependence, and because of the development of thermonuclear weapons, the continued
existence of civilization is threatened by the anarchy that exists today at the international
level.
In this chapter, we will discuss nationalism in Europe, and especially the conflicts
between absolutely sovereign nation-states that led to the two World Wars. However, it is
important to remember that parallel to this story, run others, equally tragic - conflicts in
the Middle East, the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, conflicts between India and
Pakistan, the Korean War, the two Gulf Wars, and so on. In all of these tragedies, the
root the trouble is that international interdependence exists in practice because of modern
technology, but our political institutions, emotions and outlook are at the stunted level
of the absolutely sovereign nation-state. Although we focus here on German nationalism
as an example, and although historically it had terrible consequences, it is not a danger
today. Germany is now one of the world’s most peaceful and responsible countries, and
the threats to world peace now come from nationalism outside Europe.

2.14 Nationalism in Europe

There is no doubt that the founders of nationalism in Europe were idealists; but the
movement that they created has already killed more than sixty million people in two world
wars, and today it contributes to the threat of a catastrophic third world war.
Nationalism in Europe is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution,
and the Romantic Movement. According to the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the
ideas of the French Revolution, no government is legitimate unless it derives its power from
the will of the people. Speaking to the Convention of 1792, Danton proclaimed that “by
sending us here as deputies, the French Nation has brought into being a grand committee
for the general insurrection of peoples.”
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 77

Since all political power was now believed to be vested in the “nation”, the question of
national identity suddenly became acutely important. France itself was a conglomeration
of peoples - Normans, Bretons, Provencaux, Burgundians, Flemings, Germans, Basques,
and Catalans - but these peoples had been united under a strong central government since
the middle ages, and by the time of the French Revolution it was easy for them to think
of themselves as a “nation”. However, what we now call Germany did not exist. There
was only a collection of small feudal principalities, in some of which the most common
language was German.
The early political unity of France enabled French culture to dominate Europe during
the 17th and 18th centuries. Frederick the Great of Prussia and his court spoke and wrote
in French. Frederick himself regarded German as a language of ignorant peasants, and
on the rare occasions when he tried to speak or write in German, the result was almost
incomprehensible. The same was true in the courts of Brandenburg, Saxony, Pomerania,
etc. Each of them was a small-scale Versailles. Below the French-speaking aristocracy was
a German-speaking middle class and a German or Slavic-speaking peasantry.
The creators of the nationalist movement in Germany were young middle-class German-
speaking students and theologians who felt frustrated and stifled by the narrow kleinstädtisch
provincial atmosphere of the small principalities in which they lived. They also felt frus-
trated because their talents were completely ignored by the French-speaking aristocracy.
This was the situation when the armies of Napoleon marched across Europe, easily de-
feating and humiliating both Prussia and Austria. The young German-speaking students
asked themselves what it was that the French had that they did not have.
The answer was not hard to find. What the French had was a sense of national identity.
In fact, the French Revolution had unleashed long-dormant tribal instincts in the common
people of France. It was the fanatical support of the Marseillaise-singing masses that made
the French armies invincible. The founders of the German nationalist movement concluded
that if they were ever to have a chance of defeating France, they would have to inspire the
same fanaticism in their own peoples. They would have to touch the same almost-forgotten
cord of human nature that the French Revolution had touched.
The common soldiers who fought in the wars of Europe in the first part of the 18th
century were not emotionally involved. They were recruited from the lowest ranks of
society, and they joined the army of a king or prince for the sake of money. All this was
changed by the French Revolution. In June, 1792, the French Legislative Assembly decreed
that a Fatherland Alter be erected in each commune with the inscription, “The citizen is
born, lives and dies for la patrie.” The idea of a “Fatherland Alter” clearly demonstrates
the quasi-religious nature of French nationalism.
The soldiers in Napoleon’s army were not fighting for the sake of money, but for an
ideal that they felt to be larger and more important than themselves - Republicanism and
the glory of France. The masses, who for so long had been outside of the politics of a larger
world, and who had been emotionally involved only in the affairs of their own village, were
now fully aroused to large-scale political action. The surge of nationalist feeling in France
was tribalism on an enormous scale - tribalism amplified and orchestrated by new means
of mass communication.
78 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.9: A portrait of Napoleon (as he liked to see himself ).

2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 79

Figure 2.10: A romantic figure representing Germany

This was the phenomenon with which the German nationalists felt they had to contend.
One of the founders of the German nationalist movement was Johan Gottlieb Fichte
(1762-1814), a follower of the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Besides rejecting
objective criteria for morality, Fichte denied the value of the individual. According to him,
the individual is nothing and the state is everything. Denying the value of the individual,
Fichte compared the state to an organism of which the individual is a part:
“In a product of nature”, Fichte wrote, “no part is what it is but through its relation
to the whole, and it would absolutely not be what it is apart from this relation; more, if
it had no organic relation at all, it would be absolutely nothing, since without reciprocity
in action between organic forces maintaining one another in equilibrium, no form would
subsist... Similarly, man obtains a determinate position in the scheme of things and a fixity
in nature only through his civil association... Between the isolated man and the citizen
there is the same relation as between raw and organized matter... In an organized body,
each part continuously maintains the whole, and in maintaining it, maintains itself also.
Similarly the citizen with regard to the State.”
Another post-Kantian, Adam Müller (1779-1829) wrote that “the state is the intimate
association of all physical and spiritual needs of the whole nation into one great, energetic,
infinitely active and living whole... the totality of human affairs... If we exclude for ever
from this association even the most unimportant part of a human being, if we separate
private life from public life even at one point, then we no longer perceive the State as a
phenomenon of life and as an idea.”
The doctrine that Adam Müller sets forth in this passage is what we now call Totali-
80 WHY WAR?

tarianism, i.e. the belief that the state ought to encompass “the totality of human affairs”.
This doctrine is the opposite of the Liberal belief that the individual is all-important and
that the role of the state ought to be as small as possible.
Fichte maintains that “a State which constantly seeks to increase its internal strength
is forced to desire the gradual abolition of all favoritisms, and the establishment of equal
rights for all citizens, in order that it, the State itself, may enter upon its own true right -
to apply the whole surplus power of all its citizens without exception to the furtherance of
its own purposes... Internal peace, and the condition of affairs in which everyone may by
diligence earn his daily bread... is only a means, a condition and framework for what love
of Fatherland really wants to bring about, namely that the Eternal and the Divine may
blossom in the world and never cease to become more pure, perfect and excellent.”
Fichte proposed a new system of education which would abolish the individual will and
teach individuals to become subservient to the will of the state. “The new education must
consist essentially in this”, Fichte wrote, “that it completely destroys the will in the soil
that it undertakes to cultivate... If you want to influence a man at all, you must do more
than merely talk to him; you must fashion him, and fashion him, and fashion him in such
a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will.”
Fichte and Herder (1744-1803) developed the idea that language is the key to national
identity. They believed that the German language is superior to French because it is an
“original” language, not derived from Latin. In a poem that is obviously a protest against
the French culture of Frederick’s court in Prussia, Herder wrote:

“Look at other nationalities!

Do they wander about
So that nowhere in the world they are strangers
Except to themselves?
They regard foreign countries with proud disdain.
And you, German, alone, returning from abroad,
Wouldst greet your mother in French?
Oh spew it out before your door!
Spew out the ugly slime of the Seine!
Speak German, O you German!

Another poem, “The German Fatherland”, by Ernst Moritz Arndt (1769-1860), ex-
presses a similar sentiment:
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 81

“What is the Fatherland of the German?

Name me the great country!
Where the German tongue sounds
And sings Lieder in God’s praise,
That’s what it ought to be
Call that thine, valiant German!
That is the Fatherland of the German,
Where anger roots out foreign nonsense,
Where every Frenchman is called enemy,
Where every German is called friend,
That’s what it ought to be!
It ought to be the whole of Germany!”

It must be remembered that when these poems were written, the German nation did not
exist except in the minds of the nationalists. Groups of people speaking various dialects
of German were scattered throughout central and eastern Europe. In many places, the
German-speaking population was a minority. To bring together these scattered German-
speaking groups would require, in many cases, the conquest and subjugation of Slavic
majorities; but the quasi-religious fervor of the nationalists was such that aggression took
on the appearance of a “holy war”. Fichte believed that war between states introduces
“a living and progressive principle into history”. By war he did not mean a decorous
limited war of the type fought in the 18th century, but “...a true and proper war - a war
of subjugation!”
The German nationalist movement was not only quasi-religious in its tone; it also
borrowed psychological techniques from religion. It aroused the emotions of the masses to
large-scale political activity by the use of semi-religious political liturgy, involving myth,
symbolism, and festivals. In his book “German Society” (1814), Arndt advocated the
celebration of “holy festivals”. For example, he thought that the celebration of the pagan
festival of the summer solstice could be combined with a celebration of the victory over
Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig.
Arndt believed that special attention should be given to commemoration of the “noble
dead” of Germany’s wars for, as he said, “...here history enters life, and life becomes part of
history”. Arndt advocated a combination of Christian and pagan symbolism. The festivals
should begin with prayers and a church service; but in addition, the Oak leaves and the
sacred flame of ancient pagan tradition were to play a part.
In 1815, many of Arndt’s suggestions were followed in the celebration of the anniversary
of the Battle of Leipzig. This festival clearly exhibited a mixing of secular and Christian
elements to form a national cult. Men and women decorated with oak leaves made pilgrim-
ages to the tops of mountains, where they were addressed by priests speaking in front of
alters on which burned “the sacred flame of Germany’s salvation”. This borrowing of psy-
chological techniques from religion was deliberate, and it was retained by the Nazi Party
when the latter adopted the methods of the early German nationalists. The Nazi mass
rallies retained the order and form of Protestant liturgy, including hymns, confessions of
82 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.11: Celebration of the “German May” at Hambrach Castle

faith, and responses between the leader and the congregation.5

In 1832, the first mass meeting in German history took place, when 32,000 men and
women gathered to celebrate the “German May”. Singing songs, wearing black, red, and
gold emblems, and carrying flags, they marched to Hambrach Castle, where they were
addressed by their leaders.
By the 1860’s the festivals celebrating the cult of nationalism had acquired a definite
form. Processions through a town, involving elaborate national symbolism, were followed
by unison singing by men’s choirs, patriotic plays, displays by gymnasts and sharp-shooters,
and sporting events. The male choirs, gymnasts and sharp-shooters were required to wear
uniforms; and the others attending the festivals wore oak leaves in their caps. The cohesion
of the crowd was achieved not only by uniformity of dress, but also by the space in which the
crowd was contained. Arndt advocated the use of a “sacred space” for mass meetings. The
idea of the “sacred space” was taken from Stonehenge, which was seen by the nationalists
as a typical ancient Germanic meeting place. The Nazi art historian Hubert Schrade wrote:
“The space which urges us to join the community of the Volk is of greater importance than
the figure which is meant to represent the Fatherland.”
Dramas were also used to promote a feeling of cohesion and national identity. An
example of this type of propagandist drama is Kleist’s play, “Hermann’s Battle”, (1808).
The play deals with a Germanic chieftain who, in order to rally the tribes against the
Romans, sends his own men, disguised as Roman soldiers, to commit atrocities in the
neighboring German villages. At one point in the play, Hermann is told of a Roman soldier
5
The Nazi sacred symbols and the concept of the swastika or “gamma cross”, the eagle, the
red/black/white color scheme, the ancient Nordic runes (one of which became the symbol of the SS),
were all adopted from esoteric traditions going back centuries, shared by Brahmins, Scottish Masons,
Rosicrutians, the Knights Templars and other esoteric societies.
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 83

who risked his own life to save a German child in a burning house. Hearing this report,
Hermann exclaims, “May he be cursed if he has done this! He has for a moment made my
heart disloyal; he has made me for a moment betray the august cause of Germany!... I was
counting, by all the gods of revenge, on fire, loot, violence, murder, and all the horrors of
unbridled war! What need have I of Latins who use me well?”
At another point in the play, Hermann’s wife, Thusnelda, tempts a Roman Legate into a
romantic meeting in a garden. Instead of finding Thusnelda, the Legate finds himself locked
in the garden with a starved and savage she-bear. Standing outside the gate, Thusnelda
urges the Legate to make love to the she-bear, and, as the bear tears him to pieces, she
faints with pleasure.
Richard Wagner’s dramas were also part of the nationalist movement. They were
designed to create “an unending dream of sacred völkisch revelation”. No applause was
permitted, since this would disturb the reverential atmosphere of the cult. A new type of
choral theater was developed which “...no longer represented the fate of the individual to
the audience, but that which concerns the community, the Volk... Thus, in contrast to the
bourgeois theater, private persons are no longer represented, but only types.”
We have primarily been discussing the growth of German nationalism, but very similar
movements developed in other countries throughout Europe and throughout the world.
Characteristic for all these movements was the growth of state power, and the development
of a reverential, quasi-religious, attitude towards the state. Patriotism became “a sacred
duty.” According to Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel, “The existence of the State is the
movement of God in the world. It is the ultimate power on earth; it is its own end and
object. It is an ultimate end that has absolute rights against the individual.”
Nationalism in England (as in Germany) was to a large extent a defensive response
against French nationalism. At the end of the 18th century, the liberal ideas of the En-
lightenment were widespread in England. There was much sympathy in England with the
aims of the French Revolution, and a similar revolution almost took place in England.
However, when Napoleon landed an army in Ireland and threatened to invade England,
there was a strong reaction towards national self-defense. The war against France gave
impetus to nationalism in England, and military heros like Wellington and Nelson became
objects of quasi-religious worship. British nationalism later found an outlet in colonialism.

Italy, like Germany, had been a collection of small principalities, but as a reaction to
the other nationalist movements sweeping across Europe, a movement for a united Italy
developed. The conflicts between the various nationalist movements of Europe produced
the frightful world wars of the 20th century. Indeed, the shot that signaled the outbreak
of World War I was fired by a Serbian nationalist.
War did not seem especially evil to the 18th and 19th century nationalists because
technology had not yet given humanity the terrible weapons of the 20th century. In the
19th century, the fatal combination of space-age science and stone-age politics still lay
in the future. However, even in 1834, the German writer Heinrich Heine was perceptive
enough to see the threat:
“There will be”, Heine wrote, “Kantians forthcoming who, in the world to come, will
84 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.12: Wagner’s dramas were part of the quasi-religious cult of German
nationalism-
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 85

Figure 2.13: A painting from Francisco de Goya’s series on the Disasters of

War.
86 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.14: Y no hay remedio (And it cannot be helped). Prisoners executed

by firing squads, reminiscent of The Third of May 1808, from Goya’s series on
the Disasters of War.
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 87

Figure 2.15: Goya’s Enterrar y callar (Bury them and keep quiet). Atrocities,
starvation and human degradation.
88 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.16: One of a series of prints which the German artist Käthe Kollwitz
(1867-1945) made as a protest against the atrocities of World War I.

Figure 2.17: Another anti-war print by Käthe Kollwitz.

2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 89

Figure 2.18: Never Again War by Käthe Kollwitz.

90 WHY WAR?

Figure 2.19: Never Again War (poster) by Käthe Kollwitz.

2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 91

Figure 2.20: About Mothers and Children by Käthe Kollwitz.

92 WHY WAR?

know nothing of reverence for aught, and who will ravage without mercy, and riot with
sword and axe through the soil of all European life to dig out the last root of the past.
There will be well-weaponed Fichtians upon the ground, who in the fanaticism of the Will
are not restrained by fear or self-advantage, for they live in the Spirit.”

Suggestions for further reading

1. C. Darwin, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, The University of
Chicago Press (1965).
2. P. Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, A Factor in Evolution, Walter Heinemann, London,
(1902).
3. R.A. Fischer, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Clarendon, Oxford, (1930).
4. J.B.S. Haldane, Population genetics, New Biology 18, 34-51, (1955).
5. L. Margulis, Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Mor-
phogenesis, The MIT Press, (1991).
6. L. Margulis, Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Microbial Communities in the Archean and
Proterozoic Eons, W.H. Freeman, (1992).
7. N. Tinbergen, The Study of Instinct, Oxford University Press, (1951).
8. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, The Biology of Peace and War, Thames and Hudson, New York
(1979).
9. E.O. Wilson, On Human Nature, Bantham Books, New York, (1979).
10. R.A. Hinde, Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York
(1977).
11. R.A. Hinde, Individuals, Relationships and Culture: Links Between Ethology and the
Social Sciences, Cambridge University Press, (1987).
12. W.M. Senner, editor, The Origins of Writing, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln
and London, (1989).
13. P.J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, (1989).
14. D.J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland Mass., (1986).
15. B. Glass, O. Temkin, and W.L. Strauss, eds., Forerunners of Darwin: 1745-1859,
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, (1959).
16. R. Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution, an Owl Book, Henry Holt and Company,
New York, (1990).
17. T.A. Appel, The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades before Dar-
win, Oxford University Press, (1987).
18. P.J. Bowler, Fossils and Progress: Paleontology and the Idea of Progressive Evolution
in the Nineteenth Century, Science History Publications, New York, (1976).
19. P. Corsi, The Age of Lamarck: Evolutionary Theories in France, 1790-1834, Univer-
sity of California Press, Berkeley, (1988).
20. M. McNeil, Under the Banner of Science: Erasmus Darwin and his Age, Manchester
University Press, Manchester, (1987).
21. L.G. Wilson, Sir Charles Lyell’s Scientific Journals on the Species Question, Yale
University Press, New Haven, (1970).
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 93

22. A.B. Adams, Eternal Quest: The Story of the Great Naturalists, G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
New York, (1969).
23. A.S. Packard, Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution: His Life and Work, Longmans,
Green, and Co., New York, (1901).
24. C. Darwin, An historical sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species,
previously to the publication of this work, Appended to third and later editions of On
the Origin of Species, (1861).
25. L. Eiseley, Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Dobleday,
New York, (1958).
26. H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin: The Development of the Evolution Idea
Through Twenty-Four Centuries, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, (1929).
27. Sir Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kettlewell, Charles Darwin and his World, Thames
and Hudson, London (1965).
28. Allan Moorehead, Darwin and the Beagle, Penguin Books Ltd. (1971).
29. Francis Darwin (editor), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters,
Dover, New York (1958).
30. Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle, J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., London (1975).
31. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Collier MacMillan, London (1974).
32. Charles Darwin, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, The University
of Chicago Press (1965).
33. Ruth Moore, Evolution, Time-Life Books (1962).
34. L. Barber, The Heyday of Natural History: 1820-1870, Doubleday and Co., Garden
City, New York, (1980).
35. A. Desmond, Huxley, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., (1994).
36. R. Owen, (P.R. Sloan editor), The Hunterian Lectures in Comparative Anatomy,
May-June, 1837, University of Chicago Press, (1992).
37. C. Nichols, Darwinism and the social sciences, Phil. Soc. Scient. 4, 255-277 (1974).
38. M. Ruse, The Darwinian Revolution, University of Chicago Press, (1979).
39. A. Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin, Penguin Books, (1992).
40. R. Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press, (1982).
41. R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, (1987).
42. R. Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Harper Collins, (1995).
43. R. Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, W.W. Norton, (1996).
44. S.J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin, W.W. Norton, (1977).
45. R.G.B. Reid, Evolutionary Theory: The Unfinished Synthesis, Croom Helm, (1985).
46. M. Ho and P.T. Saunders, editors, Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to a
New Evolutionary Paradigm, Academic Press, London, (1984).
47. J.Maynard Smith, Did Darwin Get it Right? Essays on Games, Sex and Evolution,
Chapman and Hall, (1989).
48. E. Sober, The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, (1984).
49. B.K. Hall, Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Chapman and Hall, London, (1992).
50. J. Thompson, Interaction and Coevolution, Wiley and Sons, (1982).
94 WHY WAR?

51. R.A. Fischer, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Clarendon, Oxford, (1930).
52. J.B.S. Haldane, Population genetics, New Biology 18, 34-51, (1955).
53. N. Tinbergen, The Study of Instinct, Oxford University Press, (1951).
54. N. Tinbergen, The Herring Gull’s World, Collins, London, (1953).
55. N. Tinbergen, Social Behavior in Animals, Methuen, London, (1953).
56. N. Tinbergen, Curious Naturalists, Country Life, London, (1958).
57. N. Tinbergen, The Animal in its World: Explorations of an Ethologist, Allan and
Unwin, London, (1973).
58. K. Lorenz, On the evolution of behavior, Scientific American, December, (1958).
59. K. Lorenz, Evolution and Modification of Behavior Harvard University Press, Cam-
bridge, MA, (1961).
60. K. Lorenz, Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. I and II., Harvard University
Press, (1970) and (1971).
61. P.H. Klopfer and J.P. Hailman, An Introduction to Animal Behavior: Ethology’s First
Century, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, (1969).
62. J. Jaynes, The historical origins of “Ethology” and “Comparative Psychology”, Anim.
Berhav. 17, 601-606 (1969).
63. W.H. Thorpe, The Origin and Rise of Ethology: The Science of the Natural Behavior
of Animals, Heinemann, London, (1979).
64. R.A. Hinde, Animal Behavior: A Synthesis of Ethological and Comparative Psychol-
ogy, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1970).
65. J.H. Crook, editor, Social Behavior in Birds and Mammals, Academic Press, London,
(1970).
66. P. Ekman, editor, Darwin and Facial Expression, Academic Press, New York, (1973).
67. P. Ekman, W.V. Friesen and P. Ekworth, Emotions in the Human Face, Pergamon,
New York, (1972).
68. N. Blurton Jones, editor, Ethological Studies of Child Behavior, Cambridge University
Press, (1975).
69. M. von Cranach, editor, Methods of Inference from Animals to Human Behavior,
Chicago/Mouton, Haag, (1976); Aldine, Paris, (1976).
70. K. Lorenz, On Aggression, Bantem Books, (1977).
71. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Ethology, The Biology of Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, (1975).
72. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt and F.K. Salter, editors, Indoctrinability, Ideology, and Warfare:
Evolutionary Perspectives, Berghahn Books, (1998).
73. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Human Ethology, Walter De Gruyter Inc., (1989).
74. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Love and Hate, Walter De Gruyter Inc., (1996).
75. J. Bowlby, By ethology out of psychoanalysis: An experiment in interbreeding, Animal
Behavior, 28, 649-656 (1980).
76. B.B. Beck, Animal Tool Behavior, Garland STPM Press, New York, (1980).
77. R. Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York, (1984).
78. J.D. Carthy and F.L. Ebling, The Natural History of Aggression, Academic Press,
New York, (1964)
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 95

79. D.L. Cheney and R.M. Seyfarth, How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of
Another Species, University of Chicago Press, (1990).
80. F. De Waal, Chimpanzee Politics, Cape, London, (1982).
81. M. Edmunds, Defense in Animals, Longman, London, (1974).
82. R.D. Estes, The Behavior Guide to African Mammals, University of California Press,
Los Angeles, (1991).
83. R.F. Ewer, Ethology of Mammals, Logos Press, London, (1968).
84. E. Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press, (1990).
85. W.D. Hamilton, The genetical theory of social behavior. I and II, J. Theor. Biol. 7,
1-52 (1964).
86. R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, (1989).
87. R.W. Sussman, The Biological Basis of Human Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, (1997).
88. Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, The Biology of Peace and War, Thames and Hudson, New
York (1979).
89. R.A. Hinde, Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York
(1977).
90. R.A. Hinde, Towards Understanding Relationships, Academic Press, London (1979).
91. Albert Szent-Györgyi, The Crazy Ape, Philosophical Library, New York (1970).
92. E.O. Wilson, Sociobiology, Harvard University Press (1975).
93. C. Zhan-Waxler, Altruism and Aggression: Biological and Social Origins, Cambridge
University Press (1986).
94. D.R. Griffin, Animal Mind - Human Mind, Dahlem Conferenzen 1982, Springer,
Berlin, (1982).
95. R. Dart, The predatory transition from ape to man, International Anthropological
and Linguistic Review, 1, (1953).
96. S. Savage-Rumbaugh, R. Lewin, et al., Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human
Mind, John Wiley and Sons, New York, (1996).
97. R. Dunbar, Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, Harvard University
Press, (1998).
98. M.E. Bitterman, The evolution of intelligence, Scientific American, January, (1965).
99. R. Fox, In the beginning: Aspects of hominid behavioral evolution, Man, NS 2, 415-
433 (1967).
100. M.S. Gazzaniga, The split brain in man, Scientific American, 217, 24-29 (1967).
101. D. Kimura, The asymmetry of the human brain, Scientific American, 228, 70-78
(1973).
102. R.G. Klein, Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins, Journal of World Pre-
history, 9 (2), 167-198 (1995).
103. N.G. Jablonski and L.C. Aiello, editors, The Origin and Diversification of Language,
Wattis Symposium Series in Anthropology. Memoirs of the California Academy of
Sciences, No. 24, The California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, (1998).
104. S. Pinker, The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language, Harper-Collins
Publishers, New York, (1995).
96 WHY WAR?

105. J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, editors, The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary
Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Oxford University Press, (1995).
106. D.R. Begun, C.V. Ward and M.D. Rose, Function, Phylogeny and Fossils: Miocene
Hominid Evolution and Adaptations, Plenum Press, New York, (1997).
107. R.W. Byrne and A.W. Whitten, Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the
Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Humans, Cambridge University Press,
(1988),
108. V.P. Clark, P.A. Escholz and A.F. Rosa, editors, Language: Readings in Language
and Culture, St Martin’s Press, New York, (1997).
109. T.W. Deacon, The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain,
W.W. Norton and Company, New York, (1997).
110. C. Gamble, Timewalkers: The Prehistory of Global Colonization, Harvard University
Press, (1994).
111. K.R. Gibson and T. Inglod, editors, Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evo-
lution, Cambridge University Press, (1993).
112. P. Mellers, The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, Ed-
inburgh University Press, (1990).
113. P. Mellers, The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective of Western Eu-
rope, Princeton University Press, (1996).
114. S. Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind, Thames and Hudson, London, (1996).
115. D. Haraway, Signs of dominance: from a physiology to a cybernetics of primate
biology, C.R. Carpenter, 1939-1970, Studies in History of Biology, 6, 129-219 (1983).
116. D. Johanson and M. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Simon and Schuster,
New York, (1981).
117. B. Kurtén, Our Earliest Ancestors, Colombia University Press, New York, (1992).
118. R.E. Leakey and R. Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, Doubleday, New York, (1992).
119. P. Lieberman, The Biology and Evolution of Language, Harvard University Press,
(1984).
120. J.D. Wall and M. Przeworski, When did the human population size start increasing?,
Genetics, 155, 1865-1874 (2000).
121. L. Aiello and C. Dean, An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy, Academic
Press, London, (1990).
122. F. Ikawa-Smith, ed., Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia, Mouton, The Hague,
(1978).
123. R.R. Baker, Migration: Paths Through Space and Time, Hodder and Stoughton,
London, (1982).
124. P. Bellwood, Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, Academic Press, Sidney,
(1985).
125. P.J. Bowler, Theories of Human Evolution: A Century of Debate, 1884-1944, Basil
Blackwell, Oxford, (1986).
126. G. Isaac and M. McCown, eds., Human Origins: Louis Leaky and the East African
Evidence, Benjamin, Menlo Park, (1976).
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 97

127. F.J. Brown, R. Leaky, and A. Walker, Early Homo erectus skeleton from west Lake
Turkana, Kenya, Nature, 316, 788-92, (1985).
128. K.W. Butzer, Archeology as Human Ecology, Cambridge University Press, (1982).
129. A.T. Chamberlain and B.A. Wood, Early hominid phylogeny, Journal of Human
Evolution, 16, 119-33, (1987).
130. P. Mellars and C. Stringer, eds., The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological
Perspectives in the Origins of Modern Humans, Edinburgh University Press, (1989).
131. G.C. Conroy, Primate Evolution, W.W. Norton, New York, (1990).
132. R.I.M. Dunbar, Primate Social Systems, Croom Helm, London, (1988).
133. B. Fagan, The Great Journey: The Peopling of Ancient America, Thames and Hud-
son, London, (1987).
134. R.A. Foley, ed., Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology, Academic Press, New
York, (1984).
135. S.R. Binford and L.R. Binford, Stone tools and human behavior, Scientific American,
220, 70-84, (1969).
136. G. Klein, The Human Career, Human Biological and Cultural Origins, University of
Chicago Press, (1989).
137. B.F. Skinner and N. Chomsky, Verbal behavior, Language, 35 26-58 (1959).
138. D. Bickerton, The Roots of Language, Karoma, Ann Arbor, Mich., (1981).
139. E. Lenneberg in The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language,
J.A. Fodor and J.A. Katz editors, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs N.J., (1964).
140. S. Pinker, Talk of genetics and visa versa, Nature, 413, 465-466, (2001).
141. S. Pinker, Words and rules in the human brain, Nature, 387, 547-548, (1997).
142. M. Ruhelen, The Origin of Language, Wiley, New York, (1994).
143. C.B. Stringer and R. McKie, African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity,
Johnathan Cape, London (1996).
144. R.W. Sussman, The Biological Basis of Human Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, (1997).
145. D.P. Barash Sociobiology and Behavior, Elsevier, New York, (1977).
146. J.D. Carthy and F.J. Eblin, eds., The Natural History of Aggression, Academic Press,
New York, (1964).
147. N.A. Chagnon and W. Irons, eds., Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior,
an Anthropological Perspective, Duxbury Press, N. Scituate, MA, (1979).
148. E. Danielson, Vold, en Ond Arv?, Gyldendal, Copenhagen, (1929).
149. M.R. Davie, The Evolution of War, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, (1929).
150. T. Dobzhanski, Mankind Evolving, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, (1962).
151. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Der Vorprogramiert Mensch, Molden, Vienna, (1973).
152. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Ethology, the Biology of Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, (1975).
153. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Liebe und Hass, Molden, Vienna, (1973).
154. R.L. Holloway, Primate Aggression: Territoriality and Xenophobia, Academic Press,
New York, (1974).
98 WHY WAR?

155. P. Kitcher, Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, (1985).
156. S.L.W. Mellen, The Evolution of Love, Freeman, Oxford, (1981).
157. A. Roe and G.G. Simpson, Behavior and Evolution, Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT, (1958).
158. N.J. Smelser, The Theory of Collective Behavior, Free Press, New York, (1963).
159. R. Trivers, Social Evolution, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA, (1985).
160. W. Weiser, Konrad Lorenz und seine Kritiker, Piper, Munich, (1976).
161. W. Wickler, Biologie der 10 Gebote, Piper, Munich, (1971).
162. J.H. Bodley, Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System, 3rd ed.,
Mayfield, Mountain View, CA, (2000).
163. K. Raaflaub and N. Rosenstein, eds., War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval
Worlds, Harvard University Press and Center for Hellenic Studies, (1999).
164. Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, Hutchison University Library, Third Edition, (1966).
165. Eugene Kamenka, editor, Nationalism, Edward Arnold Ltd., London, (1976).
166. Elie Kedourie, editor, Nationalism in Asia and Africa, New American Library, (1970).
167. G. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice, Doubleday Anchor Books, New York, (1958).
168. I.A. Berg and B.M. Bass, eds., Conformity and Deviation, Harper and Row, New
York, (1961).
169. W. Buchanan and H. Cantril, How Nations See Each Other, University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, IL, (1953).
170. H.C.J. Duijker and N.H. Frijda, National Character and National Stereotypes, North-
Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, (1960).
171. S. Freud, Warum Krieg? Das Bild vom Feind, Arbeitsgem. Friedenspädegogik,
(1983).
172. S. Freud, Why War?, in The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, A.A. Brill, ed.,
Modern Library, (1995).
173. S. Freud, Civilization, War and Death. Psycho-analytical Epitomes No. 4, Hogarth
Press, London, (1953).
174. S. Keen, Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination, Harper and
Row, San Francisco, (1986).
175. W.E. Lampert, Children’s Views of Foreign Peoples, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New
York, (1967).
176. R.A. Levine and D.T. Campbell, Ethnocentricism: Theories of Theories of Conflict,
Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior, Wiley, New York, (1972).
177. V.D. Volken, Cyprus: War and Adaption: A Psychoanalytical History of Two Ethnic
Groups in Conflict, University Press of Virginia, Charlottsville, VA, (1979).
178. L. Durrell, Bitter Lemons (nationalism in the Cyprus conflicts), Faber and Faber,
London, (1957).
179. N. Choucri and R. North, Nations in Conflict: National Growth and International
Violence, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, (1975).
180. R. Cohen, Warfare and State Formation, in Warfare, Culture and the Environment,
B. Ferguson, ed., Academic Press, Orlando, (1984).
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 99

181. A. Giddens, The Nation-State and Violence: Volume Two of a Contemporary Cri-
tique of Historical Materialism, University of California, Berkeley, CA, (1985).
182. M. Haas, Social Change and National Aggressiveness, 1900-1960, in Quantitative
International Politics, J.D. Singer, ed., Free Press, New York, (1968).
183. W. Schwartzwaller, The Unknown Hitler, Berkeley Books, (1990).
184. Francis King, Satan and the Swastika, Mayflower, St. Albans, (1976).
185. J.M. Angebert, The Occult and the Third Reich, New York, (1974).
186. J.H. Brennan, Occult Reich, New York, (1974).
187. N. Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism, Aquarium Press, Wellingborough,
(1985).
188. T. Ravenscroft, The Spear of Destiny, Putnam’s, New York, (1974).
189. D. Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press, New York, (1977).
190. W. Schirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Crest Books, New York, (1962).
191. E.J. Hobsbawn, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914, Vintage Books, (1989).
192. L. James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, St Martin’s Press, (1997).
193. N. Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the
Lessons for Global Power, Basic Books, (2003).
194. S. Schama, The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, Miramax, (2002).
195. A.P. Thorton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies: A Study in British Power, Pal-
grave Macmillan, (1985).
196. H. Mejcher, Imperial Quest for Oil: Iraq, 1910-1928, Ithaca Books, London, (1976).
197. P. Sluglett, Britain in Iraq, 1914-1932, Ithaca Press, London, (1976).
198. D.E. Omissi, British Air Power and Colonial Control in Iraq, 1920-1925, Manchester
University Press, Manchester, (1990).
199. V.G. Kiernan, Colonial Empires and Armies, 1815-1960, Sutton, Stroud, (1998).
200. R. Solh, Britain’s 2 Wars With Iraq, Ithaca Press, Reading, (1996).
201. D. Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict, Routledge, New York,
(1991).
202. T.E. Lawrence, A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence, Sunday Times, August
22, (1920).
203. D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the
Creation of the Modern Middle East, Owl Books, (2001).
204. T. Rajamoorthy, Deceit and Duplicity: Some Reflections on Western Intervention in
Iraq, Third World Resurgence, March-April, (2003).
205. P. Knightley and C. Simpson, The Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Lon-
don, (1969).
206. G. Lenczowski, The Middle East in World Affairs, Cornell University Press, (1962).
207. John A. Hobson, Imperialism; A Study, (1902).
208. P. Cain and T. Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688-200, Longman, (2000).
209. N. Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the
Lessons for Global Power, Basic Books, (2003).
210. G. Kolko, Another Century of War, New Press, (2002).
100 WHY WAR?

211. G. Kolko, Confronting the Third World: United States Foreign Policy, 1945-1980,
Pantheon Books, (1988).
212. M.T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Owl Books
reprint edition, New York, (2002).
213. Y. Nakash, The Shi’is of Iraq, Princeton University Press, (1994).
214. D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the
Creation of the Modern Middle East, Owl Books, (2001).
215. S.K. Aburish, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, Bloomsbury, London,
(2001).
216. M. Muffti, Sovereign Creations: Pan-Arabism and Political Order in Syria and Iraq,
Cornell University Press, (1996).
217. C. Clover, Lessons of the 1920 Revolt Lost on Bremer, Financial Times, November
17, (2003).
218. J. Kifner, Britain Tried First. Iraq Was No Picnic Then, New York Times, July 20,
(2003).
219. J. Feffer, B. Egrenreich and M.T. Klare, Power Trip: US Unilateralism and Global
Strategy After September 11, Seven Stories Press, (2003).
220. J.D. Rockefeller, Random Reminiscences of Men and Events, Doubleday, New York,
(1909).
221. M.B. Stoff, Oil, War and American Security: The Search for a National Policy on
Oil, 1941-1947, Yale University Press, New Haven, (1980).
222. W.D. Muscable, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1992).
223. J. Stork, Middle East Oil and the Energy Crisis, Monthly Review, New York, (1976).
224. F. Benn, Oil Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, St. Martin’s Press, New York,
(1986).
225. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
226. K. Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran, McGraw-Hill, New
York, (1979).
227. J. Fitchett and D. Ignatius, Lengthy Elf Inquiry Nears Explosive Finish, International
Herald Tribune, February 1, (2002).
228. M.T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Owl Books
reprint edition, New York, (2002).
229. M. Klare, Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil, For-
eign Policy in Focus, (Interhemispheric Resource Center/Institute for Policy Stud-
ies/SEEN), Washington DC and Silver City NM, January, (2004).
230. M. Klare, Endless Military Superiority, The Nation magazine, July 15, (2002).
231. M.T. Klare, Geopolitics Reborn: The Global Struggle Over Oil and Gas Pipelines,
Current History, December issue, 428-33, (2004).
232. P. Grose, Allen Dulles: The Life of a Gentleman Spy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
(1994).
233. S. Warren, Exxon’s Profit Surged in 4th Quarter, Wall Street Journal, February 12,
(2004).
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 101

234. R. Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Edu-
cation of Paul O’Neill, Simon and Schuster, New York, (2004).
235. D. Morgan and D.B. Ottaway, In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is Key Issue as U.S.
Drillers Eye Huge petroleum Pool, Washington Post, September 15, (2002).
236. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraqi War, The Observer, April 4,
(2004).
237. E. Vulliamy, P. Webster and N.P. Walsh, Scramble to Carve Up Iraqi Oil Reserves
Lies Behind US Diplomacy, The Observer, October 6, (2002).
238. Y. Ibrahim, Bush’s Iraq Adventure is Bound to Backfire, International Herald Tri-
bune, November 1, (2002).
239. P. Beaumont and F. Islam, Carve-Up of Oil Riches Begins, The Observer, November
3, (2002).
240. M. Dobbs, US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post, December 30, (2002).
241. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
242. R. Morris, A Tyrant Forty Years in the Making, New York Times, March 14, (2003).
243. H. Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Prince-
ton University Press, (1978).
244. D.W. Riegel, Jr., and A.M. D’Amato, US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related
Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of
the Persian Gulf War, Report to US Senate (“The Riegel Report”), May 25, (1994).
245. P.E. Tyler, Officers Say US Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas, New York Times,
August 18, (2002).
246. D. Priest, Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show,
Washington Post, December 19, (2003).
247. S. Zunes, Saddam’s Arrest Raises Troubling Questions, Foreign Policy in Focus,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/, December (2003).
248. D. Leigh and J. Hooper, Britain’s Dirty Secret, Guardi an, March 6, (2003).
249. J. Battle, (Ed.), Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein: The US Tilts Towards Iraq,
1980-1984, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, February 25,
(2003).
250. J.R. Hiltermann, America Didn’t Seem to Mind Poison Gas, International Herald
Tribune, January 17, (2003).
251. D. Hiro, Iraq and Poison Gas, Nation, August 28, (2002).
252. T. Weiner, Iraq Uses Techniques in Spying Against its Former Tutor, the US, Philadel-
phia Inquirer, February 5, (1991).
253. S. Hussein and A. Glaspie, Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with US Envoy,
The New York Times, International, September 23, (1990).
254. D. Omissi, Baghdad and British Bombers, Guardian, January 19, (1991).
255. D. Vernet, Postmodern Imperialism, Le Monde, April 24, (2003).
256. J. Buchan, Miss Bell’s Lines in the Sand, Guardian, March 12, (2003).
257. C. Tripp, Iraq: The Imperial Precedent, Le Monde Diplomatique, January, (2003).
258. G.H.W. Bush and B. Scowcroft, Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam, Time, 2 March,
(1998).
102 WHY WAR?

259. J.A. Baker III, The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace, 1989-1992,
G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, (1995).
260. H. Thomas, Preventive War Sets Serious Precedent, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March
20, (2003).
261. R.J. Barnet, Intervention and Revolution: The United States in the Third World,
World Publishing, (1968).
262. T. Bodenheimer and R. Gould, Rollback: Right-wing Power in U.S. Foreign Policy,
South End Press, (1989).
263. G. Guma, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do, Toward
Freedom, (2003).
264. W. Blum, A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present, Z magazine,
June, (1999).
265. W. Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II
266. J.M. Cypher, The Iron Triangle: The New Military Buildup, Dollars and Sense mag-
azine, January/February, (2002).
267. L. Meyer, The Power of One, (World Press Review), Reforma, Mexico City, August
5, (1999).
268. W. Hartung, F. Berrigan and M. Ciarrocca, Operation Endless Deployment: The
War With Iraq Is Part of a Larger Plan for Global Military Dominance, The Nation
magazine, October 21, (2002).
269. I. Ramonet, Servile States, Le Monde diplomatique, Fromkin Paris, October (2002),
World Press Review, December, (2002).
270. J.K. Galbraith, The Unbearable Costs of Empire, American Prospect magazine,
November, (2002).
271. G. Monbiot, The Logic of Empire, The Guardian, August 6, (2002), World Press
Review, October, (2002).
272. W.R. Pitt, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, Pluto Press, (2003).
273. J. Wilson, Republic or Empire?, The Nation magazine, March 3, (2003).
274. W.B. Gallie, Understanding War: Points of Conflict, Routledge, London, (1991).
275. R. Falk and S.S. Kim, eds., The War System: An Interdisciplinary Approach, West-
view, Boulder, CO, (1980).
276. J.D. Clarkson and T.C. Cochran, eds., War as a Social Institution, Colombia Uni-
versity Press, New York, (1941).
277. S. Melman, The Permanent War Economy, Simon and Schuster, (1974). Morgan
278. H. Mejcher, Imperial Quest for Oil: Iraq, 1910-1928, Ithaca Books, London, (1976).
279. D. Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict, Routledge, New York,
(1991).
280. M. Klare, Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil, For-
eign Policy in Focus, (Interhemispheric Resource Center/Institute for Policy Stud-
ies/SEEN), Washington DC and Silver City NM, January, (2004).
281. J. Fitchett and D. Ignatius, Lengthy Elf Inquiry Nears Explosive Finish, International
Herald Tribune, February 1, (2002).
2.14. NATIONALISM IN EUROPE 103

282. T. Rajamoorthy, Deceit and Duplicity: Some Reflections on Western Intervention in

Iraq, Third World Resurgence, March-April, (2003).
283. P. Knightley and C. Simpson, The Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Lon-
don, (1969).
284. G. Lenczowski, The Middle East in World Affairs, Cornell University Press, (1962).
285. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraq War, Observer, April 4, (2004).
286. B. Gellman, Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy
Went Beyond Purely Military Targets, Washington Post, June 23, (1991).
287. M. Fletcher and M. Theodoulou, Baker Says Sanctions Must Stay as Long as Saddam
Holds Power, Times, May 23, (1991).
288. J. Pienaar and L. Doyle, UK Maintains Tough Line on Sanctions Against Iraq, In-
dependent, May 11, (1991).
289. B. Blum (translator), Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski Admits: Afghan Is-
lamism Was Made in Washington, Nouvel Observateur, January 15, (1998).
290. G. Vidal, Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta, Thunder’s
Mouth Press, (2002).
291. H. Thomas, Preventive War Sets Serious Precedent, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March
20, (2003).
292. C. Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Repub-
lic, Henry Hold and Company, New York, (2004).
293. C. Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Henry
Hold and Company, New York, (2000).
294. M. Parenti, Against Empire: The Brutal Realities of U.S. Global Domination, City
Lights Books, 261 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA94133, (1995).
295. E. Ahmad, Confronting Empire, South End Press, (2000).
296. W. Greider, Fortress America, Public Affairs Press, (1998).
297. J. Pilger, Hidden Agendas, The New Press, (1998).
298. S.R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis, South End Press, (1993).
299. C. Boggs (editor), Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American
Empire, Routledge, (2003).
300. J. Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, Verso, (2992).
301. G. Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, Thun-
der’s Mouth Press, (2002).
302. W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, Common Courage
Press, (2000).
303. M. Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10010, (1989).
304. T. Bodenheimer and R. Gould, Rollback: Right-wing Power in U.S. Foreign Policy,
South End Press, (1989).
305. G. Guma, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do, Toward
Freedom, (2003).
306. W. Blum, A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present, Z magazine,
June, (1999).
104 WHY WAR?

307. W. Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II
308. J.M. Cypher, The Iron Triangle: The New Military Buildup, Dollars and Sense mag-
azine, January/February, (2002).
309. L. Meyer, The Power of One, (World Press Review), Reforma, Mexico City, August
5, (1999).
310. C. Johnson, Time to Bring the Troops Home, The Nation magazine, May 14, (2001).
311. W. Hartung, F. Berrigan and M. Ciarrocca, Operation Endless Deployment: The
War With Iraq Is Part of a Larger Plan for Global Military Dominance, The Nation
magazine, October 21, (2002).
312. C. Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Repub-
lic, Henry Hold and Company, New York, (2004).
313. C. Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Henry
Hold and Company, New York, (2000).
314. I. Ramonet, Servile States, Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, October (2002), World
Press Review, December, (2002).
315. J.K. Galbraith, The Unbearable Costs of Empire, American Prospect magazine,
November, (2002).
316. G. Monbiot, The Logic of Empire, The Guardian, August 6, (2002), World Press
Review, October, (2002).
317. W.R. Pitt and S. Ritter, War on Iraq, Context Books
318. W.R. Pitt, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, Pluto Press, (2003).
319. J. Wilson, Republic or Empire?, The Nation magazine, March 3, (2003).
320. R. Dreyfuss, Just the Beginning: Is Iraq the Opening Salvo in a War to Remake the
World?, The American Prospect magazine, April, (2003).
321. D. Moberg, The Road From Baghdad: The Bush Team Has Big Plans For the 21st
Century. Can the Rest of the World Stop Them?, These Times magazine, May,
(2003).
322. J.M. Blair, The Control of Oil, Random House, New York, (1976).
323. R.S. Foot, S.N. MacFarlane and M. Mastanduno, US Hegemony and International
Organizations: The United States and Multilateral Institutions, Oxford University
Press, (2003).
324. P. Bennis and N. Chomsky, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September
11th Crisis, Olive Branch Press, (2002).
325. J. Garrison, America as Empire: Global Leader or Rouge Power?, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, (2004).
326. A.J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy,
Harvard University Press, (2002).
327. D.R. Francis, Hidden Defense Costs Add Up to Double Trouble, Christian Science
Monator, February 23, (2004).
328. A. Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies of the World and How
They Were Made, Hodder and Staughton, London, (1988).
329. D. Yergin, The Prize, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1991).
330. E. Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton, (1982).
Chapter 3

MALTHUS: POPULATION
PRESSURE AND WAR

3.1 The education of Malthus

T.R. Malthus’ Essay on The Principle of Population, the first edition of which was pub-
lished in 1798, was one of the the first systematic studies of the problem of population in
relation to resources. Earlier discussions of the problem had been published by Boterro in
Italy, Robert Wallace in England, and Benjamin Franklin in America. However Malthus’
Essay was the first to stress the fact that, in general, powerful checks operate continuously
to keep human populations from increasing beyond their available food supply. In a later
edition, published in 1803, he buttressed this assertion with carefully collected demographic
and sociological data from many societies at various periods of their histories.
The publication of Malthus’ Essay coincided with a wave of disillusionment which fol-
lowed the optimism of the Enlightenment. The utopian societies predicted by the philoso-
phers of the Enlightenment were compared with reign of terror in Robespierre’s France
and with the miseries of industrial workers in England; and the discrepancy required an
explanation. The optimism which preceded the French Revolution, and the disappoint-
ment which followed a few years later, closely paralleled the optimistic expectations of
our own century, in the period after the Second World War, when it was thought that the
transfer of technology to the less developed parts of the world would eliminate poverty, and
the subsequent disappointment when poverty persisted. Science and technology developed
rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century, but the benefits which they conferred
were just as rapidly consumed by a global population which today is increasing at the rate
of one billion people every decade. Because of the close parallel between the optimism and
disappointments of Malthus’ time and those of our own, much light can be thrown on our
present situation by rereading the debate between Malthus and his contemporaries.
Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) came from an intellectual family: His father,
Daniel Malthus, was a moderately well-to-do English country gentleman, an enthusiastic
believer in the optimistic ideas of the Enlightenment, and a friend of the philosophers Jean-

105
106 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.1: The Rookery near Dorking in Surrey

Jaques Rousseau, David Hume and William Godwin. The famous book on population by
the younger Malthus grew out of conversations with his father.

Daniel Malthus attended Oxford, but left without obtaining a degree. He later built
a country home near Dorking, which he called “The Rookery”. The house had Gothic
battlements, and the land belonging to it contained a beech forest, an ice house, a corn
mill, a large lake, and serpentine walks leading to “several romantic buildings with appro-
priate dedications”. Daniel Malthus was an ardent admirer of Rousseau; and when the
French philosopher visited England with his mistress, Thérése le Vasseur, Danial Malthus
entertained him at the Rookery. Rousseau and Thérése undoubtedly saw Daniel’s baby
son (who was always called Robert or Bob) and they must have noticed with pity that he
had been born with a hare lip. This was later sutured, and apart from a slight scar which
marked the operation, he became very handsome.

Robert Malthus was at first tutored at home; but in 1782, when he was 16 years old, he
was sent to study at the famous Dissenting Academy at Warrington in Lancashire. Joseph
Priestly had taught at Warrington, and he had completed his famous History of Electricity
there, as well as his Essay on Government, which contains the phrase “the greatest good
for the greatest number”.

Robert’s tutor at Warrington Academy was Gilbert Wakefield (who was later impris-
oned for his radical ideas). When Robert was 18, Wakefield arranged for him to be admit-
ted to Jesus College, Cambridge University, as a student of mathematics. Robert Malthus
graduated from Cambridge in 1788 with a first-class degree in mathematics. He was Ninth
Wrangler, which meant that he was the ninth-best mathematician in his graduating class.
He also won prizes in declamation, both in English and in Latin, which is surprising in
view of the speech defect from which he suffered all his life.
3.2. DEBATE ON THE VIEWS OF GODWIN AND CONDORCET 107

3.2 Debate on the views of Godwin and Condorcet

In 1793, Robert Malthus was elected a fellow of Jesus College, and he also took orders
in the Anglican Church. He was assigned as Curate to Okewood Chapel in Surrey. This
small chapel stood in a woodland region, and Malthus’ illiterate parishioners were so poor
that the women and children went without shoes. They lived in low thatched huts made
of woven branches plastered with mud. The floors of these huts were of dirt, and the
only light came from tiny window openings. Malthus’ parishioners diet consisted almost
entirely of bread. The children of these cottagers developed late, and were stunted in
growth. Nevertheless, in spite of the harsh conditions of his parishioners’ lives, Malthus
noticed that the number of births which he recorded in the parish register greatly exceeded
the number of deaths. It was probably this fact which first turned his attention to the
problem of population.
By this time, Daniel Malthus had sold the Rookery; and after a period of travel, he had
settled with his family at Albury, about nine miles from Okewood Chapel. Robert Malthus
lived with his parents at Albury, and it was here that the famous debates between father and
son took place. 1793, the year when Robert Malthus took up his position at Okewood, was
also the year in which Danial Malthus friend, William Godwin, published his enormously
optimistic book, Political Justice. In this book, Godwin predicted a future society where
scientific progress would liberate humans from material want. Godwin predicted that in the
future, with the institution of war abolished, with a more equal distribution of property, and
with the help of scientific improvements in agriculture and industry, much less labour would
be needed to support life. Luxuries are at present used to maintain artificial distinctions
between the classes of society, Godwin wrote, but in the future values will change; humans
will live more simply, and their efforts will be devoted to self-fulfillment and to intellectual
and moral improvement, rather than to material possessions. With the help of automated
agriculture, the citizens of a future society will need only a few hours a day to earn their
bread.
Godwin went on to say, “The spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility and the spirit
of fraud - these are the immediate growth of the established administration of property.
They are alike hostile to intellectual improvement. The other vices of envy , malice, and
revenge are their inseparable companions. In a state of society where men lived in the
midst of plenty, and where all shared alike the bounties of nature, these sentiments would
inevitably expire. The narrow principle of selfishness would vanish. No man being obliged
to guard his little store, or provide with anxiety and pain for his restless wants, each would
lose his own individual existence in the thought of the general good. No man would be
the enemy of his neighbor, for they would have nothing to contend; and of consequence
philanthropy would resume the empire which reason assigns her. Mind would be delivered
from her perpetual anxiety about corporal support, and free to expatiate in the field of
thought which is congenial to her. Each man would assist the inquiries of all.”
Godwin insisted that there is an indissoluble link between politics, ethics and knowl-
edge. Political Justice is an enthusiastic vision of what humans could be like at some
future period when the trend towards moral and intellectual improvement has lifted men
108 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.2: William Godwin (1756-1836).

3.2. DEBATE ON THE VIEWS OF GODWIN AND CONDORCET 109

and women above their their present state of ignorance and vice. Much of the savage
structure of the penal system would then be unnecessary, Godwin believed. (At the time
when he was writing, there were more than a hundred capital offenses in England, and this
number had soon increased to almost two hundred. The theft of any object of greater value
than ten shillings was punishable by hanging.) In its present state, Godwin wrote, society
decrees that the majority of its citizens “should be kept in abject penury, rendered stupid
with ignorance and disgustful with vice, perpetuated in nakedness and hunger, goaded to
the commission of crimes, and made victims to the merciless laws which the rich have insti-
tuted to oppress them”. But human behavior is produced by environment and education,
Godwin pointed out. If the conditions of upbringing were improved, behavior would also
improve. In fact, Godwin believed that men and women are subject to natural laws no less
than the planets of Newton’s solar system. “In the life of every human”, Godwin wrote,
“there is a chain of causes, generated in that eternity which preceded his birth, and going
on in regular procession through the whole period of his existence, in consequence of which
it was impossible for him to act in any instance otherwise than he has acted.”
The chain of causality in human affairs implies that vice and crime should be regarded
with the same attitude with which we regard disease. The causes of poverty, ignorance,
vice and crime should be removed. Human failings should be cured rather than punished.
With this in mind, Godwin wrote, “our disapprobation of vice will be of the same nature
as our disapprobation of an infectious distemper.”
In France the Marquis de Condorcet had written an equally optimistic book, Esquisse
d’un Tableau Historique des Progrès de l’Esprit Humain. Condorcet’s optimism was un-
affected even by the fact that at the time when he was writing he was in hiding, under
sentence of death by Robespierre’s government. Besides enthusiastically extolling Godwin’s
ideas to his son, Daniel Malthus also told him of the views of Condorcet.
Condorcet’s Esquisse, is an enthusiastic endorsement of the idea of infinite human per-
fectibility which was current among the philosophers of the 18th century, and in this book,
Condorcet anticipated many of the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin. He compared
humans with animals, and found many common traits. Condorcet believed that animals
are able to think, and even to think rationally, although their thoughts are extremely
simple compared with those of humans. He also asserted that humans historically began
their existence on the same level as animals and gradually developed to their present state.
Since this evolution took place historically, he reasoned, it is probable, or even inevitable,
that a similar evolution in the future will bring mankind to a level of physical, mental
and moral development which will be as superior to our own present state as we are now
superior to animals. In his Esquisse, Condorcet called attention to the unusually long
period of dependency which characterizes the growth and education of human offspring.
This prolonged childhood is unique among living beings. It is needed for the high level
of mental development of the human species; but it requires a stable family structure to
protect the young during their long upbringing.
Thus, according to Condorcet, biological evolution brought into existence a moral pre-
cept, the sanctity of the family.
Similarly, Condorcet maintained, larger associations of humans would have been impos-
110 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.3: Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834).

3.2. DEBATE ON THE VIEWS OF GODWIN AND CONDORCET 111

Figure 3.4: The Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794).

sible without some degree of altruism and sensitivity to the suffering of others incorporated
into human behavior, either as instincts or as moral precepts or both; and thus the evolu-
tion of organized society entailed the development of sensibility and morality.
Condorcet believed that ignorance and error are responsible for vice; and he listened
what he regarded as the main mistakes of civilization: hereditary transmission of power,
inequality between men and women, religious bigotry, disease, war, slavery, economic in-
equality, and the division of humanity into mutually exclusive linguistic groups.
Condorcet believed the hereditary transmission of power to be the source of much of
the tyranny under which humans suffer; and he looked forward to an era when republican
governments would be established throughout the world. Turning to the inequality between
men and women, Condorcet wrote that he could see no moral, physical or intellectual basis
for it. He called for complete social, legal, and educational equality between the sexes.
Condorcet predicted that the progress of medical science would free humans from the
worst ravages of disease. Furthermore, he maintained that since perfectibility (i.e. evolu-
tion) operates throughout the biological world, there is no reason why mankind’s physical
112 WHY WAR?

structure might not gradually improve, with the result that human life in the remote future
could be greatly prolonged. Condorcet believed that the intellectual and moral facilities of
man are capable of continuous and steady improvement; and he thought that one of the
most important results of this improvement will be the abolition of war.
As Daniel Malthus talked warmly about Godwin, Condorcet, and the idea of human
progress, the mind of his son, Robert, turned to the unbalance between births and deaths
which he had noticed among his parishioners at Okewood Chapel. He pointed out to
his father that no matter what benefits science might be able to confer, they would soon
be eaten up by population growth. Regardless of technical progress, the condition of the
lowest social class would remain exactly the same: The poor would continue to live, as they
always had, on the exact borderline between survival and famine, clinging desperately to
the lower edge of existence. For them, change for the worse was impossible since it would
loosen their precarious hold on life; their children would die and their numbers would
diminish until they balanced the supply of food. But any change for the better was equally
impossible, because if more nourishment should become available, more of the children of
the poor would survive, and the share of food for each of them would again be reduced to
the precise minimum required for life.
Observation of his parishioners at Okewood had convinced Robert Malthus that this
sombre picture was a realistic description of the condition of the poor in England at the
end of the 18th century. Techniques of agriculture and industry were indeed improving
rapidly; but among the very poor, population was increasing equally fast, and the misery
of society’s lowest class remained unaltered.
Daniel Malthus was so impressed with his son’s arguments that he urged him to develop
them into a small book. Robert Malthus’ first essay on population, written in response to
his father’s urging, was only 50,000 words in length. It was was published anonymously in
1798, and its full title was An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the future
improvement of society, with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet,
and other writers. Robert Malthus’ Essay explored the consequences of his basic thesis:
that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce
subsistence for man”.

3.3 Publication of the first essay in 1798

“That population cannot increase without the means of subsistence”, Robert Malthus
wrote, “is a proposition so evident that it needs no illustration. That population does
invariably increase, where there are means of subsistence, the history of every people who
have ever existed will abundantly prove. And that the superior power cannot be checked
without producing misery and vice, the ample portion of these two bitter ingredients in the
cup of human life, and the continuance of the physical causes that seem to have produced
them, bear too convincing a testimony.”
In order to illustrate the power of human populations to grow quickly to enormous
numbers if left completely unchecked, Malthus turned to statistics from the United States,
3.3. PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST ESSAY IN 1798 113

where the population had doubled every 25 years for a century and a half. Malthus called
this type of growth “geometrical” (today we would call it “exponential”); and, drawing on
his mathematical education, he illustrated it by the progression 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,..etc.
In order to show that, in the long run, no improvement in agriculture could possibly keep
pace with unchecked population growth, Malthus allowed that, in England, agricultural
output might with great effort be doubled during the next quarter century; but during
a subsequent 25-year period it could not again be doubled. The growth of agricultural
output could at the very most follow an arithmetic (linear) progression, 1,2,3,4,5,6,...etc.
Because of the overpoweringly greater numbers which can potentially be generated by
exponential population growth, as contrasted to the slow linear progression of sustenance,
Malthus was convinced that at almost all stages of human history, population has not
expanded freely, but has instead pressed painfully against the limits of its food supply. He
maintained that human numbers are normally held in check either by “vice or misery”.
(Malthus classified both war and birth control as a forms of vice.) Occasionally the food
supply increases through some improvement in agriculture, or through the opening of new
lands; but population then grows very rapidly, and soon a new equilibrium is established,
with misery and vice once more holding the population in check.
Like Godwin’s Political Justice, Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population was
published at exactly the right moment to capture the prevailing mood of England. In
1793, the mood had been optimistic; but by 1798, hopes for reform had been replaced
by reaction and pessimism. Public opinion had been changed by Robespierre’s Reign of
Terror and by the threat of a French invasion. Malthus’ clear and powerfully written essay
caught the attention of readers not only because it appeared at the right moment, but also
because his two contrasting mathematical laws of growth were so striking.
One of Malthus’ readers was William Godwin, who recognized the essay as the strongest
challenge to his utopian ideas that had yet been published. Godwin several times invited
Malthus to breakfast at his home to discuss social and economic problems. (After some
years, however, the friendship between Godwin and Malthus cooled, the debate between
them having become more acrimonious.)
In 1801, Godwin published a reply to his critics, among them his former friends James
Mackintosh and Samuel Parr, by whom he recently had been attacked. His Reply to Parr
also contained a reply to Malthus: Godwin granted that the problem of overpopulation
raised by Malthus was an extremely serious one. However, Godwin wrote, all that is needed
to solve the problem is a change of the attitudes of society. For example we need to abandon
the belief “that it is the first duty of princes to watch for (i.e. encourage) the multiplication
of their subjects, and that a man or woman who passes the term of life in a condition of
celibacy is to be considered as having failed to discharge the principal obligations owed to
the community”. “On the contrary”, Godwin continued, “it now appears to be rather the
man who rears a numerous family that has to some degree transgressed the consideration
he owes to the public welfare”. Godwin suggested that each marriage should be allowed
only two or three children or whatever number might be needed to balance the current
rates of mortality and celibacy. This duty to society, Godwin wrote, would surely not be
too great a hardship to be endured, once the reasons for it were thoroughly understood.
114 WHY WAR?

3.4 The second essay published in 1803

Malthus’ small essay had captured public attention in England, and he was anxious to
expand it with empirical data which would show his principle of population to be valid not
only in England in his own day, but in all societies and all periods. He therefore traveled
widely, collecting data. He also made use of the books of explorers, such as Cook and
Vancouver.
Malthus second edition - more than three times the length of his original essay on
population - was ready in 1803. Book I and Book II of the 1803 edition of Malthus’ Essay
are devoted to a study of the checks to population growth which have operated throughout
history in all the countries of the world for which he possessed facts.
In his first chapter, Malthus stressed the potentially enormous power of population
growth contrasted the slow growth of the food supply. He concluded that strong checks
to the increase of population must almost always be operating to keep human numbers
within the bounds of sustenance. He classified the checks as either preventive or positive,
the preventive checks being those which reduce fertility, while the positive checks are
those which increase mortality. Among the positive checks, Malthus listed “unwholesome
occupations, severe labour and exposure to the seasons, extreme poverty, bad nursing
of children, great towns, excesses of all kinds, the whole train of common diseases and
epidemics, wars, plague, and famine”.
In the following chapters of Books I, Malthus showed in detail the mechanisms by which
population is held at the level of sustenance in various cultures. He first discussed primitive
hunter-gatherer societies, such as the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, Van Diemens Land
and New Holland, and those tribes of North American Indians living predominantly by
hunting. In hunting societies, he pointed out, the population is inevitably very sparse:
“The great extent of territory required for the support of the hunter has been repeatedly
stated and acknowledged”, Malthus wrote, “...The tribes of hunters, like beasts of prey,
whom they resemble in their mode of subsistence, will consequently be thinly scattered
over the surface of the earth.”
“Like beasts of prey, they must either drive away or fly from every rival, and be engaged
in perpetual contests with each other...The neighboring nations live in a perpetual state
of hostility with each other. The very act of increasing in one tribe must be an act of
aggression against its neighbors, as a larger range of territory will be necessary to support
its increased numbers.
‘The contest will in this case continue, either till the equilibrium is restored by mutual
losses, or till the weaker party is exterminated or driven from its country... Their object in
battle is not conquest but destruction. The life of the victor depends on the death of the
enemy”. Malthus concluded that among the American Indians of his time, war was the
predominant check to population growth, although famine, disease and infanticide each
played a part.
In the next chapter, Malthus quoted Captain Cook’s description of the natives of the
region near Queen Charlotte’s Sound in New Zealand, whose way of life involved perpetual
war. “If I had followed the advice of all our pretended friends”, Cook wrote, “I might have
3.4. THE SECOND ESSAY PUBLISHED IN 1803 115

extirpated the whole race; for the people of each hamlet or village, by turns, applied to me
to destroy the other”. According to Cook, the New Zealanders practiced both ceaseless
war and cannibalism; and population pressure provided a motive for both practices.
In later chapters on nomadic societies of the Near East and Asia, war again appears,
not only as a consequence of the growth of human numbers, but also as one of the major
mechanisms by which these numbers are reduced to the level of their food supply. The
studies quoted by Malthus make it seem likely that the nomadic Tartar tribes of central
Asia made no use of the preventive checks to population growth. In fact the Tartar tribes
may have regarded growth of their own populations as useful in their wars with neighboring
tribes.
Malthus also described the Germanic tribes of Northern Europe, whose population
growth led them to the attacks which destroyed the Roman Empire.
He quoted the following passage from Machiavelli’s History of Florence: “The people
who inhabit the northern parts that lie between the Rhine and the Danube, living in a
healthful and prolific climate, often increase to such a degree that vast numbers of them
are forced to leave their native country and go in search of new habitations. When any of
those provinces begins to grow too populous and wants to disburden itself, the following
method is observed. In the first place, it is divided into three parts, in each of which
there is an equal portion of the nobility and commonality, the rich and the poor. After
this they cast lots; and that division on which the lot falls quits the country and goes to
seek its fortune, leaving the other two more room and liberty to enjoy their possessions at
home. These emigrations proved the destruction of the Roman Empire”. Regarding the
Scandinavians in the early middle ages, Malthus wrote: “Mallet relates, what is probably
true, that it was their common custom to hold an assembly every spring for the purpose
of considering in what quarter they should make war”.
In many of the societies which Malthus described, a causal link can be seen, not only
between population pressure and poverty, but also between population pressure and war.
As one reads his Essay, it becomes clear why both these terrible sources of human anguish
saturate so much of history, and why efforts to eradicate them have so often met with
failure: The only possible way to eliminate poverty and war is to reduce the pressure of
population by preventive checks, since the increased food supply produced by occasional
cultural advances can give only very temporary relief.
In Book II, Malthus turned to the nations of Europe, as they appeared at the end of the
18th century, and here he presents us with a different picture. Although in these societies
poverty, unsanitary housing, child labour, malnutrition and disease all took a heavy toll,
war produced far less mortality than in hunting and pastoral societies, and the preventive
checks, which lower fertility, played a much larger roll.
Malthus had visited Scandinavia during the summer of 1799, and he had made partic-
ularly detailed notes on Norway. He was thus able to present a description of Norwegian
economics and demography based on his own studies. Norway was remarkable for having
the lowest reliably-recorded death rate of any nation at that time: Only 1 person in 48
died each year in Norway. (By comparison, 1 person in 20 died each year in London.) The
rate of marriage was also remarkably low, with only 1 marriage each year for every 130
116 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.5: Captain James Cook, FRS (1728-1779). According to Cook, the
native New Zealanders practiced both ceaseless war and cannibalism; and pop-
ulation pressure provided a motive for both practices. Malthus based his de-
scription of hunter-gatherer societies on the writings of explorers such as Cook
and Vancouver.
3.4. THE SECOND ESSAY PUBLISHED IN 1803 117

inhabitants; and thus in spite of the low death rate, Norway’s population had increased
only slightly from the 723,141 inhabitants recorded in 1769.
There were two reasons for late marriage in Norway: Firstly, every man born of a
farmer or a labourer was compelled by law to be a soldier in the reserve army for a period
of ten years; and during his military service, he could not marry without the permission of
both his commanding officer and the parish priest. These permissions were granted only to
those who were clearly in an economic position to support a family. Men could be inducted
into the army at any age between 20 and 30, and since commanding officers preferred older
recruits, Norwegian men were often in their 40’s before they were free to marry. At the
time when Malthus was writing, these rules had just been made less restrictive; but priests
still refused to unite couples whose economic foundations they judged to be insufficient.
The second reason for late marriages was the structure of the farming community. In
general, Norwegian farms were large; and the owner’s household employed many young
unmarried men and women as servants. These young people had no chance to marry
unless a smaller house on the property became vacant, with its attached small parcel of
land for the use of the “houseman”; but because of the low death rate, such vacancies were
infrequent.
Thus Norway’s remarkably low death rate was balanced by a low birth rate. Other
chapters in Book II are devoted to the checks to population growth in Sweden, Russia,
Central Europe, Switzerland, France, England, Scotland and Ireland.
Malthus painted a very dark panorama of population pressure and its consequences
in human societies throughout the world and throughout history: At the lowest stage of
cultural development are the hunter-gatherer societies, where the density of population is
extremely low. Nevertheless, the area required to support the hunters is so enormous that
even their sparse and thinly scattered numbers press hard against the limits of sustenance.
The resulting competition for territory produces merciless intertribal wars.
The domestication of animals makes higher population densities possible; and wherever
this new mode of food production is adopted, human numbers rapidly increase; but very
soon a new equilibrium is established, with the population of pastoral societies once more
pressing painfully against the limits of the food supply, growing a little in good years, and
being cut back in bad years by famine, disease and war.
Finally, agricultural societies can maintain extremely high densities of population; but
the time required to achieve a new equilibrium is very short. After a brief period of
unrestricted growth, human numbers are once more crushed against the barrier of limited
resources; and if excess lives are produced by overbreeding, they are soon extinguished by
deaths among the children of the poor.
Malthus was conscious that he had drawn an extremely dark picture of the human
condition. He excused himself by saying that he has not done it gratuitously, but because
he was convinced that the dark shades really are there, and that they form an important
part of the picture. He did allow one ray of light, however: By 1803, his own studies of
Norway, together with personal conversations with Godwin and the arguments in Godwin’s
Reply to Parr, had convinced Malthus that “moral restraint” should be included among
the possible checks to population growth. Thus he concluded Book II of his 1803 edition by
118 WHY WAR?

saying that the checks which keep population down to the level of the means of subsistence
can all be classified under the headings of “moral restraint, vice and misery”. (In his first
edition he had maintained that vice and misery are the only possibilities).

3.5 Systems of equality

In the 1803 edition of Malthus’ Essay, Books III and IV form a second volume.
The ideas which he put forward in this second volume are much more open to dispute
than are the solidly empirical demographic studies of Books I and II. Malthus excused
himself at the beginning of the second volume, saying that he realized that the ideas which
he was about to put forward were less solidly based than those in his first volume. However,
he said that he wished to explore all the consequences of his principle of population: “..Even
the errors into which I may have fallen”, he wrote, “by according a handle to argument,
and an additional excitement to examination, may be subservient to the important end
of bringing a subject so nearly connected with the happiness of society into more general
notice”.
Malthus began Book III by discussing the systems of equality proposed by Condorcet
and Godwin; and he tried to show that such utopian societies would prove impossible in
practice, because they would rapidly drown in a flood of excess population. Condorcet
himself had recognized this difficulty. He realized that improved living conditions for
the poor would lead to a rapid growth of population. “Must not a period then arrive”,
Condorcet had written, “... when the increase of the number of men surpassing their means
of subsistence, the necessary result must be either a continual diminution of happiness and
population... or at least a kind of oscillation between good and evil?”
Condorcet believed the serious consequences of population pressure to be far in the
future, but Malthus disagreed with him on exactly that point: “M. Condorcet’s picture
of what may be expected to happen when the number of men shall surpass subsistence is
justly drawn... The only point in which I differ from M. Condorcet in this description is
with regard to the period when it may be applied to the human race... This constantly
subsisting cause of periodical misery has existed in most countries ever since we have had
any histories of mankind, and continues to exist at the present moment.”
“M. Condorcet, however, goes on to say”, Malthus continued, “that should the period,
which he conceives to be so distant, ever arrive, the human race, and the advocates of the
perfectibility of man, need not be alarmed at it. He then proceeds to remove the difficulty
in a manner which I profess not to understand. Having observed that the ridiculous
prejudices of superstition would by that time have ceased to throw over morals a corrupt
and degrading austerity, he alludes either to a promiscuous concubinage, which would
prevent breeding, or to something else as unnatural. To remove the difficulty in this way
will surely, in the opinion of most men, be to destroy that virtue and purity of manners
which the advocates of equality and of the perfectibility of man profess to be the end and
object of their views.”
When Malthus referred to “something else as unnatural”, he of course meant birth
3.5. SYSTEMS OF EQUALITY 119

control, some forms of which existed at the time when he was writing; and in this passage
we see that he was opposed to the practice. He preferred late marriage or “moral restraint”
as a means of limiting excessive population growth.
After his arguments against Condorcet, Malthus discussed William Godwin’s egalitar-
ian utopia, which, he said, would be extremely attractive if only it could be achieved: “The
system of equality which Mr. Godwin proposes”, Malthus wrote, “is, on the first view of
it, the most beautiful and engaging which has yet appeared. A melioration of society to be
produced merely by reason and conviction gives more promise of permanence than than
any change effected and maintained by force. The unlimited exercise of private judgement
is a doctrine grand and captivating, and has a vast superiority over those systems where
every individual is in a manner the slave of the public.”
“The substitution of benevolence, as a master-spring and moving principle of society,
instead of self-love, appears at first sight to be a consummation devoutly to be wished. In
short, it is impossible to contemplate the whole of this fair picture without emotions of
delight and admiration, accompanied with an ardent longing for the period of its accom-
plishment.”
“But alas!” Malthus continued, “That moment can never arrive.... The great error
under which Mr. Godwin labours throughout his whole work is the attributing of almost all
the vices and misery that prevail in civil society to human institutions. Political regulations
and the established administration of property are, with him, the fruitful sources of all evil,
the hotbeds of all the crimes that degrade mankind. Were this really a true state of the
case, it would not seem a completely hopeless task to remove evil completely from the
world; and reason seems to be the proper and adequate instrument for effecting so great a
purpose. But the truth is, that though human institutions appear to be, and indeed often
are, the obvious and obtrusive causes of much misery in society, they are, in reality, light
and superficial in comparison with those deeper-seated causes of evil which result from the
laws of nature and the passions of mankind.”
The passions of mankind drive humans to reproduce, while the laws of nature set limits
to the carrying capacity of the environment. Godwin’s utopia, if established, would be very
favorable to the growth of population; and very soon the shortage of food would lead to its
downfall: Because of the overpowering force of population growth, “Man cannot live in the
midst of plenty. All cannot share alike the bounties of nature. Were there no established
administration of property, every man would be obliged to guard with his force his little
store. Selfishness would be triumphant. The subjects of contention would be perpetual.
Every individual would be under constant anxiety about corporal support, and not a single
intellect would be left free to expatiate in the field of thought.”
Malthus believed that all systems of equality are doomed to failure, not only because
of the powerful pressure of population growth, but also because differences between the
upper, middle, and lower classes serve the useful purpose of providing humans with an
incentive for hard work. He thought that fear of falling to a lower social status, and hope
of rising to a higher one, provide a strong incentive for constructive activity. However,
he believed that happiness is most often found in the middle ranks of society, and that
therefore the highest and lowest classes ought not to be large. Malthus advocated universal
120 WHY WAR?

education and security of property as means by which the lowest classes of society could
be induced to adopt more virtuous and prudent patterns of behavior.

3.6 The Poor Laws

Among the most controversial chapters of Malthus’ second volume are those dealing with
the Poor Laws. During the reign of Queen Elisabeth I, a law had been enacted according to
which justices were authorized to collect taxes in order to set to work “...the children of all
such, whose parents shall not by the said persons be thought able to keep and maintain their
children; and also such persons, married or unmarried, as, having no means to maintain
them, use no ordinary or daily trade to get their living by..”. Malthus commented:
“What is this but saying that the funds for the maintenance of labour in this country
may be increased without limit by a fiat of government...? Strictly speaking, this clause
is as arrogant and absurd as if it had enacted that two ears of wheat should in the future
grow where one had grown before. Canute, when he commanded the waves not to wet his
princely foot, did not assume a greater power over the laws of nature.” Malthus pointed
out that if we believe that every person has a right to have as many children as he or
she wishes, and if we enact a law, according to which every person born has a right to
sustenance, then we implicitly assume that the supply of food can be increased without
limit, which of course is impossible.
During the first few years of the nineteenth century there was a severe shortage of food
in England, partly because of war with France, and partly because of harvest failures. As a
result, the price of wheat tripled, causing great distress among the poor. By 1803, 3,000,000
pounds sterling were being distributed to make up the difference between the wages of poor
workers and the amount which they needed to pay for food. Malthus regarded the supply of
grain as constant, i.e. independent of the price; and he therefore believed that distribution
of money under the Poor Laws merely raised the price of grain still further in relation to
wages, forcing a larger number of independent workers to seek help. He thought that the
distributed money helped to relieve suffering in some cases, but that it spread the suffering
over a wider area.
In some parishes, the amount of money distributed under the Poor Laws was propor-
tional to the number of children in a family, and Malthus believed that this encouraged the
growth of population, further aggravating the shortage of food. “A poor man may marry
with little or no prospect of being able to support a family in independence”, he wrote,
“...and the Poor Laws may be said therefore in some measure to create the poor which
they maintain; and as the provisions of the country must, in consequence of the increased
population, be distributed to every man in smaller proportions, it is evident that the labour
of those who are not supported by parish assistance, will purchase a smaller quantity of
provisions than before, and consequently more of them must be driven to ask for support.”
Malthus advocated a very gradual abolition of the Poor Laws, and he believed that while
this change was being brought about, the laws ought to be administered in such a way that
the position of least well-off independent workers should not be worse than the position of
3.7. REPLIES TO MALTHUS 121

those supported by parish assistance.

3.7 Replies to Malthus

The second edition of Malthus’ Essay was published in 1803. It provoked a storm of
controversy, and a flood of rebuttals. In 1803 England’s political situation was sensitive.
Revolutions had recently occurred both in America and in France; and in England there
was much agitation for radical change, against which Malthus provided counter-arguments.
Pitt and his government had taken Malthus’ first edition seriously, and had abandoned their
plans for extending the Poor Laws. Also, as a consequence of Malthus’ ideas, England’s
first census was taken in 1801. This census, and subsequent ones, taken in 1811, 1821 and
1831, showed that England’s population was indeed increasing rapidly, just as Malthus had
feared. (The population of England and Wales more than doubled in 80 years, from an
estimated 6.6 million in 1750 to almost 14 million in 1831.) In 1803, the issues of poverty
and population were at the center of the political arena, and articles refuting Malthus
began to stream from the pens of England’s authors.
William Coleridge planned to write an article against Malthus, and he made extensive
notes in the margins of his copy of the Essay. In one place he wrote: “Are Lust and Hunger
both alike Passions of physical Necessity, and the one equally with the other independent
of the Reason and the Will? Shame upon our race that there lives an individual who
dares to ask the Question.” In another place Coleridge wrote: “Vice and Virtue subsist
in the agreement of the habits of a man with his Reason and Conscience, and these can
have but one moral guide, Utility, or the virtue and Happiness of Rational Beings”. Al-
though Coleridge never wrote his planned article, his close friend Robert Southey did so,
using Coleridge’s notes almost verbatim. Some years later Coleridge remarked: “Is it not
lamentable - is it not even marvelous - that the monstrous practical sophism of Malthus
should now have gained complete possession of the leading men of the kingdom! Such an
essential lie in morals - such a practical lie in fact it is too! I solemnly declare that I do
not believe that all the heresies and sects and factions which ignorance and the weakness
and wickedness of man have ever given birth to, were altogether so disgraceful to man as
a Christian, a philosopher, a statesman or citizen, as this abominable tenet.”
In 1812, Percy Bysshe Shelley, who was later to become William Godwin’s son-in-law,
wrote: “Many well-meaning persons... would tell me not to make people happy for fear
of over-stocking the world... War, vice and misery are undoubtedly bad; they embrace
all that we can conceive of temporal and eternal evil. Are we to be told that these are
remedyless, because the earth would in case of their remedy, be overstocked?” A year later,
Shelley called Malthus a “priest, eunuch, and tyrant”, and accused him, in a pamphlet, of
proposing that “.. after the poor have been stript naked by the taxgatherer and reduced
to bread and tea and fourteen hours of hard labour by their masters.. the last tie by which
Nature holds them to benignant earth (whose plenty is garnered up in the strongholds
of their tyrants) is to be divided... They are required to abstain from marrying under
penalty of starvation... whilst the rich are permitted to add as many mouths to consume
122 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.6: Coleridge’s notes on Malthus: “I do not believe that all the heresies
and sects and factions which ignorance and the weakness and wickedness of man
have ever given birth to, were altogether so disgraceful to man as a Christian,
a philosopher, a statesman or citizen, as this abominable tenet.”

the products of the poor as they please”.

Godwin himself wrote a long book (which was published in 1820) entitled Of Population,
An Enquiry Concerning the Power and Increase in the Number of Mankind, being an
answer to Mr. Malthus. One can also view many of the books of Charles Dickens as
protests against Malthus’ point of view. For example, Oliver Twist gives us a picture of
a workhouse “administered in such a way that the position of least well-off independent
workers should not be worse than the position of those supported by parish assistance.”
Among the authors defending Malthus was Harriet Martineau, who wrote: “The desire
of his heart and the aim of his work were that domestic virtue and happiness should be
placed within the reach of all... He found that a portion of the people were underfed,
and that one consequence of this was a fearful mortality among infants; and another
consequence the growth of a recklessness among the destitute which caused infanticide,
3.7. REPLIES TO MALTHUS 123

Figure 3.7: Shelley: “.. after the poor have been stript naked by the taxgatherer
and reduced to bread and tea and fourteen hours of hard labour by their
masters.. the last tie by which Nature holds them to benignant earth (whose
plenty is garnered up in the strongholds of their tyrants) is to be divided...They
are required to abstain from marrying under penalty of starvation...”
124 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.8: Tiny Tim, from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. When he is
informed that Tiny Tim will die unless he receives medical treatment, Scrooge
remarks, “Then he had better die and reduce the surplus population!”. Many
of the events in Dickens’ books can be viewed as protests against the ideas of
Malthus.
3.7. REPLIES TO MALTHUS 125

Figure 3.9: Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist asks for a second portion of gruel,
provoking a storm of outrage. As a boy, Dickens himself spent some time in a
workhouse.
126 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.10: A portrait of the British political economist, author and social the-
orist Harriet Martineau (1802-1876). She was a very close friend of Charles
Darwin’s older brother, Erasmus. Commenting on the ideas of Malthus, she
wrote: “Prudence as to time of marriage and making due provision for it
was, one would think, a harmless recommendation enough, under the circum-
stances.” Martineau’s books were highly successful, sometimes outselling those
of Charles Dickens.
3.8. RICARDO’S IRON LAW OF WAGES; THE CORN LAWS 127

corruption of morals, and at best, marriage between pauper boys and girls; while multitudes
of respectable men and women, who paid rates instead of consuming them, were unmarried
at forty or never married at all. Prudence as to time of marriage and for making due
provision for it was, one would think, a harmless recommendation enough, under the
circumstances.”

3.8 Ricardo’s Iron Law of Wages; the Corn Laws

Malthus continued a life of quiet scholarship, unperturbed by the heated public debate
which he had caused. At the age of 38, he married a second cousin. The marriage produced
only three children, which at that time was considered to be a very small number. Thus
he practiced the pattern of late marriage which he advocated. Although he was appointed
rector of a church in Lincolnshire, he never preached there, hiring a curate to do this in his
place. Instead of preaching, Malthus accepted an appointment as Professor of History and
Political Economy at the East India Company’s College at Haileybury. This appointment
made him the first professor of economics in England, and probably also the first in the
world. Among the important books which he wrote while he held this post was Principles
of Political Economy, Considered with a View to their Practical Application. Malthus
also published numerous revised and expanded editions of his Essay on the Principle of
Population. The third edition was published in 1806, the fourth in 1807, the fifth in 1817,
and the sixth in 1826.
Malthus became a close friend of the wealthy financier and economic theorist, David
Ricardo (1772-1823). He and Ricardo met frequently to discuss economic problems, and
when circumstances prevented them from meeting, they exchanged endless letters. Ricardo
and Malthus differed on the subject of the Corn Laws, but they never allowed this difference
of opinion to affect their friendship.
Although shortages of food had produced drastic increases in the price of grain, the
import of cheap foreign grain was effectively prevented by the Corn Laws. These laws
had been introduced by the large landowners, who controlled Parliament, but they were
opposed by the manufacturers, who wished to make less expensive food available to their
workers. On this issue, Malthus sided with the landowners, arguing that if England became
dependent on imports of foreign grain, the country would be insecure: What if England’s
ability to export manufactured goods in exchange for the grain should later be undermined
by foreign competition? Malthus pointed out that the country would then face starvation.
Ricardo, on the other hand, sided with the rising class of manufacturers. In 1832 the
Reform Bill gave the manufacturers control of Parliament, the Corn Laws were repealed,
and England’s rapidly-growing population became dependent on imports of foreign grain.
Ricardo accepted Malthus’ principle of population, and from it he deduced what came to
be called his “Iron Law of Wages”. According to Ricardo, labor is a commodity, and wages
are determined by the law of supply and demand: When wages fall below the starvation
level, the workers’ children die. Labor then becomes a scarce commodity, and wages rise.
On the other hand, when wages rise above the starvation level, the working population
128 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.11: The economist David Ricardo (1772-1823), a close friend of Malthus.
The joint pessimism of Ricardo and Malthus caused Carlyle to call economics
“the dismal science”.
3.9. THE IRISH POTATO FAMINE OF 1845 129

multiplies rapidly, labor becomes a plentiful commodity, and wages fall again.
Thus, according to Ricardo, there is an Iron Law which holds wages at the minimum
level at which life can be supported. The combined pessimism of Malthus and Ricardo
caused Carlyle to call economics “the dismal science”.

3.9 The Irish Potato Famine of 1845

Meanwhile, in Ireland, a dramatic series of events had occurred, confirming the ideas of
Malthus. Anti-Catholic laws prevented the Irish cottagers from improving their social
position; and instead they produced large families, fed almost exclusively on a diet of
milk and potatoes. The potato and milk diet allowed a higher density of population to
be supported in Ireland than would have been the case if the Irish diet had consisted
primarily of wheat. As a result, the population of Ireland grew rapidly: In 1695 it had
been approximately one million, but by 1821 it had reached 6,801,827. By 1845, the
population of Ireland was more than eight million; and in that year the potato harvest
failed because of blight. All who were able to do so fled from the country, many emigrating
to the United States; but two million people died of starvation. As the result of this shock,
Irish marriage habits changed, and late marriage became the norm, just as Malthus would
have wished. After the Potato Famine of 1845, Ireland maintained a stable population of
roughly four million.
130 WHY WAR?

Figure 3.12: The Irish Potato Famine.

3.9. THE IRISH POTATO FAMINE OF 1845 131

Figure 3.13: The Irish Potato Famine.

132 WHY WAR?

3.10 The impact of Malthus on biology

The impact of Malthus’ Essay was great, not only in demography and political economics,
but also in biology. In 1836, Charles Darwin returned from his voyage on the Beagle
with a mass of facts and ideas on species out of which he was struggling to construct a
coherent picture; and Malthus gave him the clue he needed. “In October, 1838”, Darwin
wrote later in his Autobiography, “that is, fifteen months after I had begun my system-
atic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement ‘Malthus on Population’, and being well
prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-
continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones
to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here then I had
at last got a theory by which to work...”
Darwin wrote a sketch of his theory of evolution through natural selection; but he did
not publish it, probably because he had a premonition of the furious opposition which
his heretical ideas would provoke. In 1854 he returned to his work on species, but he
was writing on a scale which would have developed into an enormous multi-volume work,
whose completion might have taken the remainder of his life. Meanwhile, a young English
biologist named Alfred Russell Wallace, working in the jungles of Malaysia, arrived at
exactly the same theory as Darwin’s, and in exactly the same way - by reading Malthus!
Wallace wrote a short paper describing his theory and sent it to Darwin, asking the older
scientist’s opinion. Darwin was at first inclined to burn all his own work on the subject
out of fairness to Wallace, but his friends persuaded him to instead write a short paper
describing his views, which could be presented together with Wallace’s article. The two
papers were read together to a meeting of the Linnean Society, which listened in stunned
silence. Posterity has given both Darwin and Wallace credit for their joint discovery of the
theory of evolution through natural selection.
3.10. THE IMPACT OF MALTHUS ON BIOLOGY 133

Figure 3.14: Both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace arrived at their
theories of natural selection in evolution as a result of reading Malthus.

Suggestions for further reading

1. A. Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and
What We Can Do About It, Rodale Books, New York, (2006).
2. A. Gore, Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose, Earthscan, (1992).
3. A.H. Ehrlich and P.R. Ehrlich, Earth, Thames and Methuen, (1987).pro Simon and
Schuster, (1990).
4. P.R. Ehrlich and A.H. Ehrlich, Healing the Planet: Strategies for Resolving the En-
vironmental Crisis, Addison-Wesley, (1991).
5. P.R. Ehrlich and A.H. Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental
Rhetoric Threatens our Future, Island Press, (1998).
6. P.R. Ehrlich and A.H. Ehrlich, One With Nineveh: Politics, Consumption and the
Human Future, Island Press, (2004).
7. A.H. Ehrlich and U. Lele, Humankind at the Crossroads: Building a Sustainable Food
System, in Draft Report of the Pugwash Study Group: The World at the Crossroads,
Berlin, (1992).
8. P.R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, Sierra/Ballentine, New York, (1972).
9. P.R. Ehrlich, A.H. Ehrlich and J. Holdren, Human Ecology, W.H. Freeman, San
Francisco, (1972).
10. P.R. Ehrlich, A.H. Ehrlich and J. Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, En-
vironment, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, (1977)
11. P.R. Ehrlich and A.H. Ehrlich, Extinction, Victor Gollancz, London, (1982).
12. D.H. Meadows, D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens III, The Limits to
Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind,
Universe Books, New York, (1972).
134 WHY WAR?

13. D.H. Meadows et al., Beyond the Limits. Confronting Global Collapse and Envision-
ing a Sustainable Future, Chelsea Green Publishing, Post Mills, Vermont, (1992).
14. D.H. Meadows, J. Randers and D.L. Meadows, Limits to Growth: the 30-Year Update,
Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Jct., VT 05001, (2004).
15. A. Peccei and D. Ikeda, Before it is Too Late, Kodansha International, Tokyo, (1984).
16. A. Peccei, The Human Quality, Pergamon Press, Oxford, (1977).
17. A. Peccei, One Hundred Pages for the Future, Pergamon Press, New York, (1977).
18. V.K. Smith, ed., Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, (1979).
19. R. Costannza, ed., Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustain-
ability, Colombia University Press, New York, (1991).
20. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Sci-
entific Basis, (1001).
21. N. Stern et al., The Stern Review, www.sternreview.org.uk, (2006).
22. T.M. Swanson, ed., The Economics and Ecology of Biodiversity Decline: The Forces
Driving Global Change, Cambridge University Press, (1995).
23. P.M. Vitousek, H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco and J.M. Melillo, Human Domination of
Earth’s Ecosystems, Science, 277, 494-499, (1997).
24. P.M. Vitousek, P.R. Ehrlich, A.H. Ehrlich and P.A. Matson, Human Appropriation
of the Products of Photosynthesis, Bioscience, 34, 368-373, (1986).
25. D. King, Climate Change Science: Adapt, Mitigate or Ignore, Science, 303 (5655),
pp. 176-177, (2004).
26. S. Connor, Global Warming Past Point of No Return, The Independent, (116 Septem-
ber, 2005).
27. D. Rind, Drying Out the Tropics, New Scientist (6 May, 1995).
28. J. Patz et al., Impact of Regional Climate Change on Human Health, Nature, (17
November, 2005).
29. M. McCarthy, China Crisis: Threat to the Global Environment, The Independent,
(19 October, 2005).
30. L.R. Brown, The Twenty-Ninth Day, W.W. Norton, New York, (1978).
31. N. Myers, The Sinking Ark, Pergamon, New York, (1972).
32. N. Myers, Conservation of Tropical Moist Forests, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington D.C., (1980).
33. National Academy of Sciences, Energy and Climate, NAS, Washington D.C., (1977).
34. W. Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco,
(1977).
35. E. Eckholm, Losing Ground: Environmental Stress and World Food Prospects, W.W.
Norton, New York, (1975).
36. E. Eckholm, The Picture of Health: Environmental Sources of Disease, New York,
(1976).
37. Economic Commission for Europe, Air Pollution Across Boundaries, United Nations,
New York, (1985).
3.10. THE IMPACT OF MALTHUS ON BIOLOGY 135

38. G. Hagman and others, Prevention is Better Than Cure, Report on Human Envi-
ronmental Disasters in the Third World, Swedish Red Cross, Stockholm, Stockholm,
(1986).
39. G. Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, December 13, (1968).
40. K. Newland, Infant Mortality and the Health of Societies, Worldwatch Paper 47,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., (1981).
41. D.W. Orr, Ecological Literacy, State University of New York Press, Albany, (1992).
42. E. Pestel, Beyond the Limits to Growth, Universe Books, New York, (1989).
43. D.C. Pirages and P.R. Ehrlich, Ark II: Social Responses to Environmental Impera-
tives, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, (1974).
44. Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet, PRM, 777 Fourteenth
Street NW, Washington D.C. 20007, (published annually).
45. R. Pressat, Population, Penguin Books Ltd., (1970).
46. M. Rechcigl (ed.), Man/Food Equation, Academic Press, New York, (1975).
47. J.C. Ryan, Life Support: Conserving Biological Diversity, Worldwatch Paper 108,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., (1992).
48. J. Shepard, The Politics of Starvation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Washington D.C., (1975).
49. B. Stokes, Local Responses to Global Problems: A Key to Meeting Basic Human
Needs, Worldwatch Paper 17, Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., (1978).
50. L. Timberlake, Only One Earth: Living for the Future, BBC/ Earthscan, London,
(1987).
51. UNEP, Environmental Data Report, Blackwell, Oxford, (published annually).
52. UNESCO, International Coordinating Council of Man and the Biosphere, MAB Re-
port Series No. 58, Paris, (1985).
53. United Nations Fund for Population Activities, A Bibliography of United Nations
Publications on Population, United Nations, New York, (1977).
54. United Nations Fund for Population Activities, The State of World Population,
UNPF, 220 East 42nd Street, New York, 10017, (published annually).
55. United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects Beyond the Year 2000, U.N.,
New York, (1973).
56. J. van Klinken, Het Dierde Punte, Uitgiversmaatschappij J.H. Kok-Kampen, Nether-
lands (1989).
57. B. Ward and R. Dubos, Only One Earth, Penguin Books Ltd., (1973).
58. WHO/UNFPA/UNICEF, The Reproductive Health of Adolescents: A Strategy for
Action, World Health Organization, Geneva, (1989).
59. E.O. Wilson, Sociobiology, Harvard University Press, (1975).
60. E.O. Wilson (ed.), Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., (1988).
61. E.O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London, (1992).
62. G. Woodwell (ed.), The Earth in Transition: Patterns and Processes of Biotic Im-
poverishment, Cambridge University Press, (1990).
63. World Resources Institute (WRI), Global Biodiversity Strategy, The World Conser-
vation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (1992).
136 WHY WAR?

64. World Resources Institute, World Resources 200-2001: People and Ecosystems: The
Fraying Web of Life, WRI, Washington D.C., (2000).
65. D.W. Pearce and R.K. Turner, Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment,
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, (1990).
66. P. Bartelmus, Environment, Growth and Development: The Concepts and Strategies
of Sustainability, Routledge, New York, (1994).
67. H.E. Daly and K.N. Townsend, (editors), Valuing the Earth. Economics, Ecology,
Ethics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1993)
68. C. Flavin, Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy, Worldwatch Paper 91,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., (1989).
69. S.H. Schneider, The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival, Plenum Press,
(1976).
70. WHO/UNFPA/UNICEF, The Reproductive Health of Adolescents: A Strategy for
Action, World Health Organization, Geneva, (1989).
71. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, (1987).
72. W. Jackson, Man and the Environment, Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa, (1971).
73. T. Berry, The Dream of the Earth, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, (1988).
74. T.M. Swanson, ed., The Economics and Ecology of Biodiversity Decline: The Forces
Driving Global Change, Cambridge University Press, (1995).
75. P.R. Ehrlich and A.H. Ehrlich, One With Nineveh: Politics, Consumption and the
Human Future, Island Press, (2004).
76. D.H. Meadows, D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens III, The Limits to
Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind,
Universe Books, New York, (1972).
77. D.H. Meadows et al., Beyond the Limits. Confronting Global Collapse and Envision-
ing a Sustainable Future, Chelsea Green Publishing, Post Mills, Vermont, (1992).
78. D.H. Meadows, J. Randers and D.L. Meadows, Limits to Growth: the 30-Year Update,
Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Jct., VT 05001, (2004).
79. A. Peccei and D. Ikeda, Before it is Too Late, Kodansha International, Tokyo, (1984).
80. V.K. Smith, ed., Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, (1979).
81. British Petroleum, BP Statistical Review of World Energy, (published yearly).
82. R. Costannza, ed., Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustain-
ability, Colombia University Press, New York, (1991).
83. J. Darmstadter, A Global Energy Perspective, Sustainable Development Issue Back-
grounder, Resources for the Future, (2002).
84. D.C. Hall and J.V. Hall, Concepts and Measures of Natural Resource Scarcity, Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management, 11, 363-379, (1984).
85. M.K. Hubbert, Energy Resources, in Resources and Man: A Study and Recommen-
dations, Committee on Resources and Man, National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, (1969).
3.10. THE IMPACT OF MALTHUS ON BIOLOGY 137

86. J.A. Krautkraemer, Nonrenewable Resource Scarcity, Journal of Economic Litera-

ture, bf 36, 2065-2107, (1998).
87. C.J. Cleveland, Physical and Economic Aspects of Natural Resource Scarcity: The
Cost of Oil Supply in the Lower 48 United States 1936-1987, Resources and Energy
13, 163-188, (1991).
88. C.J. Cleveland, Yield Per Effort for Additions to Crude Oil Reserves in the Lower
48 States, 1946-1989, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 76,
948-958, (1992).
89. M.K. Hubbert, Technique of Prediction as Applied to the Production of Oil and Gas,
in NBS Special Publication 631, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of
Standards, (1982).
90. L.F. Ivanhoe, Oil Discovery Indices and Projected Discoveries, Oil and Gas Journal,
11, 19, (1984).
91. L.F. Ivanhoe, Future Crude Oil Supplies and Prices, Oil and Gas Journal, July 25,
111-112, (1988).
92. L.F. Ivanhoe, Updated Hubbert Curves Analyze World Oil Supply, World Oil, Novem-
ber, 91-94, (1996).
93. L.F. Ivanhoe, Get Ready for Another Oil Shock!, The Futurist, January-February,
20-23, (1997).
94. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2001, US Depart-
ment of Energy, (2001).
95. Energy Information Administration, Caspian Sea Region, US Department of Energy,
(2001).
96. National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy, The White
House, (2004). (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/)
97. IEA, CO2 from Fuel Combustion Fact-Sheet, International Energy Agency, (2005).
98. H. Youguo, China’s Coal Demand Outlook for 2020 and Analysis of Coal Supply
Capacity, International Energy Agency, (2003).
99. R.H. Williams, Advanced Energy Supply Technologies, in World Energy Assessment:
Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, UNDP, (2000).
100. H. Lehmann, Energy Rich Japan, Institute for Sustainable Solutions and Innovations,
Achen, (2003).
101. W.V. Chandler, Materials Recycling: The Virtue of Necessity, Worldwatch Paper 56,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C, (1983).
102. W.C. Clark and others, Managing Planet Earth, Special Issue, Scientific American,
September, (1989).
103. B. Commoner, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology, Bantam Books,
New York, (1972).
104. J.R. Frisch, Energy 2000-2020: World Prospects and Regional Stresses, World Energy
Conference, Graham and Trotman, (1983).
105. J. Holdren and P. Herrera, Energy, Sierra Club Books, New York, (1971).
106. National Academy of Sciences, Energy and Climate, NAS, Washington D.C., (1977).
138 WHY WAR?

107. W. Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco,
(1977).
108. C. Pollock, Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential for Recycling, Worldwatch Paper
76, Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., (1987).
109. World Resources Institute, World Resources, Oxford University Press, New York,
(published annually).
110. World Resources Institute, World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems: The
Fraying Web of Life, WRI, Washington D.C., (2000).
111. J.E. Young, John E., Mining the Earth , Worldwatch Paper 109, Worldwatch Insti-
tute, Washington D.C., (1992).
112. J.R. Craig, D.J. Vaughan and B.J. Skinner, Resources of the Earth: Origin, Use and
Environmental Impact, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, (2001).
113. W. Youngquist, Geodestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources Over Na-
tions and Individuals, National Book Company, Portland Oregon, (1997).
114. M. Tanzer, The Race for Resources. Continuing Struggles Over Minerals and Fuels,
Monthly Review Press, New York, (1980).
115. C.B. Reed, Fuels, Minerals and Human Survival, Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,
Ann Arbor Michigan, (1975).
116. M.K. Hubbert, Energy Resources, in Resources and Man: A Study and Recommen-
dations, Committee on Resources and Man, National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, (1969).
117. J.A. Krautkraemer, Nonrenewable Resource Scarcity, Journal of Economic Litera-
ture, bf 36, 2065-2107, (1998).
118. C.J. Cleveland, Physical and Economic Aspects of Natural Resource Scarcity: The
Cost of Oil Supply in the Lower 48 United States 1936-1987, Resources and Energy
13, 163-188, (1991).
119. C.J. Cleveland, Yield Per Effort for Additions to Crude Oil Reserves in the Lower
48 States, 1946-1989, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 76,
948-958, (1992).
120. M.K. Hubbert, Technique of Prediction as Applied to the Production of Oil and Gas,
in NBS Special Publication 631, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of
Standards, (1982).
121. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2001, US Depart-
ment of Energy, (2001).
122. Energy Information Administration, Caspian Sea Region, US Department of Energy,
(2001).
123. National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy, The White
House, (2004). (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/)
124. M. Klare, Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil, For-
eign Policy in Focus, (Interhemispheric Resource Center/Institute for Policy Stud-
ies/SEEN), Washington DC and Silver City NM, January, (2004).
125. IEA, CO2 from Fuel Combustion Fact-Sheet, International Energy Agency, (2005).
3.10. THE IMPACT OF MALTHUS ON BIOLOGY 139

126. H. Youguo, China’s Coal Demand Outlook for 2020 and Analysis of Coal Supply
Capacity, International Energy Agency, (2003).
127. R.H. Williams, Advanced Energy Supply Technologies, in World Energy Assessment:
Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, UNDP, (2000).
128. H. Lehmann, Energy Rich Japan, Institute for Sustainable Solutions and Innovations,
Achen, (2003).
129. W.V. Chandler, Materials Recycling: The Virtue of Necessity, Worldwatch Paper 56,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C, (1983).
130. J.R. Frisch, Energy 2000-2020: World Prospects and Regional Stresses, World Energy
Conference, Graham and Trotman, (1983).
131. J. Gever, R. Kaufmann, D. Skole and C. Vorosmarty, Beyond Oil: The Threat to
Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades, Ballinger, Cambridge MA, (1986).
132. J. Holdren and P. Herrera, Energy, Sierra Club Books, New York, (1971).
133. National Academy of Sciences, Energy and Climate, NAS, Washington D.C., (1977).
134. W. Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco,
(1977).
135. P.B. Smith, J.D. Schilling and A.P. Haines, Introduction and Summary, in Draft
Report of the Pugwash Study Group: The World at the Crossroads, Berlin, (1992).
136. World Resources Institute, World Resources, Oxford University Press, New York,
(published annually).
137. J.R. Craig, D.J. Vaughan and B.J. Skinner, Resources of the Earth: Origin, Use and
Environmental Impact, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, (2001).
138. W. Youngquist, Geodestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources Over Na-
tions and Individuals, National Book Company, Portland Oregon, (1997).
139. M. Tanzer, The Race for Resources. Continuing Struggles Over Minerals and Fuels,
Monthly Review Press, New York, (1980).
140. C.B. Reed, Fuels, Minerals and Human Survival, Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,
Ann Arbor Michigan, (1975).
141. A.A. Bartlett, Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis, American Journal of
Physics, 46, 876-888, (1978).
142. N. Gall, We are Living Off Our Capital, Forbes, September, (1986).
140 WHY WAR?
Chapter 4

RESOURCE WARS

4.1 Adam Smith’s invisible hand is at our throats

As everyone knows, Adam Smith invented the theory that individual self-interest is, and
ought to be, the main motivating force of human economic activity, and that this, in effect,
serves the wider social interest. He put forward a detailed description of this concept in
an immense book, “The Wealth of Nations” (1776).
Adam Smith (1723-1790) had been Professor of Logic at the University of Glasgow,
but in 1764 he withdrew from his position at the university to become the tutor of the
young Duke of Buccleuch. In those days a Grand Tour of Europe was considered to be an
important part of the education of a young nobleman, and Smith accompanied Buccleuch
to the Continent. To while away the occasional dull intervals of the tour, Adam Smith
began to write an enormous book on economics which he finally completed twelve years
later. He began his “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” by
praising division of labor. As an example of its benefits, he cited a pin factory, where ten
men, each a specialist in his own set of operations, could produce 48,000 pins in a day. In
the most complex civilizations, Smith stated, division of labor has the greatest utility.
The second factor in prosperity, Adam Smith maintained, is a competitive market,
free from monopolies and entirely free from governmental interference. In such a system,
he tells us, the natural forces of competition are able to organize even the most complex
economic operations, and are able also to maximize productivity. He expressed this idea
in the following words:
“As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can, both to employ his capital
in support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be
of greatest value, each individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the
Society as great as he can.”
“He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how
much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry,
he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its
produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in

141
142 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end that was no part of his
intention. Nor is it always the worse for Society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his
own interest, he frequently promotes that of Society more effectively than when he really
intends to promote it.”
In other words, Smith maintained that self-interest (even greed) is a sufficient guide
to human economic actions. The passage of time has shown that he was right in many
respects. The free market, which he advocated, has turned out to be the optimum prescrip-
tion for economic growth. However, history has also shown that there is something horribly
wrong or incomplete about the idea that individual self-interest alone, uninfluenced by eth-
ical and ecological considerations, and totally free from governmental intervention, can be
the main motivating force of a happy and just society. There has also proved to be some-
thing terribly wrong with the concept of unlimited economic growth. Here is what actually
happened:
In pre-industrial Europe, peasant farmers held a low but nevertheless secure position,
protected by a web of traditional rights and duties. Their low dirt-floored and thatched
cottages were humble but safe refuges. If a peasant owned a cow, it could be pastured on
common land.
With the invention of the steam engine and the introduction of spinning and weaving
machines towards the end of the 18th Century, the pattern changed, at first in England, and
afterwards in other European countries. Land-owners in Scotland and Northern England
realized that sheep were more profitable to have on the land than “crofters” (i.e., small
tenant farmers), and families that had farmed land for generations were violently driven
from their homes with almost no warning. The cottages were afterwards burned to prevent
the return of their owners.
The following account of the Highland Clearances has been left by Donald McLeod,
a crofter in the district of Sutherland: “The consternation and confusion were extreme.
Little or no time was given for the removal of persons or property; the people striving
to remove the sick or helpless before the fire should reach them; next struggling to save
the most valuable of their effects. The cries of the women and children; the roaring of
the affrighted cattle, hunted at the same time by the yelling dogs of the shepherds amid
the smoke and fire, altogether presented a scene that completely baffles description - it
required to be seen to be believed... The conflagration lasted for six days, until the whole
of the dwellings were reduced to ashes and smoking ruins.”
Between 1750 and 1860, the English Parliament passed a large number of “Enclosure
Acts”, abolishing the rights of small farmers to pasture their animals on common land
that was not under cultivation. The fabric of traditional rights and duties that once had
protected the lives of small tenant farmers was torn to pieces. Driven from the land, poor
families flocked to the towns and cities, hoping for employment in the textile mills that
seemed to be springing up everywhere.
According to the new rules by which industrial society began to be governed, traditions
were forgotten and replaced by purely economic laws. Labor was viewed as a commodity,
like coal or grain, and wages were paid according to the laws of supply and demand, without
regard for the needs of the workers. Wages fell to starvation levels, hours of work increased,
4.1. ADAM SMITH’S INVISIBLE HAND IS AT OUR THROATS 143

Figure 4.1: A watercolor painting by Vincent van Gogh showing wives of Belgian
miners carrying bags of coal.

Figure 4.2: London during the industrial revolution

144 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

Figure 4.3: A girl pulling a coaltub through the narrow space left by removal of
coal from a seam.

and working conditions deteriorated.

John Fielden’s book, “The Curse of the Factory System” was written in 1836, and it
describes the condition of young children working in the cotton mills. “The small nimble
fingers of children being by far the most in request, the custom instantly sprang up of
procuring ’apprentices’ from the different parish workhouses of London, Birmingham and
elsewhere... Overseers were appointed to see to the works, whose interest it was to work
the children to the utmost, because their pay was in proportion to the quantity of pay that
they could exact.”
“Cruelty was, of course, the consequence; and there is abundant evidence on record to
show that in many of the manufacturing districts, the most heart-rending cruelties were
practiced on the unoffending and friendless creatures... that they were flogged, fettered and
tortured in the most exquisite refinements of cruelty, that they were in many cases starved
to the bone while flogged to their work, and that they were even in some instances driven
to commit suicide... The profits of manufacture were enormous, but this only whetted the
appetite that it should have satisfied.”
Dr. Peter Gaskell, writing in 1833, described the condition of the English mill workers
as follows: “The vast deterioration in personal form which has been brought about in the
manufacturing population during the last thirty years... is singularly impressive, and fills
the mind with contemplations of a very painful character... Their complexion is sallow
and pallid, with a peculiar flatness of feature caused by the want of a proper quantity of
adipose substance to cushion out the cheeks. Their stature is low - the average height of
men being five feet, six inches... Great numbers of the girls and women walk lamely or
awkwardly... Many of the men have but little beard, and that in patches of a few hairs...
(They have) a spiritless and dejected air, a sprawling and wide action of the legs...”
“Rising at or before daybreak, between four and five o’clock the year round, they
4.1. ADAM SMITH’S INVISIBLE HAND IS AT OUR THROATS 145

Figure 4.4: Child laborers during the early Industrial Revolution

swallow a hasty meal or hurry to the mill without taking any food whatever... At twelve
o’clock the engine stops, and an hour is given for dinner... Again they are closely immured
from one o’clock till eight or nine, with the exception of twenty minutes, this being allowed
for tea. During the whole of this long period, they are actively and unremittingly engaged
in a crowded room at an elevated temperature.”
Dr. Gaskell described the housing of the workers as follows: “One of the circumstances
in which they are especially defective is that of drainage and water-closets. Whole ranges
of these houses are either totally undrained, or very partially... The whole of the washings
and filth from these consequently are thrown into the front or back street, which, often
being unpaved and cut into deep ruts, allows them to collect into stinking and stagnant
pools; while fifty, or even more than that number, having only a single convenience common
146 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

to them all, it is in a very short time choked with excrementous matter. No alternative is
left to the inhabitants but adding this to the already defiled street.”
“It frequently happens that one tenement is held by several families... The demoralizing
effects of this utter absence of domestic privacy must be seen before they can be thoroughly
appreciated. By laying bare all the wants and actions of the sexes, it strips them of outward
regard for decency - modesty is annihilated - the father and the mother, the brother and
the sister, the male and female lodger, do not scruple to commit acts in front of each other
which even the savage keeps hid from his fellows.”
The landowners of Scotland were unquestionably following self-interest as they burned
the cottages of their crofters; and self-interest motivated overseers as they whipped half-
starved child workers in England’s mills. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” no doubt guided
their actions in such a way as to maximize production. But whether a happy and just
society was created in this way is questionable. Certainly it was a society with large areas
of unhappiness and injustice. Self-interest alone was not enough. A society following purely
economic laws - a society where selfishness is exalted as the mainspring for action - lacks
both the ethical and ecological dimensions needed for social justice, widespread happiness,
and sustainability.

4.2 Our greed-based economic system today

Today our greed-based, war addicted, and growth-obsessed economic system poses even
greater threats than it did during the early phases of the Industrial Revolution. Today it
threatens to destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere.
According to a recently-published study by Oxfam, just 1 percent of the world’s pop-
ulation controls nearly half of the planet’s wealth. The study says that this tiny slice of
humanity controls 110 trillion US dollars, or 65 times the total wealth of the poorest 3.5
billion people. The world’s 85 richest people own as much as the poorest 50 percent of
humanity. 70 percent of the world’s people live in a country where income inequality has
increased in the past three decades.
This shocking disparity in wealth has lead to the decay of democracy in many countries,
because the very rich have used their money to control governments, and also to control
the mass media and hence to control public opinion. The actions of many governments
today tend not to reflect what is good for the people (or more crucially, what is good for
the future of our planet), but rather what is good for special interest groups, for example,
the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial complex.
Today the world spends roughly 1,700,000,000,000 US dollars on armaments, almost 2
trillion. This vast river of money, almost too great to be imagined, flows into the pockets
of arms manufacturers, and is used by them to control governments, which in turn vote for
bloated military budgets and aggressive foreign policies which provoke the endless crises
and conflicts that are necessary to justify the diversion of such vast sums of money from
urgently-needed social goals into the bottomless pit of war.
The reelection of the slave-like politicians is ensured by the huge sums made available
4.2. OUR GREED-BASED ECONOMIC SYSTEM TODAY 147

Figure 4.5: An oxymoron: The vultures of greed never protect the dove of peace.

for their campaigns by the military-industrial complex. This pernicious circular flow of
money, driving endless crises, has sometimes been called “The Devil’s Dynamo”. Thus
the world is continually driven to the brink of thermonuclear war by highly dangerous
interventions such as the recent ones in North Africa, the Middle East, Ukraine, South and
Central America, and the Korean Peninsula.
It is doubtful that any of the political or military figures involved with this arrogant
risking of human lives and the human future have any imaginative idea of what a thermonu-
clear war would be like. In fact it would be an ecological catastrophe of huge proportions,
making large areas of the world permanently uninhabitable through long-lived radioactive
contamination. The damage to global agriculture would be so great as to produce famine
leading to a billion or more deaths from starvation. All the nations of the earth would
suffer, neutrals as well as belligerents.
Besides supporting the appalling war machine, our bought-and-paid-for politicians also
fail to take the actions that would be needed to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
The owners of the fossil fuel industries have even mounted advertising campaigns to con-
vince the public that the threat of anthropogenic climate change is not real. Sadly, the
threat of catastrophic climate change is all too real, as 99 percent the worlds climate
scientists have warned.
The world has recently passed a dangerous landmark in atmospheric CO2 concentra-
tion, 400 ppm. The last time that the earth experienced such high concentrations of this
148 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

Figure 4.6: The ship in the cartoon is drawn so as to resemble the Titanic.

greenhouse gas were several million years ago. At that time the Arctic was free from ice,
and sea levels were 40 meters higher than they are today. Global warming is a slow and
long-term effect, so such high sea levels will be slow in arriving, but ultimately we must
expect that coastal cities and much of the world’s low-lying land will be under water. We
must also expect many tropical regions of the world to become uninhabitable because of
high temperatures. Finally there is a threat of famine because agriculture will be hit by
high temperatures and aridity.
There are several very dangerous feedback loops that may cause the earth’s tempera-
tures to rise much faster than has been predicted by the International Panel on Climate
Change. By far the most dangerous of these comes from the melting of methane hydrate
crystals that are currently trapped in frozen tundra and on the floor of seabeds.
At high pressures, methane combines with water to form crystals called hydrates or
clathrates. These crystals are stable at the temperatures currently existing on ocean floors,
but whenever the water temperature rises sufficiently, the crystals become unstable and
methane gas bubbles to the surface. This effect has already been observed in the Arctic seas
north of Russia. The total amount of methane clathrates on ocean floors is not precisely
known, but it is estimated to be very large indeed, corresponding to between 3,000 and
11,000 gigatons of carbon. The release of even a small fraction of this amount of methane
into our atmosphere would greatly accelerate rising temperatures, leading to the release of
still more methane, in a highly dangerous feedback loop. We must at all costs avoid global
temperatures which will cause this feedback loop to trigger in earnest.
4.2. OUR GREED-BASED ECONOMIC SYSTEM TODAY 149

Figure 4.7: Temperature changes will be greatest in the polar regions. Far
greater changes in global temperatures are to be expected in the 22nd and
23rd centuries and in subsequent centuries, because the thermal inertia of the
oceans makes climate change a very slow and long-term effect.

Figure 4.8: The isotope ratios in ice cores from the Greenland ice sheet allow
us to see the close correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and
temperatures over a very long period of time. Thus regardless of questions of
cause and effect, we can expect rising concentrations of CO2 to be accompanied
by rising temperatures. As we can see from the graphs, the rate of increase in
carbon emissions has shown no sign of slowing in recent years.
150 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

4.3 Human motivations were not always so selfish

For the reasons mentioned above, we can see that an economic system where selfishness
and greed are exalted as the mainspring for human actions lacks both a social conscience
and an ecological conscience. Both these dimensions are needed for the long-term survival
of human civilization and the biosphere.
We must remember, however, that the worship of the free market and the exaltation
of selfishness are relatively recent developments in human history. During most of their
million-year history, humans lived in small groups, not in great cities or nations, and
sharing was part of their lifestyle. Perhaps that lifestyle is the one to which we should
return if we wish the human future to stretch out for another million years.

4.4 Neocolonialism
In his book, “Neocolonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism” (Thomas Nielsen, London,
1965), Kwamai Nkrumah defined neocolonialism with the following words: “The essence of
neocolonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent, and has all
the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus
its political policy is directed from the outside. The methods and form of this direction
can take various shapes. For example, in an extreme case, the troops of the imperial power
may garrison the territory of the neocolonial State and control the government of it. More
often, however, neocolonial control is exercised through monetary means...”
“The struggle against neocolonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the de-
veloped world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the
financial power of the developed countries from being used in such a way as to impoverish
the less developed.”

4.5 The resource curse

The way in which the industrialized countries maintain their control over less developed
nations can be illustrated by the “resource curse”, i.e. the fact that resource-rich developing
countries are no better off economically than those that lack resources, but are cursed with
corrupt and undemocratic governments. This is because foreign corporations extracting
local resources under unfair agreements exist in a symbiotic relationship with corrupt local
officials.
One might think that taxation of foreign resource-extracting firms would provide de-
veloping countries with large incomes. However, there is at present no international law
governing multinational tax arrangements. These are usually agreed to on a bilateral basis,
and the industrialized countries have stronger bargaining powers in arranging the bilateral
agreements.
4.6. CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT-MAN 151

4.6 Confessions of an economic hit-man

1

A book by John Perkins, “Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man”, can give us an idea

of the way in which our economic system operates to further enrich wealthy nations and
impoverish poor ones. Here are some excerpts:
“Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around
the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into
the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the
planet’s natural resources.”
“Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion,
sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new
and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I was initially recruited while
I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the
nation’s largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private
corporations.”
“The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.,
the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew the government of Iran, a democratically elected
government, Mossadegh’s government, who was Time magazine’s person of the year; and
he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed, well, there was a little bloodshed,
but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with
the Shah of Iran.”
“At that point understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good
one. We didn’t have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this
way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government
employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been
very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the
C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to
work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that
if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.”

1
http://techrig.blogspot.dk/2013/11/confessions-of-economic-hit-man.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
152 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO
4.7. DEBT SLAVERY 153

4.7 Debt slavery

At the moment, the issue of debt slavery is in the news because of the predicament of
Greece and the intended fate of Ukraine, but the problem is a very general one.
If any quantity, for example indebtedness, is growing at the rate of 7% per year, the
doubling time is only 9.9 years. At higher rates of interest, the doubling time is still less.
If a debt remains unpaid for so long that it more than doubles, most of the repayments
will go for interest, rather than for reducing the amount of the debt.
In the case of the debts of third world countries to private banks in the industrialized
parts of the world and to the IMF, many of the debts were incurred in the 1970’s for
purposes which were of no benefit to local populations, for example purchase of military
hardware. Today the debts remain, although the amount paid over the years by the
developing countries is very many times the amount originally borrowed.
Third world debt can be regarded as a means by which the industrialized nations
extract raw materials from developing countries without any repayment whatever. In fact,
besides extracting raw materials, they extract money. The injustice of this arrangement
was emphasized recently by Pope Francis in his wonderful encyclical Laudato Si’.2
Dr. Michael Klare holds the post of Five Colleges Professor of Peace and World Security
Studies at Hampshire College, Amherst College, Smith College, Mount Holyoke College,
and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He has written 16 books exploring the
relationship between natural resources and war.3
Like Naomi Klein, Prof. Klare believes that the peace movement and the climate
movement ought to join forces.4

4.8 Blood for oil

There is a close relationship between petroleum and war. James A. Paul, Executive Direc-
tor of the Global Policy Forum, has described this relationship very clearly in the following
words:
“Modern warfare particularly depends on oil, because virtually all weapons systems rely
on oil-based fuel - tanks, trucks, armored vehicles, self-propelled artillery pieces, airplanes,
and naval ships. For this reason, the governments and general staffs of powerful nations
seek to ensure a steady supply of oil during wartime, to fuel oil-hungry military forces in
far-flung operational theaters.”
2
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/07/a-revolutionary-pope-calls-for-rethinking-the-outdated-criteria-
that-rule-the-world/
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/28/third-world-debt-undermines-development
3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCXgnbTdhNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-cdHIGFrF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIdlm4ywAlc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCXgnbTdhNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-cdHIGFrF0
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIdlm4ywAlc
154 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

Figure 4.9: Blood for oil.

“Just as governments like the US and UK need oil companies to secure fuel for their
global war-making capacity, so the oil companies need their governments to secure control
over global oilfields and transportation routes. It is no accident, then, that the world’s
largest oil companies are located in the world’s most powerful countries.”
“Almost all of the world’s oil-producing countries have suffered abusive, corrupt and un-
democratic governments and an absence of durable development. Indonesia, Saudi Arabia,
Libya, Iraq, Iran, Angola, Colombia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Mexico, Algeria - these and many
other oil producers have a sad record, which includes dictatorships installed from abroad,
bloody coups engineered by foreign intelligence services, militarization of government and
intolerant right-wing nationalism.”
Iraq, in particular, has been the scene of a number of wars motivated by the West’s
thirst for oil. During World War I, 1914-1918, the British captured the area (then known
as Mesopotamia) from the Ottoman Empire after four years of bloody fighting. Although
Lord Curzon denied that the British conquest of Mesopotamia was motivated by oil, there
4.8. BLOOD FOR OIL 155

is ample evidence that British policy was indeed motivated by a desire for control of the
region’s petroleum. For example, Curzon’s Cabinet colleague Sir Maurice Hankey stated in
a private letter that oil was “a first-class war aim”. Furthermore, British forces continued
to fight after the signing of the Murdos Armistice. In this way, they seized Mosul, the
capital of a major oil-producing region, thus frustrating the plans of the French, who had
been promised the area earlier in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement.
Lord Curzon was well aware of the military importance of oil, and following the end of
the First World War he remarked: “The Allied cause has floated to victory on a wave of
oil”.
During the period between 1918 and 1930, fierce Iraqi resistance to the occupation
was crushed by the British, who used poison gas, airplanes, incendiary bombs, and mobile
armored cars, together with forces drawn from the Indian Army. Winston Churchill, who
was Colonial Secretary at the time, regarded the conflict in Iraq as an important test of
modern military-colonial methods.
In 1932, Britain granted nominal independence to Iraq, but kept large military forces
in the country and maintained control of it through indirect methods. In 1941, however,
it seemed likely that Germany might try to capture the Iraqi oilfields, and therefore the
British again seized direct political power in Iraq by means of military force. It was not
only Germany that Britain feared, but also US attempts to gain access to Iraqi oil.
The British fear of US interest in Iraqi oil was soon confirmed by events. In 1963 the
US secretly backed a military coup in Iraq that brought Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party
to power. In 1979 the western-backed Shah of Iran was overthrown, and the United States
regarded the fundamentalist Shi’ite regime that replaced him as a threat to supplies of
oil from Saudi Arabia. Washington saw Saddam’s Iraq as a bulwark against the militant
Shi’ite extremism of Iran that was threatening oil supplies from pro-American states such
as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
In 1980, encouraged to do so by the fact that Iran had lost its US backing, Saddam
Hussein’s government attacked Iran. This was the start of a extremely bloody and de-
structive war that lasted for eight years, inflicting almost a million casualties on the two
nations. Iraq used both mustard gas and the nerve gases Tabun and Sarin against Iran, in
violation of the Geneva Protocol.
Both the United States and Britain helped Saddam Hussein’s government to obtain
chemical weapons. A chemical plant, called Falluja 2, was built by Britain in 1985, and
this plant was used to produce mustard gas and nerve gas. Also, according to the Riegel
Report to the US Senate, May 25, (1994), the Reagan Administration turned a blind eye
to the export of chemical weapon precursors to Iraq, as well as anthrax and plague cultures
that could be used as the basis for biological weapons. According to the Riegel Report,
“records available from the supplier for the period 1985 until the present show that during
this time, pathogenic (meaning disease producing) and toxigenic (meaning poisonous),
and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq perusant to application and
licensing by the US Department of Commerce.”
In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld, Reagan’s newly appointed Middle East Envoy, visited Sad-
dam Hussein to assure him of America’s continuing friendship, despite Iraqi use of poison
156 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

gas. When (in 1988) Hussein went so far as to use poison gas against civilian citizens of
his own country in the Kurdish village of Halabja, the United States worked to prevent in-
ternational condemnation of the act. Indeed US support for Saddam was so unconditional
that he obtained the false impression that he had a free hand to do whatever he liked in
the region.
On July 25, 1990, US Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein to discuss oil
prices and how to improve US-Iraq relations. According to the transcript of the meeting,
Ms Glaspie assured Saddam that the US “had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts,
like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” She then left on vacation. Mistaking this
conversation for a green light, Saddam invaded Kuwait eight days later.
By invading Kuwait, Hussein severely worried western oil companies and governments,
since Saudi Arabia might be next in line. As George Bush senior said in 1990, at the time
of the Gulf War, “Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom and the freedom of friendly
countries around the world would all suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell
into the hands of Saddam Hussein.”
On August 6, 1990, the UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanc-
tions against Iraq with the aim of forcing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Meanwhile, US
Secretary of State James A. Baker III used arm- twisting methods in the Security Council
to line up votes for UN military action against Iraq. In Baker’s own words, he undertook
the process of “cajoling, extracting, threatening and occasionally buying votes”.
On November 29, 1990, the Council passed Resolution 678, authorizing the use of “all
necessary means” (by implication also military means) to force Iraq to withdraw from
Kuwait. There was nothing at all wrong with this, since the Security Council had been
set up by the UN Charter to prevent states from invading their neighbors. However, one
can ask whether the response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait would have been so
wholehearted if oil had not been involved.
There is much that can be criticized in the way that the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was
carried out. Besides military targets, the US and its allies bombed electrical generation
facilities with the aim of creating postwar leverage over Iraq. The electrical generating
plants would have to be rebuilt with the help of foreign technical assistance, and this help
could be traded for postwar compliance. In the meantime, hospitals and water-purification
4.8. BLOOD FOR OIL 157

plants were without electricity. Also, during the Gulf War, a large number of projectiles
made of depleted uranium were fired by allied planes and tanks. The result was a sharp
increase in cancer in Iraq. Finally, both Shi’ites and Kurds were encouraged by the Allies
to rebel against Saddam Hussein’s government, but were later abandoned by the allies and
slaughtered by Saddam.
The most terrible misuse of power, however, was the US and UK insistence the sanctions
against Iraq should remain in place after the end of the Gulf War. These two countries used
their veto power in the Security Council to prevent the removal of the sanctions. Their
motive seems to have been the hope that the economic and psychological impact would
provoke the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam. However that brutal dictator remained
firmly in place, supported by universal fear of his police and by massive propaganda. The
effect of the sanctions was to produce more than half a million deaths of children under
five years of age, as is documented by UNICEF data. The total number of deaths that
the sanctions produced among Iraqi civilians probably exceeded a million, if older children
and adults are included.
Ramsey Clark, who studied the effects of the sanctions in Iraq from 1991 onwards,
wrote to the Security Council that most of the deaths “are from the effects of malnu-
trition including marasmas and kwashiorkor, wasting or emaciation which has reached
twelve per cent of all children, stunted growth which affects twenty-eight per cent, diar-
rhea, dehydration from bad water or food, which is ordinarily easily controlled and cured,
common communicable diseases preventable by vaccinations, and epidemics from deteri-
orating sanitary conditions. There are no deaths crueler than these. They are suffering
slowly, helplessly, without simple remedial medication, without simple sedation to relieve
pain, without mercy.”
On the morning of September 11, 2001, two hijacked airliners were deliberately crashed
into New York’s World Trade Center, causing the collapse of three skyscrapers and the
deaths of more than three thousand people. Almost simultaneously, another hijacked
airliner was driven into the Pentagon in Washington DC, and a fourth hijacked plane
crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. The fourth plane probably was to have made a suicide
attack on the White House or the Capitol, but passengers on the airliner became aware
what was happening through their mobile telephones, and they overpowered the hijackers.

Blame for the September 11 attacks soon centered on the wealthy Saudi Arabian Is-
lamic extremist, Osama bin Laden, and on his terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. In a later
statement acknowledging responsibility for the terrorist attacks, bin Laden gave as his
main reasons firstly the massive US support for Israel, a country that, in his view, was
committing atrocities against the Palestinians, and secondly the presence of US troops in
Saudi Arabia.
Like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden was an ex-protegé of the CIA, by whom he had
previously been armed, trained, and supported. The history of bin Laden’s relationship
with the CIA began in 1979, when the CIA, acting through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intel-
ligence Agency, began to train and arm the Mujaheddin, an international force of Islamic
fundamentalists who were encouraged to attack Afghanistan’s secular socialist government.
158 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bryzinski anticipated that the Soviets would
respond by sending troops to protect the socialist government of Afghanistan, and he
believed that the resulting war would be the Soviet Union’s version of Viet Nam: It would
be a war that would fatally weaken the Soviet Union. Thus he saw the war that he
was provoking in Afghanistan as an important step in the liberation of Eastern Europe.
“What is most important in the history of the world?”, Polish-born Bryzinski asked in
a 1998 interview, “The Taliban, or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up
Muslims, or the liberation of central Europe...?” It was, in fact, these same “stirred-up
Muslims” who guided two hijacked aircraft into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.
During the spring of 2003, our television and newspapers presented us with the spectacle
of an attack by two technologically superior powers on a much less industrialized nation,
a nation with an ancient and beautiful culture. The ensuing war was one-sided. Missiles
guided by laser beams and signals from space satellites were more than a match for less
sophisticated weapons.
Speeches were made to justify the attack. It was said to be needed because of weapons
of mass destruction (some countries are allowed to have them, others not). It was said
to be necessary to get rid of a cruel dictator (whom the attacking powers had previously
supported and armed). But the suspicion remained that the attack was resource-motivated.
It was about oil.
Looking at the present and threatened conflicts in the Middle East against the back-
ground of this history, must we not ask: To what extent are they too about oil?
“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.”

Hilaire Beloc
4.9. EXCESSIVE INEQUALITY MAINTAINED BY MILITARY FORCE 159

4.9 Excessive inequality maintained by military force

The excessive inequality that we can see today, both within countries and between coun-
tries, has many harmful effects, and these are experienced by both poor and rich. For
example, crime, drug use, and mental illness are much more common in very unequal
societies.
On a global scale, the vast chasm of economic inequality between countries blocks efforts
to make the United Nations more effective, since rich countries fear that a more effective
UN will rob them of their privileged position.
We must also remember that inequality between nations is often maintained by means
of military force, regime-change, and interference by powerful nations in the internal affairs
of weaker ones.

4.10 Oxfam’s report on inequality

A recent report by Oxfam5 has revealed that the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s
population has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010, a drop of 38%. Meanwhile, the
wealth of the richest 62 people in the world has increased to 1.76 trillion dollars. In fact,
the wealthiest 62 individuals now own more than the poorest half of the world’s population.
Enormous contrasts exist today, not only between nations, but also within nations.
Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam’s International Executive Director stated that “It is simply
unacceptable that the poorest half of the world’s population owns no more than a few
dozen super-rich people who could fit onto one bus. World leaders’ concern about the
escalating inequality has so far not translated into concrete action; the world has become
a much more unequal place, and the trend is accelerating. We cannot continue to allow
hundreds of millions of people to go hungry while resources that could be used to help
them are sucked up by those at the top.”
Speaking at the Davos Forum in Switzerland, she continued: “I challenge the govern-
ments and elites at Davos to play their part in in ending the era of tax havens, which
is fueling economic inequality and preventing hundreds of millions of people from lifting
themselves out of poverty. Multinational companies and wealthy elites are playing by dif-
ferent rules than everyone else, refusing to pay the taxes that society needs to function.
The fact that 188 of 201 leading companies have a presence in at least one tax haven shows
that it it time to act.”
Oxfam estimates that globally, 7.6 trillion dollars of individual’s wealth sits offshore,
and this includes as much as 38% of African financial wealth.

5
https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-1
160 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

4.11 Persistent effects of colonialism

Part of the extreme economic inequality that exists in today’s world is due to colonial and
neocolonial wars.
The Industrial Revolution opened up an enormous gap in military strength between
the industrialized nations and the rest of the world. Taking advantage of their superior
weaponry, Europe, the United States and Japan rapidly carved up the remainder of the
world into colonies, which acted as sources of raw materials and food, and as markets
for manufactured goods. Between 1800 and 1914, the percentage of the earth under the
domination of colonial powers increased to 85 percent, if former colonies are included.
The English economist and Fabian, John Atkinson Hobson (1858-1940), offered a fa-
mous explanation of the colonial era in his book “Imperialism: A Study” (1902). According
to Hobson, the basic problem that led to colonial expansion was an excessively unequal
distribution of incomes in the industrialized countries. The result of this unequal distribu-
tion was that neither the rich nor the poor could buy back the total output of their society.
The incomes of the poor were insufficient, and rich were too few in number. The rich had
finite needs, and tended to reinvest their money. As Hobson pointed out, reinvestment in
new factories only made the situation worse by increasing output.
Hobson had been sent as a reporter by the Manchester Guardian to cover the Second
Boer War. His experiences had convinced him that colonial wars have an economic motive.
Such wars are fought, he believed, to facilitate investment of the excess money of the rich
in African or Asian plantations and mines, and to make possible the overseas sale of excess
manufactured goods. Hobson believed imperialism to be immoral, since it entails suffering
both among colonial peoples and among the poor of the industrial nations. The cure that
he recommended was a more equal distribution of incomes in the manufacturing countries.

Neocolonialism?
In his book, Neocolonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism (Thomas Nielsen, London,
1965), Kwami Nkrumah defined neocolonialism with the following words: “The essence of
neocolonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory independent, and has all
the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus
its political policy is directed from the outside. The methods and form of this direction
can take various shapes. For example, in an extreme case, the troops of the imperial power
may garrison the territory of the neocolonial State and control the government of it. More
often, however, neocolonial control is exercised through monetary means... The struggle
against neocolonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from
operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the
developed countries from being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.”
4.11. PERSISTENT EFFECTS OF COLONIALISM 161

Figure 4.10: A late 19th century French cartoon showing England, Germany,
Russia, France and Japan slicing up the pie of China. (Public domain)
162 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

Figure 4.11: A cartoon showing Cecil Rhodes’ colonial ambitions for Africa. The
thread in his hands represents a proposed Cape-Town-to-Cairo telegraph line.
He wanted to “paint the map British red”, and declared, “If I could, I would
annex other planets.” (Public domain)
4.12. HISTORICAL CONFLICTS RELATED TO WATER 163

4.12 Historical conflicts related to water

Here are some excerpts from a very large list given on the following website:

http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/list/

• 1938, China floods Yellow River to defend from Japan: Chiang Kai-shek
orders the destruction of flood-control dikes of the Huayuankou, Henan
section of the Huang He (Yellow) River, in order to flood areas threatened
by the Japanese army. West of Kaifeng, dikes are destroyed with dyna-
mite, spilling water across the flat plain. Even though the flood destroys
part of the invading army and mires its equipment in mud, Wuhan, the
headquarters of the Nationalist government is taken by the Japanese in
October. Floodwaters cover an area variously estimated as between 3,000
and 50,000 square kilometers, and kill Chinese estimated in numbers be-
tween “tens of thousands” and “one million.”

• 1941-1943, WWII damages Soviet’s hydroelectric dams: World War II

inflicts enormous harm to hydroelectricity systems in the Soviet Union.
Over two-thirds of the hydroelectric power stations are lost.

• 1947-1960s, Indus divided between India and Pakistan: Partition leaves

Indus basin divided between India and Pakistan; disputes over irrigation
water ensue, during which India stems flow of water into irrigation canals
in Pakistan. Indus Waters Agreement reached in 1960 after 12 years of
World Bank-led negotiations.

• 1951, Israel and Syria fight over Yarmouk River: ordan makes public
its plans to irrigate the Jordan Valley by tapping the Yarmouk River;
Israel responds by commencing drainage of the Huleh swamps located in
the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria; border skirmishes ensue
between Israel and Syria.

• 1962-1967, Brazil and Paraguay clash over Paraná River: Negotiations

between Brazil and Paraguay over the development of the Paraná River
are interrupted by a unilateral show of military force by Brazil in 1962,
which invades the area and claims control over the Guadalajara Falls site.
Military forces are withdrawn in 1967 following an agreement for a joint
commission to examine development in the region.

• 1975, Iraq, Syria mobilize troops over drought tensions: As upstream

dams are filled during a low-flow year on the Euphrates, Iraqis claim
that flow reaching its territory is “intolerable” and asks the Arab League
to intervene. Syrians claim they are receiving less than half the river’s
normal flow and pull out of an Arab League technical committee formed
164 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

to mediate the conflict. In May Syria closes its airspace to Iraqi flights and
both Syrian and Iraq reportedly transfer troops to their mutual border.
Saudi Arabia successfully mediates the conflict.

• 1978 onwards, Egypt threatens Ethiopia over Nile plans: Long standing
tensions over the Nile, especially the Blue Nile, originate in Ethiopia.
Ethiopia’s proposed construction of dams on the headwaters of the Blue
Nile leads Egypt to repeatedly declare the vital importance of water. “The
only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water’ (Anwar Sadat,
1979). “The next war in our region will be over the waters of the Nile,
not politics” (Boutros Boutros-Ghali, 1988).

• 1990-1991, Attacks on energy systems in Iraq leaves cities without water:

During the Gulf War, targeted attacks on transformers and turbines at
water treatment plants leave whole cities, such as Basra, without water
or wastewater treatment. And due to embargos, parts needed to fix the
plants are not available. It is estimated that at least 25% of water treat-
ment plants in Iraq do not have backup power supply and are inoperable
after electrical grids are damaged. Human Rights Watch 1991

• 1991-2001, US sanctions against Iraq target water systems: United States

deliberately pursues policy of destroying Iraq’s water systems through
sanctions and withholding contracts.
4.12. HISTORICAL CONFLICTS RELATED TO WATER 165
166 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO
4.12. HISTORICAL CONFLICTS RELATED TO WATER 167
168 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

4.13 Conflicts over water in the Middle East

Here are some quotations from an article by Sagatom Saha entitled How climate change
could exacerbate conflicts in the Middle East6

“Global warming will do the Middle East no favors. Evidence abounds it

will be the region that climate change will hit hardest. Summer temperatures
across the region are expected to increase more than twice the global average.
Prolonged heat waves, desertification, and droughts will make parts of the Mid-
dle East and North Africa uninhabitable. Where Middle Easterners will still
be able to live, climate change may fuel violent competition over diminishing
resources. Even though some degree of warming is inevitable, governments in
the region and their international partners have done little to integrate climate
change to their strategies to mitigate instability and conflict. Instead, they
should brace themselves for a Middle East in which warming intensifies unrest,
weakens state capacity, and provokes resource conflicts.
“For an early example of warming’s damaging power, look no further than
Syria. Climate change caused the generational drought that preceded the on-
going civil war there. That drought drove rural farmers into urban centers
like Damascus and Aleppo, priming the populace for concentrated, large-scale
political unrest. From 2002 to 2010, the country’s total urban population in-
creased by 50 percent. While climate change certainly did not compel Bashar
Al-Assad to brutally crack down on his own people, it did prompt a confronta-
tion that might not have occurred. Climate-induced economic despair and
migration worked to reinforce other salient conflict drivers including Assad’s
“privatization” efforts and concentration of power that exaggerated inequality
and severed the dictator’s connection to rural, recently migrated communi-
ties. As climate change causes rapid temperature increases, food shortages,
and economic pain elsewhere, more Middle Eastern countries might tip over
into bloodshed.
“Climate-induced water shortages will be another source of conflict. When
the Islamic State controlled large swathes of territory across Iraq and Syria, it
wrested control of dams that provided drinking water, electricity, and irrigation
to millions along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Ensuing clashes with Kurdish
and Iraqi forces left Shiite holy cities like Karbala and Najaf without water.
More than 23 million live in the river basin, and experts predict that, because
of global warming, the Tigris and Euphrates will “disappear this century,”
making conflict over what remains even more tempting if contested political
control returns to the Fertile Crescent.
“Further, climate change will likely make Middle Eastern governments less
6
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/how-climate-change-could-exacerbate-conflict-in-
the-middle-east/
4.13. CONFLICTS OVER WATER IN THE MIDDLE EAST 169

capable of handling unrest. First, more frequent weather events will surely
put a drag on resource delivery and create new emergency relief needs. In the
Middle East where foreign assistance is often critical, donors may have to work
double time to continue to fund stabilization and governance projects while
also providing more humanitarian disaster aid.
“Second, oil producers will have fewer resources as oil receipts contract
amid the inevitable global clean energy transition that will accompany cli-
mate action. Take the fact that worsening climate change is already driving a
global transition toward clean energy. In November 2018, even while pursu-
ing close cooperation with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC), Russian President Vladimir Putin openly declared that “$70 suits us
completely,” referring to an ideal oil price for his country. Unlike his Middle
Eastern partners, Putin seems to acknowledge that OPEC oil will face market
competition from renewables and US shale if it reaches too high a price.
“In countries where the social contract rests upon limited political freedom
in exchange for subsidies and extravagant public works, there will be less money
to go around, and it cannot be expected to go as far. Such is the case in
Algeria, where street demonstrations have forced the country’s ailing leader,
Abdelaziz Bouteflika, to step down. Protesters’ grievances are, in part, tied
to the oil, which funded social benefits that buoyed youth employment until
prices crashed.
“While countries like Saudi Arabia have the financial capacity to likely
weather the storm, worry should be aimed squarely at unstable oil producers
like Iraq and Libya, which require extraordinarily oil prices to fund budgets.
It is true that oil is a valuable, concentrated resource that factions compete
for in the region, but it may be a necessary source of reconstruction funding
once conflict abates. In the best case, foreign assistance continues to come
from western governments like the United States that still rely on the global
flow of oil to some degree. In the worst case, donor governments abdicate their
support as the mass deployment of wind turbines, solar panels, and electric
vehicles become more feasible and affordable. The consequences could be lock-
ing in the fragility of the region’s current conflict zones: Even though Libyan
militias fight to control oil infrastructure now, it is hard to imagine the country
funding its own reconstruction in the future unless oil returns to a higher price.

“Climate change might also have the Middle East’s governments warier of
their neighbors. Resource scarcity within a country can provoke nationwide
unrest, but competition over transboundary resources can elevate even higher
to bellicose levels. Knowing that water will become scarcer, it is instructive to
understand how Middle Eastern neighbors are already handling disputes over
water needed for irrigation, drinking, and hydropower production.
“The Nile River Basin provides one worrying example. Since 2011, Ethiopia
has been constructing its Grand Renaissance Dam in a bid to become a regional
170 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

electricity exporter. However, the dam will slash downstream flow to Egypt by
25 percent. Cairo alleges that the dam will interrupt water supplies to its nearly
100 million people. While Ethiopia and Egypt are currently in negotiations,
Egyptian officials have been caught considering military action over the dispute
as recently as 2013. The current Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has
openly declared the dam “a matter of life and death,” highlighting its continued
importance. Climate change, which threatens to disrupt the Nile’s flows, stands
to make an already tense situation worse.
“Admittedly, direct conflict between Middle Eastern countries has become
rarer, but proxy wars are common, featuring in nearly all the region’s civil wars.
Water has already featured in at least one of them: Historically, Damascus has
leveraged support for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a group loathed
by Istanbul, to force Turkey to share Euphrates waters to Syria. Nearly every
country in the Middle East from Morocco to Iran share water resources with
a neighbor, and some have little freshwater of their own. What has played
out between Egypt and Sudan and between Turkey and Syria could become a
frequent feature of Middle Eastern politics as water becomes even more scarce.”

4.14 Concluding remarks

From the discussion presented above, we can see that our present economic system produces
an endless series of resource-motivated wars. In addition to the enormous suffering, waste,
injustice and ecological destruction produced by modern wars, we must recognize that in
an era of thermonuclear weapons, war has become prohibitively dangerous. Therefore we
need a new economic system.

Suggestions for additional reading

1. P.B. Smith, J.D. Schilling and A.P. Haines, Introduction and Summary, in Draft
Report of the Pugwash Study Group: The World at the Crossroads, Berlin, (1992).
2. World Resources Institute, World Resources, Oxford University Press, New York,
(published annually).
3. J.R. Craig, D.J. Vaughan and B.J. Skinner, Resources of the Earth: Origin, Use and
Environmental Impact, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, (2001).
4. W. Youngquist, Geodestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources Over Na-
tions and Individuals, National Book Company, Portland Oregon, (1997).
5. M. Tanzer, The Race for Resources. Continuing Struggles Over Minerals and Fuels,
Monthly Review Press, New York, (1980).
6. C.B. Reed, Fuels, Minerals and Human Survival, Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,
Ann Arbor Michigan, (1975).
4.14. CONCLUDING REMARKS 171

7. A.A. Bartlett, Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis, American Journal of Physics,
46, 876-888, (1978).
8. N. Gall, We are Living Off Our Capital, Forbes, September, (1986).
9. E.J. Hobsbawn, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914, Vintage Books, (1989).
10. L. James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, St Martin’s Press, (1997).
11. N. Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the
Lessons for Global Power, Basic Books, (2003).
12. S. Schama, The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, Miramax, (2002).
13. A.P. Thorton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies: A Study in British Power, Pal-
grave Macmillan, (1985).
14. H. Mejcher, Imperial Quest for Oil: Iraq, 1910-1928, Ithaca Books, London, (1976).
15. P. Sluglett, Britain in Iraq, 1914-1932, Ithaca Press, London, (1976).
16. D.E. Omissi, British Air Power and Colonial Control in Iraq, 1920-1925, Manchester
University Press, Manchester, (1990).
17. V.G. Kiernan, Colonial Empires and Armies, 1815-1960, Sutton, Stroud, (1998).
18. R. Solh, Britain’s 2 Wars With Iraq, Ithaca Press, Reading, (1996).
19. D. Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict, Routledge, New York,
(1991).
20. T.E. Lawrence, A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence, Sunday Times, August
22, (1920).
21. D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the
Creation of the Modern Middle East, Owl Books, (2001).
22. T. Rajamoorthy, Deceit and Duplicity: Some Reflections on Western Intervention in
Iraq, Third World Resurgence, March-April, (2003).
23. P. Knightley and C. Simpson, The Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Lon-
don, (1969).
24. G. Lenczowski, The Middle East in World Affairs, Cornell University Press, (1962).
25. John A. Hobson, Imperialism; A Study, (1902).
26. P. Cain and T. Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688-200, Longman, (2000).
27. N. Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the
Lessons for Global Power, Basic Books, (2003).
28. G. Kolko, Another Century of War, New Press, (2002).
29. G. Kolko, Confronting the Third World: United States Foreign Policy, 1945-1980,
Pantheon Books, (1988).
30. M.T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Owl Books
reprint edition, New York, (2002).
31. Y. Nakash, The Shi’is of Iraq, Princeton University Press, (1994).
32. D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the
Creation of the Modern Middle East, Owl Books, (2001).
33. S.K. Aburish, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, Bloomsbury, London,
(2001).
34. M. Muffti, Sovereign Creations: Pan-Arabism and Political Order in Syria and Iraq,
Cornell University Press, (1996).
172 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

35. C. Clover, Lessons of the 1920 Revolt Lost on Bremer, Financial Times, November
17, (2003).
36. J. Kifner, Britain Tried First. Iraq Was No Picnic Then, New York Times, July 20,
(2003).
37. J. Feffer, B. Egrenreich and M.T. Klare, Power Trip: US Unilateralism and Global
Strategy After September 11, Seven Stories Press, (2003).
38. J.D. Rockefeller, Random Reminiscences of Men and Events, Doubleday, New York,
(1909).
39. M.B. Stoff, Oil, War and American Security: The Search for a National Policy on
Oil, 1941-1947, Yale University Press, New Haven, (1980).
40. W.D. Muscable, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1992).
41. J. Stork, Middle East Oil and the Energy Crisis, Monthly Review, New York, (1976).
42. F. Benn, Oil Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, St. Martin’s Press, New York,
(1986).
43. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
44. K. Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran, McGraw-Hill, New
York, (1979).
45. J. Fitchett and D. Ignatius, Lengthy Elf Inquiry Nears Explosive Finish, International
Herald Tribune, February 1, (2002).
46. M.T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Owl Books
reprint edition, New York, (2002).
47. M. Klare, Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil, For-
eign Policy in Focus, (Interhemispheric Resource Center/Institute for Policy Stud-
ies/SEEN), Washington DC and Silver City NM, January, (2004).
48. M. Klare, Endless Military Superiority, The Nation magazine, July 15, (2002).
49. M.T. Klare, Geopolitics Reborn: The Global Struggle Over Oil and Gas Pipelines,
Current History, December issue, 428-33, (2004).
50. P. Grose, Allen Dulles: The Life of a Gentleman Spy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
(1994).
51. S. Warren, Exxon’s Profit Surged in 4th Quarter, Wall Street Journal, February 12,
(2004).
52. R. Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Edu-
cation of Paul O’Neill, Simon and Schuster, New York, (2004).
53. D. Morgan and D.B. Ottaway, In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is Key Issue as U.S.
Drillers Eye Huge petroleum Pool, Washington Post, September 15, (2002).
54. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraqi War, The Observer, April 4,
(2004).
55. E. Vulliamy, P. Webster and N.P. Walsh, Scramble to Carve Up Iraqi Oil Reserves
Lies Behind US Diplomacy, The Observer, October 6, (2002).
56. Y. Ibrahim, Bush’s Iraq Adventure is Bound to Backfire, International Herald Tri-
bune, November 1, (2002).
4.14. CONCLUDING REMARKS 173

57. P. Beaumont and F. Islam, Carve-Up of Oil Riches Begins, The Observer, November
3, (2002).
58. M. Dobbs, US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post, December 30, (2002).
59. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
60. R. Morris, A Tyrant Forty Years in the Making, New York Times, March 14, (2003).
61. H. Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Prince-
ton University Press, (1978).
62. D.W. Riegel, Jr., and A.M. D’Amato, US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related
Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of
the Persian Gulf War, Report to US Senate (“The Riegel Report”), May 25, (1994).
63. P.E. Tyler, Officers Say US Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas, New York Times,
August 18, (2002).
64. D. Priest, Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show,
Washington Post, December 19, (2003).
65. S. Zunes, Saddam’s Arrest Raises Troubling Questions, Foreign Policy in Focus,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/, December (2003).
66. D. Leigh and J. Hooper, Britain’s Dirty Secret, Guardi an, March 6, (2003).
67. J. Battle, (Ed.), Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein: The US Tilts Towards Iraq,
1980-1984, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, February 25,
(2003).
68. J.R. Hiltermann, America Didn’t Seem to Mind Poison Gas, International Herald
Tribune, January 17, (2003).
69. D. Hiro, Iraq and Poison Gas, Nation, August 28, (2002).
70. T. Weiner, Iraq Uses Techniques in Spying Against its Former Tutor, the US, Philadel-
phia Inquirer, February 5, (1991).
71. S. Hussein and A. Glaspie, Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with US Envoy,
The New York Times, International, September 23, (1990).
72. D. Omissi, Baghdad and British Bombers, Guardian, January 19, (1991).
73. D. Vernet, Postmodern Imperialism, Le Monde, April 24, (2003).
74. J. Buchan, Miss Bell’s Lines in the Sand, Guardian, March 12, (2003).
75. C. Tripp, Iraq: The Imperial Precedent, Le Monde Diplomatique, January, (2003).
76. G.H.W. Bush and B. Scowcroft, Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam, Time, 2 March,
(1998).
77. J.A. Baker III, The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace, 1989-1992,
G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, (1995).
78. H. Thomas, Preventive War Sets Serious Precedent, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March
20, (2003).
79. R.J. Barnet, Intervention and Revolution: The United States in the Third World,
World Publishing, (1968).
80. T. Bodenheimer and R. Gould, Rollback: Right-wing Power in U.S. Foreign Policy,
South End Press, (1989).
81. G. Guma, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do, Toward
Freedom, (2003).
174 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

82. W. Blum, A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present, Z magazine,
June, (1999).
83. W. Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II
84. J.M. Cypher, The Iron Triangle: The New Military Buildup, Dollars and Sense mag-
azine, January/February, (2002).
85. L. Meyer, The Power of One, (World Press Review), Reforma, Mexico City, August
5, (1999).
86. W. Hartung, F. Berrigan and M. Ciarrocca, Operation Endless Deployment: The
War With Iraq Is Part of a Larger Plan for Global Military Dominance, The Nation
magazine, October 21, (2002).
87. I. Ramonet, Servile States, Le Monde diplomatique, Fromkin Paris, October (2002),
World Press Review, December, (2002).
88. J.K. Galbraith, The Unbearable Costs of Empire, American Prospect magazine,
November, (2002).
89. G. Monbiot, The Logic of Empire, The Guardian, August 6, (2002), World Press
Review, October, (2002).
90. W.R. Pitt, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, Pluto Press, (2003).
91. J. Wilson, Republic or Empire?, The Nation magazine, March 3, (2003).
92. W.B. Gallie, Understanding War: Points of Conflict, Routledge, London, (1991).
93. R. Falk and S.S. Kim, eds., The War System: An Interdisciplinary Approach, West-
view, Boulder, CO, (1980).
94. J.D. Clarkson and T.C. Cochran, eds., War as a Social Institution, Colombia Uni-
versity Press, New York, (1941).
95. S. Melman, The Permanent War Economy, Simon and Schuster, (1974). Morgan
96. H. Mejcher, Imperial Quest for Oil: Iraq, 1910-1928, Ithaca Books, London, (1976).
97. D. Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict, Routledge, New York,
(1991).
98. M. Klare, Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil, For-
eign Policy in Focus, (Interhemispheric Resource Center/Institute for Policy Stud-
ies/SEEN), Washington DC and Silver City NM, January, (2004).
99. J. Fitchett and D. Ignatius, Lengthy Elf Inquiry Nears Explosive Finish, International
Herald Tribune, February 1, (2002).
100. T. Rajamoorthy, Deceit and Duplicity: Some Reflections on Western Intervention in
Iraq, Third World Resurgence, March-April, (2003).
101. P. Knightley and C. Simpson, The Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Lon-
don, (1969).
102. G. Lenczowski, The Middle East in World Affairs, Cornell University Press, (1962).
103. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraq War, Observer, April 4, (2004).
104. B. Gellman, Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy
Went Beyond Purely Military Targets, Washington Post, June 23, (1991).
105. M. Fletcher and M. Theodoulou, Baker Says Sanctions Must Stay as Long as Saddam
Holds Power, Times, May 23, (1991).
4.14. CONCLUDING REMARKS 175

106. J. Pienaar and L. Doyle, UK Maintains Tough Line on Sanctions Against Iraq, In-
dependent, May 11, (1991).
107. B. Blum (translator), Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski Admits: Afghan Is-
lamism Was Made in Washington, Nouvel Observateur, January 15, (1998).
108. G. Vidal, Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta, Thunder’s
Mouth Press, (2002).
109. H. Thomas, Preventive War Sets Serious Precedent, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March
20, (2003).
110. C. Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Repub-
lic, Henry Hold and Company, New York, (2004).
111. C. Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Henry
Hold and Company, New York, (2000).
112. M. Parenti, Against Empire: The Brutal Realities of U.S. Global Domination, City
Lights Books, 261 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA94133, (1995).
113. E. Ahmad, Confronting Empire, South End Press, (2000).
114. W. Greider, Fortress America, Public Affairs Press, (1998).
115. J. Pilger, Hidden Agendas, The New Press, (1998).
116. S.R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis, South End Press, (1993).
117. C. Boggs (editor), Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American
Empire, Routledge, (2003).
118. J. Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, Verso, (2992).
119. G. Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, Thun-
der’s Mouth Press, (2002).
120. W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, Common Courage
Press, (2000).
121. M. Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10010, (1989).
122. T. Bodenheimer and R. Gould, Rollback: Right-wing Power in U.S. Foreign Policy,
South End Press, (1989).
123. G. Guma, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do, Toward
Freedom, (2003).
124. W. Blum, A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present, Z magazine,
June, (1999).
125. W. Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II
126. J.M. Cypher, The Iron Triangle: The New Military Buildup, Dollars and Sense mag-
azine, January/February, (2002).
127. L. Meyer, The Power of One, (World Press Review), Reforma, Mexico City, August
5, (1999).
128. C. Johnson, Time to Bring the Troops Home, The Nation magazine, May 14, (2001).
129. W. Hartung, F. Berrigan and M. Ciarrocca, Operation Endless Deployment: The
War With Iraq Is Part of a Larger Plan for Global Military Dominance, The Nation
magazine, October 21, (2002).
176 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

130. C. Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Repub-
lic, Henry Hold and Company, New York, (2004).
131. C. Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Henry
Hold and Company, New York, (2000).
132. I. Ramonet, Servile States, Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, October (2002), World
Press Review, December, (2002).
133. J.K. Galbraith, The Unbearable Costs of Empire, American Prospect magazine,
November, (2002).
134. G. Monbiot, The Logic of Empire, The Guardian, August 6, (2002), World Press
Review, October, (2002).
135. W.R. Pitt and S. Ritter, War on Iraq, Context Books
136. W.R. Pitt, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, Pluto Press, (2003).
137. J. Wilson, Republic or Empire?, The Nation magazine, March 3, (2003).
138. R. Dreyfuss, Just the Beginning: Is Iraq the Opening Salvo in a War to Remake the
World?, The American Prospect magazine, April, (2003).
139. D. Moberg, The Road From Baghdad: The Bush Team Has Big Plans For the 21st
Century. Can the Rest of the World Stop Them?, These Times magazine, May,
(2003).
140. J.M. Blair, The Control of Oil, Random House, New York, (1976).
141. R.S. Foot, S.N. MacFarlane and M. Mastanduno, US Hegemony and International
Organizations: The United States and Multilateral Institutions, Oxford University
Press, (2003).
142. P. Bennis and N. Chomsky, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September
11th Crisis, Olive Branch Press, (2002).
143. J. Garrison, America as Empire: Global Leader or Rouge Power?, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, (2004).
144. A.J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy,
Harvard University Press, (2002).
145. D.R. Francis, Hidden Defense Costs Add Up to Double Trouble, Christian Science
Monator, February 23, (2004).
146. A. Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies of the World and How
They Were Made, Hodder and Staughton, London, (1988).
147. D. Yergin, The Prize, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1991).
148. E. Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton, (1982).
149. W.B. Gallie, Understanding War: Points of Conflict, Routledge, London, (1991).
150. R. Falk and S.S. Kim, eds., The War System: An Interdisciplinary Approach, West-
view, Boulder, CO, (1980).
151. J.D. Clarkson and T.C. Cochran, eds., War as a Social Institution, Colombia Uni-
versity Press, New York, (1941).
152. S. Melman, The Permanent War Economy, Simon and Schuster, (1974).
153. D. Yergin, The Prize, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1991).
4.14. CONCLUDING REMARKS 177

154. A. Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies of the World and How
They Were Made, Hodder and Staughton, London, (1988).
155. J.D. Rockefeller, Random Remaniscences of Men and Events, Doubleday, New York,
(1909).
156. M.B. Stoff, Oil, War and American Security: The Search for a National Policy on
Oil, 1941-1947, Yale University Press, New Haven, (1980).
157. W.D. Muscable, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1992).
158. J. Stork, Middle East Oil and the Energy Crisis, Monthly Review, New York, (1976).
159. F. Benn, Oil Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, St. Martin’s Press, New York,
(1986).
160. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
161. K. Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran, McGraw-Hill, New
York, (1979).
162. E. Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton, (1982).
163. J. Fitchett and D. Ignatius, Lengthy Elf Inquiry Nears Explosive Finish, International
Herald Tribune, February 1, (2002).
164. J.M. Blair, The Control of Oil, Random House, New York, (1976).
165. M.T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Owl Books
reprint edition, New York, (2002).
166. P. Grose, Allen Dulles: The Life of a Gentleman Spy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
(1994).
167. H. Mejcher, Imperial Quest for Oil: Iraq, 1910-1928, Ithaca Books, London, (1976).
168. P. Sluglett, Britain in Iraq, 1914-1932, Ithaca Press, London, (1976).
169. D.E. Omissi, British Air Power and Colonial Control in Iraq, 1920-1925, Manchester
University Press, Manchester, (1990).
170. V.G. Kiernan, Colonial Empires and Armies, 1815-1960, Sutton, Stroud, (1998).
171. R. Solh, Britain’s 2 Wars With Iraq, Ithaca Press, Reading, (1996).
172. D. Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict, Routledge, New York,
(1991).
173. S. Warren, Exxon’s Profit Surged in 4th Quarter, Wall Street Journal, February 12,
(2004).
174. R. Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Edu-
cation of Paul O’Neill, Simon and Schuster, New York, (2004).
175. D. Morgan and D.B. Ottaway, In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is Key Issue as U.S.
Drillers Eye Huge Petrolium Pool, Washington Post, September 15, (2002).
176. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraqi War, The Observer, April 4,
(2004).
177. E. Vulliamy, P. Webster and N.P. Walsh, Scramble to Carve Up Iraqi Oil Reserves
Lies Behind US Diplomacy, The Observer, October 6, (2002).
178. Y. Ibrahim, Bush’s Iraq Adventure is Bound to Backfire, International Herald Tri-
bune, November 1, (2002).
178 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

179. P. Beaumont and F. Islam, Carve-Up of Oil Riches Begins, The Observer, November
3, (2002).
180. C.J. Cleveland, Physical and Economic Aspects of Natural Resource Scarcity: The
Cost of Oil Supply in the Lower 48 United States 1936-1987, Resources and Energy
13, 163-188, (1991).
181. C.J. Cleveland, Yield Per Effort for Additions to Crude Oil Reserves in the Lower
48 States, 1946-1989, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 76,
948-958, (1992).
182. M.K. Hubbert, Technique of Prediction as Applied to the Production of Oil and Gas,
in NBS Special Publication 631, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of
Standards, (1982).
183. L.F. Ivanhoe, Oil Discovery Indices and Projected Discoveries, Oil and Gas Journal,
11, 19, (1984).
184. L.F. Ivanhoe, Future Crude Oil Supplies and Prices, Oil and Gas Journal, July 25,
111-112, (1988).
185. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2001, US Depart-
ment of Energy, (2001).
186. Energy Information Administration, Caspian Sea Region, US Department of Energy,
(2001).
187. National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy, The White
House, (2004). (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/)
188. M. Klare, Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil, For-
eign Policy in Focus, (Interhemispheric Resource Center/Institute for Policy Stud-
ies/SEEN), Washington DC and Silver City NM, January, (2004).
189. M. Dobbs, US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post, December 30, (2002).
190. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
191. R. Morris, A Tyrant Forty Years in the Making, New York Times, March 14, (2003).
192. H. Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Prince-
ton University Press, (1978).
193. D.W. Riegel, Jr., and A.M. D’Amato, US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related
Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of
the Persian Gulf War, Report to US Senate (“The Riegel Report”), May 25, (1994).
194. P.E. Tyler, Officers Say US Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas, New York Times,
August 18, (2002).
195. D. Priest, Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show,
Washington Post, December 19, (2003).
196. S. Zunes, Saddam’s Arrest Raises Troubling Questions, Foreign Policy in Focus,
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/), December (2003).
197. D. Leigh and J. Hooper, Britain’s Dirty Secret, Guardian, March 6, (2003).
198. J. Battle, (Ed.), Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein: The US Tilts Towards Iraq,
1980-1984, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, February 25,
(2003).
4.14. CONCLUDING REMARKS 179

199. J.R. Hiltermann, America Didn’t Seem to Mind Poison Gas, International Herald
Tribune, January 17, (2003).
200. D. Hiro, Iraq and Poison Gas, Nation, August 28, (2002).
201. T. Weiner, Iraq Uses Techniques in Spying Against its Former Tutor, the US, Philadel-
phia Inquirer, February 5, (1991).
202. S. Hussein and A. Glaspie, Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with US Envoy,
The New York Times, International, September 23, (1990).
203. T.E. Lawrence, A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence, Sunday Times, August
22, (1920).
204. T. Rajamoorthy, Deceit and Duplicity: Some Reflections on Western Intervention in
Iraq, Third World Resurgence, March-April, (2003).
205. P. Knightley and C. Simpson, The Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Lon-
don, (1969).
206. G. Lenczowski, The Middle East in World Affairs, Cornell University Press, (1962).
207. Y. Nakash, The Shi’is of Iraq, Princeton University Press, (1994).
208. D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the
Creation of the Modern Middle East, Owl Books, (2001).
209. S.K. Aburish, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, Bloomsbury, London,
(2001).
210. M. Muffti, Sovereign Creations: Pan-Arabism and Political Order in Syria and Iraq,
Cornell University Press, (1996).
211. C. Clover, Lessons of the 1920 Revolt Lost on Bremer, Financial Times, November
17, (2003).
212. J. Kifner, Britain Tried First. Iraq Was No Picnic Then, New York Times, July 20,
(2003).
213. D. Omissi, Baghdad and British Bombers, Guardian, January 19, (1991).
214. D. Vernet, Postmodern Imperialism, Le Monde, April 24, (2003).
215. J. Buchan, Miss Bell’s Lines in the Sand, Guardian, March 12, (2003).
216. C. Tripp, Iraq: The Imperial Precedent, Le Monde Diplomatique, January, (2003).
217. G.H.W. Bush and B. Scowcroft, Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam, Time, 2 March,
(1998).
218. J.A. Baker III, The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace, 1989-1992,
G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, (1995).
219. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraq War, Observer, April 4, (2004).
220. B. Gellman, Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy
Went Beyond Purely Military Targets, Washington Post, June 23, (1991).
221. M. Fletcher and M. Theodoulou, Baker Says Sanctions Must Stay as Long as Saddam
Holds Power, Times, May 23, (1991).
222. J. Pienaar and L. Doyle, UK Maintains Tough Line on Sanctions Against Iraq, In-
dependent, May 11, (1991).
223. C. Johnson, America’s Empire of Bases, TomDispatch.com, January, (2004).
224. B. Blum (translator), Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski Admits: Afghan Is-
lamism Was Made in Washington, Nouvel Observateur, January 15, (1998).
180 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO

225. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraq War, The Observer, Sunday April
4, (1994).
226. G. Vidal, Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta, Thunder’s
Mouth Press, (2002).
227. H. Thomas, Preventive War Sets Serious Precedent, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March
20, (2003).
228. C. Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Repub-
lic, Henry Hold and Company, New York, (2004).
229. C. Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Henry
Hold and Company, New York, (2000).
230. M. Parenti, Against Empire: The Brutal Realities of U.S. Global Domination, City
Lights Books, 261 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA94133, (1995).
231. E. Ahmad, Confronting Empire, South End Press, (2000).
232. W. Greider, Fortress America, Public Affairs Press, (1998).
233. R. Mahajan, Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond, Seven
Stories Press, (2003).
234. J. Pilger, Hidden Agendas, The New Press, (1998).
235. S.R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis, South End Press, (1993).
236. C. Boggs (editor), Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American
Empire, Routledge, (2003).
237. J. Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, Verso, (2992).
238. G. Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, Thun-
der’s Mouth Press, (2002).
239. W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, Common Courage
Press, (2000).
240. M. Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10010, (1989).
241. K. Grossman, Weapons in Space, Seven Stories Press, (2001).
242. R.J. Barnet, Intervention and Revolution: The United States in the Third World,
World Publishing, (1968).
243. T. Bodenheimer and R. Gould, Rollback: Right-wing Power in U.S. Foreign Policy,
South End Press, (1989).
244. G. Guma, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do, Toward
Freedom, (2003).
245. W. Blum, A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present, Z magazine,
June, (1999).
246. W. Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II
247. M. Klare, Endless Military Superiority, The Nation magazine, July 15, (2002).
248. J.M. Cypher, The Iron Triangle: The New Military Buildup, Dollars and Sense mag-
azine, January/February, (2002).
249. L. Meyer, The Power of One, (World Press Review), Reforma, Mexico City, August
5, (1999).
250. C. Johnson, Time to Bring the Troops Home, The Nation magazine, May 14, (2001).
4.14. CONCLUDING REMARKS 181

251. W. Hartung, F. Berrigan and M. Ciarrocca, Operation Endless Deployment: The

War With Iraq Is Part of a Larger Plan for Global Military Dominance, The Nation
magazine, October 21, (2002).
252. I. Ramonet, Servile States, Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, October (2002), World
Press Review, December, (2002).
253. J.K. Galbraith, The Unbearable Costs of Empire, American Prospect magazine,
November, (2002).
254. G. Monbiot, The Logic of Empire, The Guardian, August 6, (2002), World Press
Review, October, (2002).
255. W.R. Pitt and S. Ritter, War on Iraq, Context Books
256. W.R. Pitt, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, Pluto Press, (2003).
257. J. Wilson, Republic or Empire?, The Nation magazine, March 3, (2003).
258. R. Dreyfuss, Just the Beginning: Is Iraq the Opening Salvo in a War to Remake the
World?, The American Prospect magazine, April, (2003).
259. D. Moberg, The Road From Baghdad: The Bush Team Has Big Plans For the 21st
Century. Can the Rest of the World Stop Them?, These Times magazine, May,
(2003).
260. P. Cain and T. Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688-200, Longman, (2000).
261. N. Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the
Lessons for Global Power, Basic Books, (2003).
262. E.J. Hobsbawn, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914, Vintage Books, (1989).
263. L. James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, St Martin’s Press, (1997).
264. S. Schama, The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, Miramax, (2002).
265. A.P. Thorton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies: A Study in British Power, Pal-
grave Macmillan, (1985).
266. G. Kolko, Another Century of War, New Press, (2002).
267. G. Kolko, Confronting the Third World: United States Foreign Policy, 1945-1980,
Pantheon Books, (1988).
268. J. Feffer, B. Egrenreich and M.T. Klare, Power Trip: US Unilateralism and Global
Strategy After September 11, Seven Stories Press, (2003).
269. R.S. Foot, S.N. MacFarlane and M. Mastanduno, US Hegemony and International
Organizations: The United States and Multilateral Institutions, Oxford University
Press, (2003).
270. P. Bennis and N. Chomsky, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September
11th Crisis, Olive Branch Press, (2002).
271. J. Garrison, America as Empire: Global Leader or Rouge Power?, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, (2004).
272. A.J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy,
Harvard University Press, (2002).
273. D.R. Francis, Hidden Defense Costs Add Up to Double Trouble, Christian Science
Monator, February 23, (2004).
182 THE DEVIL’S DYNAMO
Chapter 5

ECOLOGY AND THE VIETNAM

WAR

5.1 McNamara’s Evil Lives On

Here are some quotations from an article by Robert Sheer entitled McNamara’s Evil Lives
On, published in The Nation on July 8, 2008.1

Why not speak ill of the dead?

Robert McNamara, who died this week, was a complex man - charming even,
in a blustery way, and someone I found quite thoughtful when I interviewed
him. In the third act of his life he was often an advocate for enlightened
positions on world poverty and the dangers of the nuclear arms race. But
whatever his better nature, it was the stark evil he perpetrated as secretary of
defense that must indelibly frame our memory of him.
To not speak out fully because of respect for the deceased would be to mock
the memory of the millions of innocent people McNamara caused to be maimed
and killed in a war that he later freely admitted never made any sense. Much
has been made of the fact that he recanted his support for the war, but that
came 20 years after the holocaust he visited upon Vietnam was over.
Is holocaust too emotionally charged a word? How many millions of dead
innocent civilians does it take to qualify labels like holocaust, genocide or
terrorism? How many of the limbless victims of his fragmentation bombs and
land mines whom I saw in Vietnam during and after the war? Or are America’s
leaders always to be exempted from such questions? Perhaps if McNamara had
been held legally accountable for his actions, the architects of the Iraq debacle
might have paused.
Instead, McNamara was honored with the Medal of Freedom by President
Lyndon Johnson, to whom he had written a private memo nine months earlier
1
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/mcnamaras-evil-lives/

183
184 WHY WAR?

offering this assessment of their Vietnam carnage: ‘The picture of the world’s
greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 noncombatants a week,
while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose
merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one.’
He knew it then, and, give him this, the dimensions of that horror never
left him. When I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Times in 1995, after the
publication of his confessional memoir, his assessment of the madness he had
unleashed was all too clear:
‘Look, we dropped three to four times the tonnage on that tiny little area as
were dropped by the Allies in all of the theaters in World War II over a period
of five years. It was unbelievable. We killed - there were killed - 3,200,000
Vietnamese, excluding the South Vietnamese military. My God! The killing,
the tonnage - it was fantastic. The problem was that we were trying to do
something that was militarily impossible - we were trying to break the will; I
don’t think we can break the will by bombing short of genocide.’
We - no, he - couldn’t break their will because their fight was for national
independence. They had defeated the French and would defeat the Americans
who took over when French colonialists gave up the ghost. The war was a lie
from the first. It never had anything to do with the freedom of the Vietnamese
(we installed one tyrant after another in power), but instead had to do with
our irrational cold war obsession with ‘international communism.’ Irrational,
as President Richard Nixon acknowledged when he embraced detente with the
Soviet communists, toasted China’s fierce communist Mao Tse-tung and then
escalated the war against ‘communist’ Vietnam and neutral Cambodia.
It was always a lie and our leaders knew it, but that did not give them
pause. Both Johnson and Nixon make it quite clear on their White House
tapes that the mindless killing, McNamara’s infamous body count, was about
domestic politics and never security.
The lies are clearly revealed in the Pentagon Papers study that McNamara
commissioned, but they were made public only through the bravery of Daniel
Ellsberg. Yet when Ellsberg, a former Marine who had worked for McNamara
in the Pentagon, was in the docket facing the full wrath of Nixon’s Justice De-
partment, McNamara would lift not a finger in his defense. Worse, as Ellsberg
reminded me this week, McNamara threatened that if subpoenaed to testify
at the trial by Ellsberg’s defense team, ‘I would hurt your client badly.’
Not as badly as those he killed or severely wounded. Not as badly as the
almost 59,000 American soldiers killed and the many more horribly hurt. One
of them was the writer and activist Ron Kovic, who as a kid from Long Island
was seduced by McNamara’s lies into volunteering for two tours in Vietnam.
Eventually, struggling with his mostly paralyzed body, he spoke out against
the war in the hope that others would not have to suffer as he did (and still
does). Meanwhile, McNamara maintained his golden silence, even as Richard
Nixon managed to kill and maim millions more. What McNamara did was evil
5.2. THE PENTAGON PAPERS 185

- deeply so.

5.2 The Pentagon Papers

Wikipedia states that:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense
history of the United States’ political and military involvement in Vietnam
from 1945 to 1967. The papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had
worked on the study; they were first brought to the attention of the public on
the front page of The New York Times in 1971.A 1996 article in The New York
Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things,
that the Johnson Administration ‘systematically lied, not only to the public
but also to Congress.’
More specifically, the papers revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged
the scope of its actions in the Vietnam War with the bombings of nearby
Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, as well as Marine Corps
attacks, none of which were reported in the mainstream media. For his dis-
closure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy,
espionage, and theft of government property, but the charges were later dis-
missed after prosecutors investigating the Watergate scandal discovered that
the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White
House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg...
To ensure the possibility of public debate about the papers’ content, on June
29, US Senator Mike Gravel, an Alaska Democrat, entered 4,100 pages of the
papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.
These portions of the papers, which were edited for Gravel by Howard Zinn and
Noam Chomsky, were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publish-
ing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. A federal
grand jury was subsequently empaneled to investigate possible violations of
federal law in the release of the report. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was
subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication
of the Pentagon Papers. Gravel asked the court (in Gravel v. United States)
to quash the subpoena on the basis of the Speech or Debate Clause in Article
I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution.

Daniel Ellsberg believed that when U.S. citizens discovered that the Vietnam War was
based on lies, the war would end. However, it continued for many more years.
186 WHY WAR?

Figure 5.1: Victems of the Mai Lai Massacre.

5.2. THE PENTAGON PAPERS 187

Figure 5.2: Napalm burn victims during the war being treated at the 67th
Combat Support Hospital. 1967-1968 Innocent children become burn victims
in the Vietnam War.
188 WHY WAR?

Figure 5.3: Frightened children flee from an air attack in Vietnam.

5.3. EFFECTS OF AGENT ORANGE 189

5.3 Effects of Agent Orange

Wikipedia states that:

“Up to four million people in Vietnam were exposed to the defoliant. The
government of Vietnam says as many as three million people have suffered
illness because of Agent Orange,[4] and the Red Cross of Vietnam estimates
that up to one million people are disabled or have health problems as a re-
sult of Agent Orange contamination.The United States government has de-
scribed these figures as unreliable, while documenting higher cases of leukemia,
Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and various kinds of cancer in exposed US military vet-
erans. An epidemiological study done by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention showed that there was an increase in the rate of birth defects of
the children of military personnel as a result of Agent Orange. Agent Orange
has also caused enormous environmental damage in Vietnam. Over 3,100,000
hectares (31,000 km2 or 11,969 mi2) of forest were defoliated. Defoliants eroded
tree cover and seedling forest stock, making reforestation difficult in numerous
areas. Animal species diversity sharply reduced in contrast with unsprayed
areas.”
190 WHY WAR?

Figure 5.4: Nguyen Xuan Minh lies in a crib at the Tu Du Hospital May 2, 2005
in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
5.3. EFFECTS OF AGENT ORANGE 191

Figure 5.5: A disabled and malformed victim of foliant Agent Orange, begs on
the streets of Saigon to make a living, 1996.
192 WHY WAR?

5.4 Bombing of Cambodia and Laos

According to an article by Jessica Pearce Rotondi entitled Why Laos Has Been Bombed
More Than Any Other Country2 ,

“The U.S. bombing of Laos (1964-1973) was part of a covert attempt by

the CIA to wrest power from the communist Pathet Lao, a group allied with
North Vietnam and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War.
“The officially neutral country became a battleground in the Cold War
between the United States and Soviet Union, with American bombers dropping
over two million tons of cluster bombs over Laos - more than all the bombs
dropped during WWII combined. Today, Laos is the most heavily bombed
nation in history. Here are facts about the so-called secret war in Laos.
“Laos is a landlocked country bordered by China and Myanmar to the
North, Vietnam to the East, Cambodia to the South and Thailand and the
Mekong River to the West.
“Its proximity to Mao Zedong’s China made it critical to Dwight D. Eisen-
hower’s Domino Theory of keeping communism at bay. ‘If Laos were lost, the
rest of Southeast Asia would follow,’ Eisenhower told his National Security
Council. On the day of his farewell address in 1961, President Eisenhower ap-
proved the CIA’s training of anti-communist forces in the mountains of Laos.
Their mission: To disrupt communist supply routes across the Ho Chi Minh
Trail to Vietnam.
“Eisenhower’s successors in the White House: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon
B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, all approved escalating air support for the
guerrilla fighters, but not publicly. The 1962 International Agreement on the
Neutrality of Laos, signed by China, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, the United
States and 10 other countries, forbid signers from directly invading Laos or
establishing military bases there. The secret war in Laos had begun...
“In Laos, the legacy of U.S. bombs continues to wreak havoc. Since 1964,
more than 50,000 Lao have been killed or injured by U.S. bombs, 98 percent of
them civilians. An estimated 30 percent of the bombs dropped on Laos failed
to explode upon impact, and in the years since the bombing ended, 20,000 peo-
ple have been killed or maimed by the estimated 80 million bombs left behind.”

By 1975, one tenth of the population of Laos had been killed by the bombs, and a
quarter of the population were refugees.

2
https://www.history.com/news/laos-most-bombed-country-vietnam-war
5.4. BOMBING OF CAMBODIA AND LAOS 193

Cambodia
Here are some quotations from an article by Maximilian Wechsler entitled America’s ‘Se-
cret War’ and the Bombing of Southeast Asia3 :

“On March 18, 1969, USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC) B-52 bombers
began carpet bombing Cambodia on the order of President Nixon. The overall
covert operation was code-named ‘Operation Menu’, with various phases named
‘Breakfast’, ‘Lunch’, ‘Dinner’, ‘Snack’, ‘Supper’ and ‘Dessert’.
“President Nixon ordered the campaign without consulting Congress and
even kept it secret from top military officials. Five members of Congress were
informed several months after the start of Operation Menu, but it was kept
secret from the American people until The New York Times broke the story
in May 1969. Henry Kissinger, President Nixon’s National Security Adviser,
was reportedly outraged over the leaked information in the story and ordered
the FBI to wiretap the phones of top White House aides and reporters to find
the source.
“More reports of the secret bombing campaign surfaced in the press and
records of Congressional proceedings, but it was not until 2000 that official the
USAF records of US bombing activity over Indochina from 1964 to 1973 were
declassified by President Bill Clinton.
“Some sources say that during the first phase of the bombings lasting un-
til April 1970, ‘Operation Breakfast’, the SAC conducted 3,630 sorties and
dropped 110,000 tons of bombs and that in the entire four-year campaign the
US dropped about 540,000 tons of bombs. In the book Bombs Over Cambodia,
historians Ben Kiernan and Taylor Owen state that, based on their analysis
of the declassified documents, 2,756,941 tons of ordnance was dropped during
Operation Menu, more than the US dropped on Japan during World War II.
“The authors also say that US planes flew 230,516 sorties over 113,716 sites.
Estimates of casualties vary widely as well, but it is believed that somewhere
between 100,000 and 600,000 civilians died in the bombing and two million
became homeless. Some sources say that hundreds of thousands more Cam-
bodians died from the effects of displacement, illness or starvation as a direct
result of the bombings.
“The carpet bombing of Cambodia lasted until August 1973. It devastated
the countryside and the chaos and upheaval it unleashed played a big part in
the installation of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime led by Pol Pot. The
Khmer Rouge was responsible for the deaths of up to two million Cambodians
through executions, forced labour and starvation.”

3
https://www.thebigchilli.com/feature-stories/americas-secret-war-and-the-bombing-of-southeast-asia
194 WHY WAR?
5.4. BOMBING OF CAMBODIA AND LAOS 195

Suggestions for further reading

1. Anderson, David L. (2004). Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War. New York:
Columbia University Press.
2. Angio, Joe. Nixon a Presidency Revealed (2007) The History Channel television
documentary
3. Appy, Christian G. (2006). Vietnam: The Definitive Oral History, Told from All
Sides. London: Ebury Press.
4. Baker, Kevin. Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth,
Harper’s Magazine (June 2006)
5. Berman, Larry (1989). Lyndon Johnson’s War: The Road to Stalemate in Vietnam.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
6. Blaufarb, Douglas S. (1977). The Counterinsurgency Era: U.S. Doctrine and Per-
formance, 1950 to the Present. New York: Free Press.
7. Blaufarb Douglas S. The Counterinsurgency Era (1977). A history of the Kennedy
Administration’s involvement in South Vietnam.
8. Brigham, Robert K. Battlefield Vietnam: A Brief History. A PBS interactive website.
9. Brocheux, Pierre (2007). Ho Chi Minh: a biography. Cambridge University Press.
p. 198.
10. Buckley, Kevin. Pacification’s Deadly Price, Newsweek, 19 June 1972.
11. Buzzanco, Bob. 25 Years After End of Vietnam War: Myths Keep Us from Coming
to Terms with Vietnam, The Baltimore Sun (17 April 2000) ”25 Years After End of
Vietnam War Myths Keep Us From Coming To Terms With Vietnam”. Archived
from the original on 5 June 2008. Retrieved 11 June 2008.
12. Carney, Timothy (1989). The Unexpected Victory. In Karl D. Jackson, ed., Cam-
bodia, 1975-1978: Rendezvous with Death (pp. 13-35). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
13. Church, Peter, ed. (2006). A Short History of South-East Asia.
14. Cooper, Chester L. (1970). The Lost Crusade: America in Vietnam.
15. Cooper, John F. (2019). Communist Nations’ Military Assistance. Routledge.
16. Courtwright, David T. (2005). Sky as Frontier: Adventure, Aviation, and Empire.
College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
17. Crook, John R. (2008). Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Agent Orange Litiga-
tion. American Journal of International Law. 102 (3): 662-64.
18. Crump, Laurien (2015). The Warsaw Pact Reconsidered: International Relations in
Eastern Europe, 1955-1969. Oxon: Routledge.
19. Demma, Vincent H. (1989). The U.S. Army in Vietnam. American Military History.
Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History. pp. 619-94.
20. Dennis, Peter; et al. (2008). The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History
(Second ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand. ISBN
978-0195517842.
21. DoD (6 November 1998). Name of Technical Sergeant Richard B. Fitzgibbon to be
added to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Department of Defense (DoD). Archived
from the original on 20 October 2013.
196 WHY WAR?

22. Duiker, William J. (1981). The Communist Road to Power in Vietnam. Westview
Press. ISBN 978-0891587941.
23. Duncanson, Dennis J. (1968). Government and Revolution in Vietnam. Oxford
University Press. OCLC 411221.
24. Etcheson, Craig (2005). After the Killing Fields: Lessons from the Cambodian Geno-
cide. New York: Praeger.
25. Fall, Bernard B. (1967). The Two Viet-Nams: A Political and Military Analysis
(2nd ed.). New York: Praeger.
26. Fincher, Ernest Barksdale, The Vietnam War (1980).
27. Ford, Harold P. (1998). CIA and the Vietnam Policymakers: Three Episodes, 1962-
1968.
28. Gerdes, Louise I., ed. (2005). Examining Issues Through Political Cartoons: The
Vietnam War. Greenhaven Press.
29. Gettleman, Marvin E.; Franklin, Jane; Young, Marilyn Vietnam and America: A
Documented History. (1995).
30. Greiner, Bernd (2010). War Without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam. London: Vintage
Books.
31. Hammond, William. Public Affairs: The Military and the Media, 1962-1968 (1987);
Public Affairs: The Military and the Media, 1968-1973 (1995). Full-scale history of
the war by U.S. Army; much broader than title suggests.
32. Healy, Gene (2009). The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to
Executive Power. Cato Institute.
33. Herring, George C. (2001). America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam,
1950-1975 (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Hitchens, Christopher. The Vietnam Syndrome.
35. Holm, Jeanne (1992). Women in the Military: An Unfinished Revolution (Rev. ed.).
Novato, CA: Presidio Press.
36. Karnow, Stanley (1997). Vietnam: A History (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
37. Kelly, Michael P. (2002). Where We Were in Vietnam. Oregon: Hellgate Press.
38. Khong, Yuen Foong (1992). Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and
the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton University Press.
39. Kiernan, Ben (2008). The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia
Under the Khmer Rouge (3rd ed.). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
40. Kolko, Gabriel (1985). Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States, and the
Modern Historical Experience. New York: Pantheon Books.
41. Kutler, Stanley I., ed. (1996). Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
42. Lawrence, A.T. (2009). Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant. Jef-
ferson, North Carolina: McFarland.
43. Lawrence, Mark Atwood (2008). The Vietnam War: A Concise International His-
tory. Oxford University Press.
44. Leepson, Marc ed. (1999). Dictionary of the Vietnam War. New York: Webster’s
New World.
5.4. BOMBING OF CAMBODIA AND LAOS 197

45. Lewy, Guenter (1978). America in Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Logevall, Fredrik (2001). The Origins of the Vietnam War. Harlow: Longman.
47. McGibbon, Ian; ed (2000). The Oxford Companion to New Zealand Military History.
Auckland: Oxford University Press.
48. McMahon, Robert J. (1995). Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War:
Documents and Essays.
49. McNamara, Robert S.; Blight, James G.; Brigham, Robert K.; Biersteker, Thomas
J.; Schandler, Herbert (1999). Argument Without End: In Search of Answers to the
Vietnam Tragedy. New York: PublicAffairs.
50. McNeill, Ian (1993). To Long Tan: The Australian Army and the Vietnam War
1950-1966. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
51. Milne, David (2008). America’s Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War. New
York: Hill & Wang.
52. Moïse, Edwin E. (1996). Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.
53. Moss, George D. Vietnam (4th ed 2002) textbook.
54. Moyar, Mark (2006). Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
55. Major General Spurgeon Neel. Medical Support of the U.S. Army in Vietnam 1965-
1970 (Department of the Army 1991) official medical history
56. Neale, Jonathan (2001). The American War: Vietnam, 1960-1975. London: Book-
marks.
57. Nelson, Deborah (2008). The War Behind Me: Vietnam Veterans Confront the Truth
about U.S. War Crimes. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
58. Nulty, Bernard.The Vietnam War (1998) New York: Barnes and Noble.
59. Oberdorfer, Don (2001) [1971]. Tet! The Turning Point in the Vietnam War. Balti-
more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
60. Obermeyer, Ziad; Murray, Christopher J.L.; Gakidou, Emmanuela (2008). Fifty
years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia: analysis of data from the world
health survey programme. BMJ. 336 (7659): 1482-86.
61. Olson, James S.; Roberts, Randy (2008). Where the Domino Fell: America and Viet-
nam, Where the Domino Fell: America and Vietnam 1945-1995 (5th ed.). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
62. Palmer, Bruce Jr. The Twenty-Five Year War. (1984), narrative military history by
a senior U.S. general.
63. Palmer, Dave R. (1978). Summons of Trumpet: U.S.-Vietnam in Perspective. No-
vato, CA: Presidio Press.
64. Palmer, Michael G. (2007). The Case of Agent Orange. Contemporary Southeast
Asia. 29 (1): 172-95.
65. Prados, John (2006). The Road South: The Ho Chi Minh Trail. In Andrew Wiest,
ed., Rolling Thunder in a Gentle Land (pp. 74-95). Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
66. Robbins, Mary Susannah (2007). Against the Vietnam War: Writings by Activists.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
198 WHY WAR?

67. Roberts, Anthea (2005). The Agent Orange Case: Vietnam Ass’n for Victims of
Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co. ASIL Proceedings. 99 (1): 380-85.
68. Roberts III, Mervyn Edwin. The Psychological War for Vietnam, 1960-1968 (2018)
69. Schandler, Herbert Y. (2009). America in Vietnam: The War That Couldn’t Be
Won. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
70. Schell, Jonathan. The Time of Illusion (1976).
71. Schulzinger, Robert D. A Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975
(1997).
72. Sheehan, Neil (1989). A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Viet-
nam. New York: Vintage.
73. Sorley, Lewis, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of Amer-
ica’s Last Years in Vietnam. (1999), based upon still classified tape-recorded meet-
ings of top level US commanders in Vietnam,
74. Spector, Ronald. After Tet: The Bloodiest Year in Vietnam (1992), very broad
coverage of 1968.
75. Stanton, Shelby L. (2003). Vietnam order of battle (2003 ed.). Stackpole Books.
76. Stone, Richard (2007). Agent Orange’s Bitter Harvest. Science. 315 (5809): 176-79.
77. Stuart-Fox, Martin (1997). A History of Laos. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
78. Summers, Harry G. On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Presidio
press (1982),
79. Thayer, Thomas C. (1985). War Without Fronts: The American Experience in Viet-
nam. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
80. Tucker, Spencer. ed. Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, (1998) 3 vol. reference set;
also one-volume abridgement (2001).
81. Tucker, Spencer (2011) [1998]. The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political,
Social, and Military History. ABC-CLIO.
82. Turner, Robert F. (1975). Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development.
Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
83. Turse, Nick (2013). Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.
New York: Metropolitan Books.
84. Vietnam Task Force (1969). Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam
Task Force. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense.
85. Westheider, James E. (2007). The Vietnam War. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
ISBN 978-0313337550.
86. Willbanks, James H. (2009). Vietnam War almanac. Infobase Publishing. ISBN
978-0816071029.
87. Witz, James J. The Tet Offensive: Intelligence Failure in War (1991).
88. Woodruff, Mark (2005). Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of The Viet Cong and The
North Vietnamese. Arlington, VA: Presidio Press.
89. Young, Marilyn B. (1991). The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990. New York: HarperPeren-
nial.
Chapter 6

THE THREATS AND COSTS OF

WAR

6.1 The training of soldiers

Within individual countries, murder is rightly considered to be the worst of crimes. But
the institution of war tries to convince us that if a soldier murders someone from another
country, whom the politicians have designated as an “enemy”, it is no longer a crime, no
longer a violation of the common bonds of humanity. It is “heroic”.
In their hearts, soldiers know that this is nonsense. Murder is always murder. The men,
women and children who are supposed to be the “enemy”, are just ordinary people, with
whom the soldier really has no quarrel. Therefore when the training of soldiers wears off a
little, so that they realize what they have done, they have to see themselves as murderers,
and many commit suicide.
A recent article in the journal “Epidemiology” pointed out a startling statistic: for
every American soldier killed in combat this year, 25 will commit suicide. The article also
quotes the Department of Veterans Affairs, which says that 18 veterans commit suicide
every day.
Obviously, the training of soldiers must overwrite fundamental ethical principles. This
training must make a soldier abandon his or her individual conscience and sense of respon-
sibility. It must turn the soldier from a compassionate human being into an automaton, a
killing machine. How is this accomplished? Through erosion of of the soldier’s self-respect.
Through the endless repetition of senseless rituals where obedience is paramount and from
which rational thought and conscience are banished.
In his book on fanaticism, The True Believer (1951), the American author Eric Hoffer
gives the following description of the factors promoting self-sacrifice:
“To ripen a person for self-sacrifice, he must be stripped of his individual identity. He
must cease to be George, Hans, Ivan or Tado - a human atom with an existence bounded by
birth and death. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by the complete assimilation of
the individual into a collective body. The fully assimilated individual does not see himself

199
200 WHY WAR?

and others as human beings. When asked who he is, his automatic response is that he is
a German, a Russian, a Japanese, a Christian, a Muslim, a member of a certain tribe or
family. He has no purpose, worth or destiny apart from his collective body, and as long as
that body lives, he cannot really die. ...”
“The effacement of individual separateness must be thorough. In every act, however
trivial, the individual must, by some ritual, associate himself with the congregation, the
tribe, the party, etcetera. His joys and sorrows, his pride and confidence must spring
from the fortunes and capacities of the group, rather than from his individual prospects
or abilities. Above all, he must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he
must feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group must be
equivalent to being cut off from life.”
“This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found
among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection,
and we are not imagining things when the anti-individualist bias of contemporary mass
movements strikes us as being a throwback to the primitive.”
The conditioning of a soldier in a modern army follows the pattern described in Eric
Hoffer’s book. The soldier’s training aims at abolishing his sense of individual separateness,
individual responsibility, and moral judgment. It is filled with rituals, such as saluting,
by which the soldier identifies with his tribe-like army group. His uniform also helps to
strip him of his individual identity and to assimilate him into the group. The result of
this psychological conditioning is that the soldier’s mind reverts to a primitive state. He
surrenders his moral responsibility, and when the politicians tell him to kill, he kills.

6.2 Killing civilians

Between 2 September and 5 September, 1807, the civilian population of Copenhagen was
subjected to a bombardment by British military forces, without any declaration of war.
The purpose of the bombardment was to induce terror in the population, and to thereby
force the surrender of the Danish fleet, which the British feared might otherwise fall into
the hands of Napoleon. It was one of the first occasions on which civilians were deliberately
targeted in this manner.
Copenhagen was almost undefended, since the Danish army was positioned at the
southern boundary of the country, ready to repel a possible attack by Napoleon’s army.
British troops and artillery were thus easily able to surround the city, while the British fleet
occupied the harbor. On the first night of the bombardment, 5000 rounds were fired into
the city, on the second night 2000, and on the third night 7000. New incendiary rockets
developed by William Congreve were also used. More than 2000 civilians were killed by
the bombardment, and about 30 percent of Copenhagen’s buildings were destroyed. The
bicentenary of this barbaric event might be an appropriate time to think about state-
sponsored terror, in which innocent civilians are deliberately targeted.
6.2. KILLING CIVILIANS 201

Figure 6.1: Contemporary Danish painting of the bombardment at night.

202 WHY WAR?

Figure 6.2: An illustration by Eckersberg of the Church of Our Lady being

bombarded.
6.2. KILLING CIVILIANS 203

Figure 6.3: The Most Terrible Night. View of Kongens Nytorv in Copenhagen
During the English Bombardment of Copenhagen at Night between 4 and 5
September 1807.
204 WHY WAR?

The erosion of ethical principles during World War II

When Hitler invaded Poland in September, 1939, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
appealed to Great Britain, France, and Germany to spare innocent civilians from terror
bombing. ”The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of pop-
ulation during the course of the hostilities”, Roosevelt said (referring to the use of air
bombardment during World War I) “...has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and
woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.” He urged “every Gov-
ernment which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its
armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment
from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities.”
Two weeks later, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain responded to Roosevelt’s
appeal with the words: ”Whatever the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty’s
Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other
civilians for purposes of mere terrorism.”
Much was destroyed during World War II, and among the casualties of the war were
the ethical principles that Roosevelt and Chamberlain announced at its outset. At the
time of Roosevelt and Chamberlain’s declarations, terror bombing of civilians had already
begun in the Far East. On 22 and 23 September, 1937, Japanese bombers attacked civilian
populations in Nanjing and Canton. The attacks provoked widespread protests. The
British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Cranborne, wrote: “Words
cannot express the feelings of profound horror with which the news of these raids has been
received by the whole civilized world. They are often directed against places far from the
actual area of hostilities. The military objective, where it exists, seems to take a completely
second place. The main object seems to be to inspire terror by the indiscriminate slaughter
of civilians...”
On the 25th of September, 1939, Hitler’s air force began a series of intense attacks
on Warsaw. Civilian areas of the city, hospitals marked with the Red Cross symbol, and
fleeing refugees all were targeted in a effort to force the surrender of the city through terror.
On the 14th of May, 1940, Rotterdam was also devastated. Between the 7th of September
1940 and the 10th of May 1941, the German Luftwaffe carried out massive air attacks on
targets in Britain. By May, 1941, 43,000 British civilians were killed and more than a
million houses destroyed.
Although they were not the first to start it, by the end of the war the United States and
Great Britain were bombing of civilians on a far greater scale than Japan and Germany
had ever done. For example, on July 24-28, 1943, British and American bombers attacked
Hamburg with an enormous incendiary raid whose official intention ”the total destruction”
of the city.
The result was a firestorm that did, if fact, lead to the total destruction of the city.
One airman recalled, that ”As far as I could see was one mass of fire. ’A sea of flame’ has
been the description, and that’s an understatement. It was so bright that I could read the
target maps and adjust the bomb-sight.” Another pilot was ”...amazed at the awe-inspiring
sight of the target area. It seemed as though the whole of Hamburg was on fire from one
6.2. KILLING CIVILIANS 205

Figure 6.4: Picasso’s famous painting Guernica was a protest following the Nazi
bombing of civilians in a Basque town,

end to the other and a huge column of smoke was towering well above us - and we were
on 20,000 feet! It all seemed almost incredible and, when I realized that I was looking at
a city with a population of two millions, or about that, it became almost frightening to
think of what must be going on down there in Hamburg.”
Below, in the burning city, temperatures reached 1400 degrees Fahrenheit, a temper-
ature at which lead and aluminum have long since liquefied. Powerful winds sucked new
air into the firestorm. There were reports of babies being torn by the high winds from
their mothers’ arms and sucked into the flames. Of the 45,000 people killed, it has been
estimated that 50 percent were women and children and many of the men killed were el-
derly, above military age. For weeks after the raids, survivors were plagued by ”...droves
of vicious rats, grown strong by feeding on the corpses that were left unburied within the
rubble as well as the potatoes and other food supplies lost beneath the broken buildings.”

The German cities Kassel, Pforzheim, Mainz, Dresden and Berlin were similarly de-
stroyed, and in Japan, US bombing created firestorms in many cities, for example Tokyo,
Kobe and Yokohama. In Tokyo alone, incendiary bombing caused more than 100,000
civilian casualties.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

On August 6, 1945, at 8.15 in the morning, a nuclear fission bomb was exploded in the
air over the civilian population of Hiroshima in an already virtually defeated Japan. The
force of the explosion was equivalent to fifteen thousand tons of TNT. Out of a city of two
hundred and fifty thousand, one hundred thousand were killed immediately, and another
206 WHY WAR?
6.2. KILLING CIVILIANS 207

hundred thousand were hurt. Many of the injured died later from radiation sickness. A
few days later, Nagasaki was similarly destroyed.

The tragic destruction of the two Japanese cities was horrible enough in itself, but it
also marked the start of a nuclear arms race that continues to cast a very dark shadow over
the future of civilization. Not long afterwards, the Soviet Union exploded its own atomic
bomb, creating feelings of panic in the United States. President Truman authorized an
all-out effort to build superbombs based on thermonuclear reactions, the reactions that
heat the sun and stars.
In March, 1954, the US tested a thermonuclear bomb at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific
Ocean. It was 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The Japanese fishing
boat, Lucky Dragon, was 135 kilometers from the Bikini explosion, but radioactive fallout
208 WHY WAR?

from the explosion killed one crew member and made all the others seriously ill. The
distance to the Marshall Islands was equally large, but even today, islanders continue to
suffer from the effects of fallout from the test, for example frequent birth defects.
Driven by the paranoia of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons on both sides
reached truly insane heights. At the worst point, there were 50,000 nuclear weapons in the
world, with a total explosive power roughly a million times the power of the Hiroshima
bomb. This was equivalent to 4 tons of TNT for every person on the planet - enough to
destroy human civilization many times over - enough to threaten the existence of all life
on earth.
At the end of the Cold War, most people heaved a sigh of relief and pushed the problem
of nuclear weapons away from their minds. It was a threat to life too horrible to think
about. People felt that they could do nothing in any case, and they hoped that the problem
had finally disappeared.
Today, however, many thoughtful people realize that the problem of nuclear weapons
has by no means disappeared, and in some ways it is even more serious now than it was
during the Cold War. There are still over 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, many
of them hydrogen bombs, many on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired with only a few
minutes warning. The world has frequently come extremely close to accidental nuclear
war. If nuclear weapons are allowed to exist for a long period of time, the probability for
such a catastrophic accident to happen will grow into a certainty.
Current dangers also come from proliferation. Recently, more and more nations have
come to possess nuclear weapons, and thus the danger that they will be used increases. For
example, if Pakistan’s less-than-stable government should fall, its nuclear weapons might
find their way into the hands of terrorists, and against terrorism deterrence has no effect.
Thus we live at a special time in history - a time of crisis for civilization. We did not
ask to be born at a moment of crisis, but such is our fate. Every person now alive has a
special responsibility: We owe it, both to our ancestors and to future generations, to build
a stable and cooperative future world. It must be a war-free world, from which nuclear
weapons have been completely abolished. No person can achieve these changes alone, but
together we can build the world that we desire. This will not happen through inaction,
but it can happen through the dedicated work of large numbers of citizens.
Civilians have for too long played the role of passive targets, hostages in the power
struggles of politicians. It is time for civil society to make its will felt. If our leaders
continue to enthusiastically support the institution of war, if they will not abolish nuclear
weapons, then let us have new leaders.

6.3 The direct and indirect costs of war

The costs of war, both direct and indirect, are so enormous that they are almost beyond
comprehension. We face a direct threat because a thermonuclear war may destroy human
civilization and much of the biosphere, and an indirect threat because the institution of
war interferes seriously with the use of tax money for constructive and peaceful purposes.
6.4. MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES; LOSS OF LIFE 209

Today, despite the end of the Cold War, the world spends roughly 1.7 trillion (i.e. 1.7
million million) US dollars each year on armaments. This colossal flood of money could
have been used instead for education, famine relief, development of infrastructure, or on
urgently needed public health measures.
The World Health Organization lacks funds to carry through an antimalarial program
on as large a scale as would be desirable, but the entire program could be financed for less
than our military establishments spend in a single day. Five hours of world arms spending
is equivalent to the total cost of the 20-year WHO campaign that resulted in the eradication
of smallpox. For every 100,000 people in the world, there are 556 soldiers, but only 85
doctors. Every soldier costs an average of $20,000 per year, while the average spent on
education is only $380 per school-aged child. With a diversion of funds consumed by three
weeks of military spending, the world could create a sanitary water supply for all its people,
thus eliminating the cause of almost half of all human illness.
A new drug-resistant form of tuberculosis has recently become widespread in Asia and
in the former Soviet Union. In order to combat this new and highly dangerous form of
tuberculosis and to prevent its spread, WHO needs $500 million, an amount equivalent to
1.2 hours of world arms spending.
Today’s world is one in which roughly ten million children die every year from starvation
or from diseases related to poverty. Besides this enormous waste of young lives through
malnutrition and preventable disease, there is a huge waste of opportunities through inad-
equate education. The rate of illiteracy in the 25 least developed countries is 80%, and the
total number of illiterates in the world is estimated to be 800 million. Meanwhile every 60
seconds the world spends $6.5 million on armaments.
It is plain that if the almost unbelievable sums now wasted on the institution of war
were used constructively, most of the pressing problems of humanity could be solved, but
today the world spends more than 20 times as much on war as it does on development.

6.4 Medical and psychological consequences; loss of

life
While in earlier epochs it may have been possible to confine the effects of war mainly
to combatants, in the 20th century the victims of war were increasingly civilians, and
especially children. For example, according to Quincy Wright’s statistics, the First and
Second World Wars cost the lives of 26 million soldiers, but the toll in civilian lives was
much larger: 64 million.
Since the Second World War, despite the best efforts of the UN, there have been over
150 armed conflicts; and, if civil wars are included, there are on any given day an average of
12 wars somewhere in the world. In the conflicts in Indo-China, the proportion of civilian
victims was between 80% and 90%, while in the Lebanese civil war some sources state that
the proportion of civilian casualties was as high as 97%.
Civilian casualties often occur through malnutrition and through diseases that would
210 WHY WAR?

be preventable in normal circumstances. Because of the social disruption caused by war,

normal supplies of food, safe water and medicine are interrupted, so that populations
become vulnerable to famine and epidemics.1

6.5 Effects of war on children

According to UNICEF figures, 90% of the casualties of recent wars have been civilians, and
50% children. The organization estimates that in recent years, violent conflicts have driven
20 million children from their homes. They have become refugees or internally displaced
persons within their own countries.
During the last decade 2 million children have been killed and 6 million seriously injured
or permanently disabled as the result of armed conflicts, while 1 million children have been
orphaned or separated from their families. Of the ten countries with the highest rates of
death of children under five years of age, seven are affected by armed conflicts. UNICEF
estimates that 300,000 child soldiers are currently forced to fight in 30 armed conflicts
throughout the world. Many of these have been forcibly recruited or abducted.
Even when they are not killed or wounded by conflicts, children often experience painful
psychological traumas: the violent death of parents or close relatives, separation from their
families, seeing family members tortured, displacement from home, disruption of ordinary
life, exposure to shelling and other forms of combat, starvation and anxiety about the
future.2

6.6 Refugees
Human Rights Watch estimates that in 2001 there were 15 million refugees in the world,
forced from their countries by war, civil and political conflict, or by gross violations of
human rights. In addition, there were an estimated 22 million internally displaced persons,
violently forced from their homes but still within the borders of their countries.
In 2001, 78% of all refugees came from ten areas: Afghanistan, Angola, Burma, Bu-
rundi, Congo-Kinshasa, Eritrea, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Somalia and Sudan. A
quarter of all refugees are Palestinians, who make up the world’s oldest and largest refugee
population. 45% of the world’s refugees have found sanctuaries in Asia, 30% in Africa,
19% in Europe and 5% in North America.
Refugees who have crossed an international border are in principle protected by Article
14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms their right “to seek and to
enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. In 1950 the Office of the High Com-
missioner for Refugees was created to implement Article 14, and in 1951 the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted by the UN. By 2002 this legally binding
1
http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-2/issue-2-part-3/lessons-world-war-i
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state
2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080482/
6.7. DAMAGE TO INFRASTRUCTURE 211

treaty had been signed by 140 nations. However the industrialized countries have recently
adopted a very hostile and restrictive attitude towards refugees, subjecting them to arbi-
trary arrests, denial of social and economic rights, and even forcible return to countries in
which they face persecution.
The status of internally displaced persons is even worse than that of refugees who have
crossed international borders. In many cases the international community simply ignores
their suffering, reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. In fact,
the United Nations Charter is self-contradictory in this respect, since on the one hand it
calls for non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, but on the other hand,
people everywhere are guaranteed freedom from persecution by the Charter’s Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.3

6.7 Damage to infrastructure

Most insurance policies have clauses written in fine print exempting companies from pay-
ment of damage caused by war. The reason for this is simple. The damage caused by war
is so enormous that insurance companies could never come near to paying for it without
going bankrupt.
We mentioned above that the world spends 1.7 trillion dollars each year on preparations
for war. A similarly colossal amount is needed to repair the damage to infrastructure caused
by war. Sometimes this damage is unintended, but sometimes it is intentional.
During World War II, one of the main aims of air attacks by both sides was to destroy
the industrial infrastructure of the opponent. This made some sense in a war expected to
last several years, because the aim was to prevent the enemy from producing more muni-
tions. However, during the Gulf War of 1990, the infrastructure of Iraq was attacked, even
though the war was expected to be short. Electrical generating plants and water purifica-
tion facilities were deliberately destroyed with the apparent aim of obtaining leverage over
Iraq after the war.
In general, because war has such a catastrophic effect on infrastructure, it can be
thought of as the opposite of development. War is the greatest generator of poverty.4

6.8 Ecological damage

Warfare during the 20th century has not only caused the loss of 175 million lives (primarily
civilians) - it has also caused the greatest ecological catastrophes in human history. The
damage takes place even in times of peace. Studies by Joni Seager, a geographer at the
3
https://www.hrw.org/topic/refugees
4
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/11/iraq-n04.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-the-destruction-of-iraqs-electricity-infrastructure-
the-social-economic-and-environmental-impacts/5355665
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/00157630-EN-ERP-48.PDF
212 WHY WAR?

University of Vermont, conclude that “a military presence anywhere in the world is the
single most reliable predictor of ecological damage”.
Modern warfare destroys environments to such a degree that it has been described as
an “environmental holocaust.” For example, herbicides use in the Vietnam War killed an
estimated 6.2 billion board-feet of hardwood trees in the forests north and west of Saigon,
according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Herbicides such as
Agent Orange also made enormous areas of previously fertile land unsuitable for agriculture
for many years to come. In Vietnam and elsewhere in the world, valuable agricultural land
has also been lost because land mines or the remains of cluster bombs make it too dangerous
for farming.
During the Gulf War of 1990, the oil spills amounted to 150 million barrels, 650 times
the amount released into the environment by the notorious Exxon Valdez disaster. During
the Gulf War an enormous number of shells made of depleted uranium were fired. When
the dust produced by exploded shells is inhaled it often produces cancer, and it will remain
in the environment of Iraq for decades.
Radioactive fallout from nuclear tests pollutes the global environment and causes many
thousands of cases of cancer, as well as birth abnormalities. Most nuclear tests have been
carried out on lands belonging to indigenous peoples. Agent Orange also produced cancer,
birth abnormalities and other serious forms of illness both in the Vietnamese population
and among the foreign soldiers fighting in Vietnam5

6.9 Links between poverty and war

There are several relationships between intolerable economic inequality and war. Today
2.7 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day - 1.1 billion on less than 1 dollar per
day. 18 million of our fellow humans die each year from poverty-related causes. In 2006,
1.1 billion people lacked safe drinking water, and waterbourne diseases killed an estimated
1.8 million people. The developing countries are also the scene of a resurgence of other
infectious diseases, such as malaria, drug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.
Meanwhile, in 2011, world military budgets reached 1,700,000,000,000 dollars (i.e. 1.7
million million dollars). This amount of money is almost too large to be imagined. The
fact that it is being spent means that many people are making a living from the institution
of war. Wealthy and powerful lobbies from the military-industrial complex are able to
influence mass media and governments. Thus the institution of war persists, although we
know very well that it is a threat to civilization and that it responsible for much of the
suffering that humans experience.
Today’s military spending of almost two trillion US dollars per year would be more than
enough to finance safe drinking water for the entire world, and to bring primary health care
and family planning advice to all. If used constructively, the money now wasted (or worse
5
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401378/Agent-Orange-Vietnamese-children-suffering-
effects-herbicide-sprayed-US-Army-40-years-ago.html
6.9. LINKS BETWEEN POVERTY AND WAR 213

than wasted) on the institution of war could also help the world to make the transition
from fossil fuel use to renewable energy systems.
Military might is used by powerful industrialized nations to maintain economic hege-
mony over less developed countries. This is true today, even though the colonial era is
supposed to be over (as has been amply documented by Professor Michael Klare in his
books on “Resource Wars”).
The way in which the industrialized countries maintain their control over less developed
nations can be illustrated by the “resource curse”, i.e. the fact that resource-rich developing
countries are no better off economically than those that lack resources, but are cursed with
corrupt and undemocratic governments. This is because foreign corporations extracting
local resources under unfair agreements exist in a symbiotic relationship with corrupt local
officials.
One might think that taxation of foreign resource-extracting firms would provide de-
veloping countries with large incomes. However, there is at present no international law
governing multinational tax arrangements. These are usually agreed to on a bilateral basis,
and the industrialized countries have stronger bargaining powers in arranging the bilateral
agreements.
Another important poverty-generating factor in the developing countries is war - often
civil war. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are, ironically, the
five largest exporters of small arms. Small arms have a long life. The weapons poured into
Africa by both sides during the Cold War are still there, and they contribute to political
chaos and civil wars that block development and cause enormous human suffering.
The United Nations website on Peace and Security through Disarmament states that
“Small arms and light weapons destabilize regions; spark, fuel and prolong conflicts; ob-
struct relief programmes; undermine peace initiatives; exacerbate human rights abuses;
hamper development; and foster a ’culture of violence’.”
An estimated 639 million small arms and light weapons are in circulation worldwide,
one for every ten people. Approximately 300,000 people are killed every year by these
weapons, many of them women and children.
There is also another, less obvious, link between intolerable economic inequality war:
Abolition of the institution of war will require the replacement of “might makes right” by
the rule international law. It will require development of effective global governance. But
reform and strengthening of the United Nations is blocked by wealthy countries because
they are afraid of loosing their privileged positions. If global economic inequality were less
enormous, the problem of unifying the world would be simplified.
Let us work to break the links between poverty and war! To do that, we must work
for laws that will restrict the international sale of small arms; we must work for a fair
relationship between developing countries and multinational corporations; and above all,
we must question the need for colossal military budgets. By following this path we can free
the world from the intolerable suffering caused by poverty and from the equally intolerable
suffering caused by war.
214 WHY WAR?

6.10 The threat of nuclear war

As bad as conventional arms and conventional weapons may be, it is the possibility of
a catastrophic nuclear war that poses the greatest threat to humanity. There are today
roughly 16,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The total explosive power of the warheads
that exist or that could be made on short notice is approximately equal to 500,000 Hi-
roshima bombs.
To multiply the tragedy of Hiroshima by a factor of half a million makes an enormous
difference, not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. Those who have studied the
question believe that a nuclear catastrophe today would inflict irreversible damage on our
civilization, genetic pool and environment.
Thermonuclear weapons consist of an inner core where the fission of uranium-235 or
plutonium takes place. The fission reaction in the core is able to start a fusion reaction
in the next layer, which contains isotopes of hydrogen. It is possible to add a casing of
ordinary uranium outside the hydrogen layer, and under the extreme conditions produced
by the fusion reaction, this ordinary uranium can undergo fission. In this way, a fission-
fusion-fission bomb of almost limitless power can be produced.
For a victim of severe radiation exposure, the symptoms during the first week are
nausea, vomiting, fever, apathy, delirium, diarrhoea, oropharyngeal lesions and leukopenia.
Death occurs during the first or second week.
We can perhaps be helped to imagine what a nuclear catastrophe means in human
terms by reading the words of a young university professor, who was 2,500 meters from
the hypocenter at the time of the bombing of Hiroshima: “Everything I saw made a deep
impression: a park nearby covered with dead bodies... very badly injured people evacuated
in my direction... Perhaps most impressive were girls, very young girls, not only with their
clothes torn off, but their skin peeled off as well. ... My immediate thought was that this
was like the hell I had always read about. ... I had never seen anything which resembled
it before, but I thought that should there be a hell, this was it.”
One argument that has been used in favor of nuclear weapons is that no sane political
leader would employ them. However, the concept of deterrence ignores the possibility of
war by accident or miscalculation, a danger that has been increased by nuclear proliferation
and by the use of computers with very quick reaction times to control weapons systems.
Recent nuclear power plant accidents remind us that accidents frequently happen
through human and technical failure, even for systems which are considered to be very
“safe.” We must also remember the time scale of the problem. To assure the future of
humanity, nuclear catastrophe must be avoided year after year and decade after decade.
In the long run, the safety of civilization cannot be achieved except by the abolition of
nuclear weapons, and ultimately the abolition of the institution of war.
In 1985, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War received the Nobel
Peace Prize. IPPNW had been founded in 1980 by six physicians, three from the Soviet
Union and three from the United States. Today, the organization has wide membership
among the world’s physicians. Professor Bernard Lowen of the Harvard School of Public
Health, one of the founders of IPPNW, said in a recent speech:
6.10. THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR 215

“...No public health hazard ever faced by humankind equals the threat of nuclear war.
Never before has man possessed the destructive resources to make this planet uninhabit-
able... Modern medicine has nothing to offer, not even a token benefit, in the event of
nuclear war...”
“We are but transient passengers on this planet Earth. It does not belong to us. We
are not free to doom generations yet unborn. We are not at liberty to erase humanity’s
past or dim its future. Social systems do not endure for eternity. Only life can lay claim
to uninterrupted continuity. This continuity is sacred.”
The danger of a catastrophic nuclear war casts a dark shadow over the future of our
species. It also casts a very black shadow over the future of the global environment. The
environmental consequences of a massive exchange of nuclear weapons have been treated in
a number of studies by meteorologists and other experts from both East and West. They
predict that a large-scale use of nuclear weapons would result in fire storms with very high
winds and high temperatures, which would burn a large proportion of the wild land fuels
in the affected nations. The resulting smoke and dust would block out sunlight for a period
of many months, at first only in the northern hemisphere but later also in the southern
hemisphere.
Temperatures in many places would fall far below freezing, and much of the earth’s
plant life would be killed. Animals and humans would then die of starvation. The nuclear
winter effect was first discovered as a result of the Mariner 9 spacecraft exploration of
Mars in 1971. The spacecraft arrived in the middle of an enormous dust-storm on Mars,
and measured a large temperature drop at the surface of the planet, accompanied by a
heating of the upper atmosphere. These measurements allowed scientists to check their
theoretical models for predicting the effect of dust and other pollutants distributed in
planetary atmospheres.
Using experience gained from the studies of Mars, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T. Ackerman,
J.B. Pollack and C. Sagan made a computer study of the climatic effects of the smoke
and dust that would result from a large-scale nuclear war. This early research project is
sometimes called the TTAPS Study, after the initials of the authors.
In April 1983, a special meeting was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the
results of the TTAPS Study and other independent studies of the nuclear winter effect
were discussed by more than 100 experts. Their conclusions were presented at a forum
in Washington, D.C., the following December, under the chairmanship of U.S. Senators
Kennedy and Hatfield. The numerous independent studies of the nuclear winter effect all
agreed of the following main predictions:
High-yield nuclear weapons exploded near the earth’s surface would put large amounts
of dust into the upper atmosphere. Nuclear weapons exploded over cities, forests, oilfields
and refineries would produce fire storms of the type experienced in Dresden and Hamburg
after incendiary bombings during the Second World War. The combination of high-altitude
dust and lower altitude soot would prevent sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, and
the degree of obscuration would be extremely high for a wide range of scenarios.
A baseline scenario used by the TTAPS study assumes a 5,000-megaton nuclear ex-
change, but the threshold for triggering the nuclear winter effect is believed to be much
216 WHY WAR?

lower than that. After such an exchange, the screening effect of pollutants in the atmo-
sphere might be so great that, in the northern and middle latitudes, the sunlight reaching
the earth would be only 1% of ordinary sunlight on a clear day, and this effect would
persist for many months. As a result, the upper layers in the atmosphere might rise in
temperature by as much as 100 ◦ C, while the surface temperatures would fall, perhaps by
as much a 50 ◦ C.
The temperature inversion produced in this way would lead to superstability, a con-
dition in which the normal mixing of atmospheric layers is suppressed. The hydrological
cycle (which normally takes moist air from the oceans to a higher and cooler level, where
the moisture condenses as rain) would be strongly suppressed. Severe droughts would thus
take place over continental land masses. The normal cleansing action of rain would be
absent in the atmosphere, an effect which would prolong the nuclear winter.
In the northern hemisphere, forests would die because of lack of sunlight, extreme
cold, and drought. Although the temperature drop in the southern hemisphere would be
less severe, it might still be sufficient to kill a large portion of the tropical forests, which
normally help to renew the earth’s oxygen.
The oxygen content of the atmosphere would then fall dangerously, while the concen-
tration of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen produced by firestorms would remain high.
The oxides of nitrogen would ultimately diffuse to the upper atmosphere, where they would
destroy the ozone layer.
Thus, even when the sunlight returned after an absence of many months, it would be
sunlight containing a large proportion of the ultraviolet frequencies which are normally
absorbed by the ozone in the stratosphere, and therefore a type of light dangerous to life.
Finally, after being so severely disturbed, there is no guarantee that the global climate
would return to its normal equilibrium.
Even a nuclear war below the threshold of nuclear winter might have climatic effects
very damaging to human life. Professor Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University, has expressed
this in the following words:
“...A smaller war, which set off fewer fires and put less dust into the atmosphere, could
easily depress temperatures enough to essentially cancel grain production in the northern
hemisphere. That in itself would be the greatest catastrophe ever delivered upon Homo
Sapiens, just that one thing, not worrying about prompt effects. Thus even below the
threshold, one cannot think of survival of a nuclear war as just being able to stand up after
the bomb has gone off.”6
6
http://www.voanews.com/content/pope-francis-calls-for-nuclear-weapons-ban/2909357.html
http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-4/flaws-concept-nuclear-deterrance
http://www.countercurrents.org/avery300713.htm
https://www.wagingpeace.org/author/john-avery/
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/08/06/70-years-after-bombing-hiroshima-calls-abolish-
nuclear-weapons
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42488.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42492.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/06/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-remembering-power
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/07/22/israel-iran-and-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty/
6.10. THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR 217

Figure 6.5: U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres addressed the Human
Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland February 26,
2018.
.

Speaking to the Conference on Disarmament at the U.N. complex in Geneva, Guterres

said many states still wrongly thought that nuclear weapons made the world safer.
“There is great and justified anxiety around the world about the threat of nuclear war,”
he said.
“Countries persist in clinging to the fallacious idea that nuclear arms make the world
safer ... At the global level, we must work towards forging a new momentum on eliminating
nuclear weapons.”

http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/06/25/militarisms-hostages/
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/05/24/the-path-to-zero-dialogues-on-nuclear-dangers-by-richard-
falk-and-david-krieger/
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/03/30/europe-must-not-be-forced-into-a-nuclear-war-with-russia/
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32073-the-us-should-eliminate-its-nuclear-arsenal-not-
modernize-it
http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-4/flaws-concept-nuclear-deterrance
http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-6/arms-trade-treaty-opens-new-possibilities-u
http://eruditio.worldacademy.org/issue-6/article/remember-your-humanity
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42568.htm
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-
obama/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42577.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42580.htm
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/08/06/us-unleashing-of-atomic-weapons-against-civilian-
populations-was-a-criminal-act-of-the-first-order/
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/08/06/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-remembering-the-power-of-peace/
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/08/04/atomic-bombing-hear-the-story-setsuko-thurlow/
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/08/04/atomic-bombing-hear-the-story-yasuaki-yamashita/
http://human-wrongs-watch.net/2015/08/03/why-nuclear-weapons/
218 WHY WAR?

Two World War I poems by Wilfred Owen

Wilfred Owen and his mentor, Siegfried Sassoon were two poets who eloquently described
the horrors of World War I. They met in a military hospital, after both had been wounded
in the war. Owen had been writing poetry since the age of 11, but not about war. When
he became friends with Sassoon during their hospital stay, Owen was inspired by Sassoon’s
example and realized that the horrors of trenches and gas warfare deserved to be described
realistically in poetry. Against the strong advice of Sassoon, Owen insisted on returning
to active duty in France, where he wrote the eloquent and bitter war poems for which he
is remembered.
Owen was killed in action exactly one week before the end of the war. His mother
received the telegram informing her of his death on Armistice Day, as the church bells were
ringing out in celebration. Here are two of Owen’s poems:

Dulce et decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned out backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! - An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
6.10. THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR 219

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

The parable of the old man and the young

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
and builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

We condemn human sacrifice in primitive cultures, but does not our modern industrial
society also practice this abominable custom? We sacrifice countless young men and women
in endless and unnecessary wars.

World War II: a continuation of World War I

In the Second World War, the number of soldiers killed was roughly the same as in World
War I, but the numbers of civilian deaths was much larger. In the USSR alone, about
20 million people are thought to have been killed, directly or indirectly, by World War II,
and of these only 7.5 million were battle deaths. Many of the USSR’s civilian deaths were
caused by starvation, disease or exposure. Civilian populations also suffered greatly in the
devastating bombings of cities such as London, Coventry, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Dresden,
Cologne, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In World War II, the total number of
deaths, civilian and military, is estimated to have been between 62 and 78 million.
Do Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, who are contemplating starting what might
develop into World War III, have any imaginative concept of what it would be like? Ne-
tanyahu has told the Israeli people that only 500 of their citizens would be killed, and that
the conflict would be over in a month. One is reminded of the Austrian leaders in 1914,
who started a what they thought would be a small action to punish the Serbian nation-
220 WHY WAR?

alists for their Pan-Slavic ambitions. When the result was a world-destroying war, they
said “That is not what we intended.” Of course it is not what they intended, but nobody
can control the escalation of conflicts. The astonishing unrealism of the Netanyahu-Barak
statements also reminds one of Kaiser Wilhelm’s monumentally unrealistic words to his
departing troops: “You will be home before the leaves are off the trees.”
The planned attack on Iran would not only violate international law, but would also
violate common sense and the wishes of the people of Israel. The probable result would
be a massive Iranian missile attack on Tel Aviv, and Iran would probably also close the
Straits of Hormuz. If the United States responded by bombing Iranian targets, Iran would
probably use missiles to sink one or more of the US ships in the Persian Gulf. One can
easily imagine other steps in the escalation of the conflict: a revolution in Pakistan; the
entry of nuclear-armed Pakistan into the war on the side of Iran; a preemptive nuclear
strike by Israel against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons; and Chinese-Russian support of Iran.
In the tense atmosphere of such a war, the danger of a major nuclear exchange, due to
accident or miscalculation, would be very great.
Today, because the technology of killing has continued to develop, the danger of a
catastrophic war with hydrogen bombs hangs like a dark cloud over the future of human
civilization. The total explosive power of today’s weapons is equivalent to roughly half a
million Hiroshima bombs. To multiply the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by a factor
of half a million changes the danger qualitatively. What is threatened today is the complete
breakdown of human society.
There are more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, about 4,000 of them
on hair-trigger alert. The phrase “hair trigger alert” means that the person in charge has
only 15 minutes to decide whether the warning from the radar system was true of false,
and to decide whether or not to launch a counterattack. The danger of accidental nuclear
war continues to be high. Technical failures and human failures have many times brought
the world close to a catastrophic nuclear war. Those who know the system of “deterrence”
best describe it as “an accident waiting to happen”.
No one can win a nuclear war, just as no one can win a natural catastrophe like an
earthquake or a tsunami. The effects of a nuclear war would be global, and all the nations
of the world would suffer - also neutral nations.
Recent studies by atmospheric scientists have shown that the smoke from burning
cities produced by even a limited nuclear war would have a devastating effect on global
agriculture. The studies show that the smoke would rise to the stratosphere, where it would
spread globally and remain for a decade, blocking sunlight, blocking the hydrological cycle
and destroying the ozone layer. Because of the devastating effect on global agriculture,
darkness from even a small nuclear war could result in an estimated billion deaths from
famine. This number corresponds to the fact that today, a billion people are chronically
undernourished. If global agriculture were sufficiently damaged by a nuclear war, these
vulnerable people might not survive. A large-scale nuclear war would be an even greater
global catastrophe, completely destroying all agriculture for a period of ten years.
The tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima remind us that a nuclear war would make
large areas of the world permanently uninhabitable because of long-lasting radioactive
6.11. ATOMS FOR PEACE? 221

contamination.
The First World War was a colossal mistake. Today, the world stands on the threshold
of an equally enormous disaster. Must we again be lead into a world-destroying war by a
few blind individuals who do not have the slightest idea of what such a war would be like?

6.11 Atoms for peace?

“Atoms for Peace”, the title of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1953 speech to
the U.N. General Assembly, may be regarded by future generations as being tragically
self-contradictory. Nuclear power generation has led not only to dangerous proliferation of
nuclear weapons, but also to disasters which have made large areas of the world perma-
nently uninhabitable because of long-lived radioactive contamination.
According to Wikipedia, “...Under Atoms for Peace related programs, the US exported
25 tons of highly enriched uranium to 30 countries, mostly to fuel research reactors....The
Soviet Union also exported 11 tons of HEU under a similar program.” This enormous
quantity of loose weapons-usable highly enriched uranium, is now regarded as very worrying
because of proliferation and terrorism risks.
222 WHY WAR?

A recent article in “The Examiner” (http://www.examiner.com/article/nuclear-security-

u-s-fails-to-protect-its-nuclear-materials-overseas) pointed out that “...NRC and DOE could
not account for the current location and disposition of U.S. HEW overseas in response to
a 1992 congressional mandate. U.S. agencies, in a 1993 report produced in response to the
mandate, were able to verify the location of only 1.160 kilograms out of 17,500 kilograms
of U.S. HEW estimated to have been exported.”
The dangers of nuclear power generation are exemplified by the Chernobyl disaster: On
the 26th of April, 1986, during the small hours of the morning, the staff of the Chernobyl
nuclear reactor in Ukraine turned off several safety systems in order to perform a test.
The result was a core meltdown in Reactor 4, causing a chemical explosion that blew off
the reactor’s 1,000-ton steel and concrete lid. 190 tons of highly radioactive uranium and
graphite were hurled into the atmosphere.
The resulting radioactive fallout was 200 times greater than that caused by the nuclear
bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The radioactive cloud spread over Belarus,
Ukraine, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Eastern Europe, exposing the populations of these
regions to levels of radiation 100 times the normal background. Ultimately, the radioactive
cloud reached as far as Greenland and parts of Asia.
The exact number of casualties resulting from the Chernobyl meltdown is a matter of
controversy, but according to a United Nations report, as many as 9 million people have
been adversely affected by the disaster. Since 1986, the rate of thyroid cancer in affected
areas has increased ten-fold. An area of 155,000 square kilometers (almost half the size of
Italy) in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia is still severely contaminated. Even as far away as
Wales, hundreds of farms are still under restrictions because of sheep eating radioactive
grass.
The more recent disaster of 11 March, 2011, may prove to be very much worse than
Chernobyl. According to an article by Harvey Wasserman
(http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/03-3),
the ongoing fallout from the Fukushima catastrophe is already far in excess of that from
Chernobyl. Ecosystems of the entire Pacific ocean are being contaminated by the 300 tons
of radioactive water from Fukushima.that continue to pour into the Pacific every day.
Meanwhile, the increasingly militaristic government of Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe has passed a State Secrets Act that makes it an offense punishable by 5 year’s impris-
onment for journalists to report on the situation. Under this cloak of secrecy, attempts are
being made to remove highly radioactive used fuel rods balanced precariously in a partially
destroyed container hanging in the air above the stricken Unit Four. If an accident should
occur, the released radioactivity could dwarf previous disasters.
Public opinion turned against nuclear power generation as a result of the Chernobyl
and Fukushima catastrophes. Nevertheless, many governments insist on pushing forward
their plans for opening new nuclear power plants, despite popular opposition. Nuclear
power could never compete in price with solar energy or wind energy if it were not heavily
subsidized by governments. Furthermore, if a careful accounting is made of the CO2
released in the construction of nuclear power plants, the mining, refining and transportation
of uranium ore, and the final decommissioning of the plants, the amount of CO2 released
6.11. ATOMS FOR PEACE? 223

is seen to be similar to that of coal-fired plants.

There are three basic reasons why nuclear power generation is is one of the worst
ideas ever conceived: First is the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons, which will be
discussed in detail below. Secondly, there is the danger of catastrophic accidents, such as
the ones that occurred at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Finally, the problem of how to safely
dispose of or store used fuel rods has not been solved.
In thinking about the dangers posed by radioactive waste, we should remember that
many of the dangerous radioisotopes involved have half-lives of hundreds of thousands of
years. Thus, it is not sufficient to seal them in containers that will last for a century, or
even a millennium. We must find containers that will last for a hundred thousand years
or more, longer than any human structure has ever lasted.
Of the two bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one made use of the rare
isotope of uranium, U-235, while the other used plutonium. Both of these materials can
be made by a nation with a nuclear power generation program.
Uranium has atomic number 92, i.e., a neutral uranium atom has a nucleus containing
92 positively-charged protons, around which 92 negatively-charged electrons circle. All of
the isotopes of uranium have the same number of protons and electrons, and hence the
same chemical properties, but they differ in the number of neutrons in their nuclei. For
example, the nucleus of U-235 has 143 neutrons, while that of U-238 has 146. Notice that
92+143=235, while 92+146=238. The number written after the name of an element to
specify a particular isotope is the number of neutrons plus the number of protons. This
is called the “nucleon number”, and the weight of an isotope is roughly proportional to
it. This means that U-238 is slightly heavier than U-235. If the two isotopes are to be
separated, difficult physical methods dependent on mass must be used, since their chemical
properties are identical. In natural uranium, the amount of the rare isotope U-235 is only
224 WHY WAR?
6.11. ATOMS FOR PEACE? 225
226 WHY WAR?

Figure 6.6: People evacuated from the region near to Fukushima wonder when
they will be able to return to their homes. The honest answer is “never”.
6.11. ATOMS FOR PEACE? 227

0.7 percent.
A paper published in 1939 by Niels Bohr and John A. Wheeler indicated that it was
the rare isotope of uranium, U-235, that undergoes fission. A bomb could be constructed,
they pointed out, if enough highly enriched U-235 could be isolated from the more common
isotope, U-238 Calculations later performed in England by Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls
showed that the “critical mass” of highly enriched uranium needed is quite small: only a
few kilograms.
The Bohr-Wheeler theory also predicted that an isotope of plutonium, Pu-239, should
be just as fissionable as U-235. Both U-235 and Pu-239 have odd nucleon numbers. When
U-235 absorbs a neutron, it becomes U-236, while when Pu-239 absorbs a neutron it
becomes Pu-240. In other words, absorption of a neutron converts both these species to
nuclei with even nucleon numbers.
According to the Bohr-Wheeler theory, nuclei with even nucleon numbers are especially
tightly-bound. Thus absorption of a neutron converts U-235 to a highly-excited state of U-
236, while Pu-239 is similarly converted to a highly excited state of Pu-240. The excitation
energy distorts the nuclei to such an extent that fission becomes possible. Instead of trying
to separate the rare isotope, U-235, from the common isotope, U-238, physicists could
just operate a nuclear reactor until a sufficient amount of Pu-239 accumulated, and then
separate it out by ordinary chemical means.
Thus in 1942, when Enrico Fermi and his coworkers at the University of Chicago pro-
duced the world’s first controlled chain reaction within a pile of cans containing ordi-
nary (nonenriched) uranium powder, separated by blocks of very pure graphite, the chain-
reacting pile had a double significance: It represented a new source of energy, but it also
had a sinister meaning. It represented an easy path to nuclear weapons, since one of the
by-products of the reaction was a fissionable isotope of plutonium, Pu-239. The bomb
dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 used U-235, while the Nagasaki bomb used Pu-239.
By reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods, using ordinary chemical means, a nation with
a power reactor can obtain weapons-usable Pu-239. Even when such reprocessing is per-
formed under international control, the uncertainty as to the amount of Pu-239 obtained
is large enough so that the operation might superficially seem to conform to regulations
while still supplying enough Pu-239 to make many bombs.
The enrichment of uranium, i.e. production of uranium with a higher percentage of
U-235 than is found in natural uranium is also linked to reactor use. Many reactors of
modern design make use of low enriched uranium (LEU) as a fuel. Nations operating such
a reactor may claim that they need a program for uranium enrichment in order to produce
LEU for fuel rods. However, by operating their ultracentrifuges a little longer, they can
easily produce highly enriched uranium (HEU), i.e. uranium containing a high percentage
of the rare isotope U-235, and therefore usable in weapons.
Nuclear power generation is not a solution to the problem of obtaining energy without
producing dangerous climate change: Known reserves of uranium are only sufficient for
the generation of about 25 terawatt-years of electrical energy (Craig, J.R., Vaugn, D.J.
and Skinner, B.J., ”Resources of the Earth: Origin, Use and Environmental Impact, Third
Edition”, page 210). This can be compared with the world’s current rate of energy use of
228 WHY WAR?

Figure 6.7: Radioactive contamination from the Fukushima disaster is spreading

through the food chain of marine life throughout the Pacific region.

over 14 terrawatts. Thus, if all of our energy were obtained from nuclear power, existing
reserves of uranium would only be sufficient for about 2 years.
It is sometimes argued that a larger amount of electricity could be obtained from the
same amount of uranium through the use of fast breeder reactors, but this would involve
totally unacceptable proliferation risks. In fast breeder reactors, the fuel rods consist of
highly enriched uranium. Around the core, is an envelope of natural uranium. The flux of
fast neutrons from the core is sufficient to convert a part of the U-238 in the envelope into
Pu-239, a fissionable isotope of plutonium.
Fast breeder reactors are prohibitively dangerous from the standpoint of nuclear prolif-
eration because both the highly enriched uranium from the fuel rods and the Pu-239 from
the envelope are directly weapons-usable. It would be impossible, from the standpoint of
equity, to maintain that some nations have the right to use fast breeder reactors, while
others do not. If all nations used fast breeder reactors, the number of nuclear weapons
states would increase drastically.
It is interesting to review the way in which Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, India and
North Korea obtained their nuclear weapons, since in all these cases the weapons were
constructed under the guise of “atoms for peace”, a phrase that future generations may
someday regard as being tragically self-contradictory.
Israel began producing nuclear weapons in the late 1960’s (with the help of a “peaceful”
6.11. ATOMS FOR PEACE? 229

Figure 6.8: The Israeli nuclear technician and whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu
called public attention to Israel’s nuclear weapons while on a trip to England.
He was lured to Italy by a Mossad “honey trap”, where he was drugged, kid-
napped and transported to Israel by Mossad.
230 WHY WAR?

Figure 6.9: Vanunu was imprisoned for 18 years, during 11 of which he was
held in solitary confinement and subjected to psychological torture, such as
not being allowed to sleep for long periods.
6.11. ATOMS FOR PEACE? 231

nuclear reactor provided by France, and with the tacit approval of the United States) and
the country is now believed to possess 100-150 of them, including neutron bombs. Israel’s
policy is one of visibly possessing nuclear weapons while denying their existence.
South Africa, with the help of Israel and France, also weaponized its civil nuclear pro-
gram, and it tested nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean in 1979. In 1991 however, South
Africa destroyed its nuclear weapons and signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India produced what it described as a ”peaceful nuclear explosion” in 1974. By 1989
Indian scientists were making efforts to purify the lithium-6 isotope, a key component of
the much more powerful thermonuclear bombs. In 1998, India conducted underground
tests of nuclear weapons, and is now believed to have roughly 60 warheads, constructed
from Pu-239 produced in “peaceful” reactors.
Pakistan’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons were spurred by India’s 1974 “peaceful
nuclear explosion”. As early as 1970, the laboratory of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, (a metal-
lurgist who was to become Pakistan’s leading nuclear bomb maker) had been able to obtain
from a Dutch firm the high-speed ultracentrifuges needed for uranium enrichment. With
unlimited financial support and freedom from auditing requirements, Dr. Khan purchased
restricted items needed for nuclear weapon construction from companies in Europe and
the United States. In the process, Dr. Khan became an extremely wealthy man. With
additional help from China, Pakistan was ready to test five nuclear weapons in 1998.
The Indian and Pakistani nuclear bomb tests, conducted in rapid succession, presented
the world with the danger that these devastating weapons would be used in the conflict
over Kashmir. Indeed, Pakistan announced that if a war broke out using conventional
weapons, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be used “at an early stage”.
In Pakistan, Dr. A.Q. Khan became a great national hero. He was presented as the
person who had saved Pakistan from attack by India by creating Pakistan’s own nuclear
weapons. In a Washington Post article (1 February, 2004) Pervez Hoodbhoy wrote: “Nu-
clear nationalism was the order of the day as governments vigorously promoted the bomb
as the symbol of Pakistan’s high scientific achievement and self- respect...” Similar mani-
festations of nuclear nationalism could also be seen in India after India’s 1998 bomb tests.

Early in 2004, it was revealed that Dr. Khan had for years been selling nuclear secrets
and equipment to Libya, Iran and North Korea, and that he had contacts with Al Qaeda.
However, observers considered that it was unlikely that Khan would be tried, since a trial
might implicate Pakistan’s army as well as two of its former prime ministers.
There is a danger that Pakistan’s unpopular government may be overthrown, and that
the revolutionists might give Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to a subnational organization.
This type of danger is a general one associated with nuclear proliferation. As more and
more countries obtain nuclear weapons, it becomes increasingly likely that one of them will
undergo a revolution, during the course of which nuclear weapons will fall into the hands
of criminals or terrorists.
There is also a possibility that poorly-guarded fissionable material could fall into the
hands of subnational groups, who would then succeed in constructing their own nuclear
weapons. Given a critical mass of highly-enriched uranium, a terrorist group, or an or-
232 WHY WAR?

ganized criminal (Mafia) group, could easily construct a crude gun-type nuclear explosive
device. Pu-239 is more difficult to use since it is highly radioactive, but the physicist Frank
Barnaby believes that a subnational group could nevertheless construct a crude nuclear
bomb (of the Nagasaki type) from this material.
We must remember the remark of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the 9/11/2001
attacks on the World Trade Center. He said, “This time it was not a nuclear explosion”.
The meaning of his remark is clear: If the world does not take strong steps to eliminate
fissionable materials and nuclear weapons, it will only be a matter of time before they
will be used in terrorist attacks on major cities, or by organized criminals for the purpose
of extortion. Neither terrorists nor organized criminals can be deterred by the threat of
nuclear retaliation, since they have no territory against which such retaliation could be
directed. They blend invisibly into the general population. Nor can a ”missile defense
system” prevent criminals or terrorists from using nuclear weapons, since the weapons can
be brought into a port in any one of the hundreds of thousands of containers that enter on
ships each year, a number far too large to be checked exhaustively.
Finally we must remember that if the number of nations possessing nuclear weapons
becomes very large, there will be a greatly increased chance that these weapons will be used
in conflicts between nations, either by accident or through irresponsible political decisions.

The slogan “Atoms for Peace” has proved to be such a misnomer that it would be
laughable if it were not so tragic. Nuclear power generation has been a terrible mistake.
We must stop before we turn our beautiful earth into a radioactive wasteland.

6.12 Cancer threat from radioactive leaks at Hanford

On August 9, 1945, a nuclear bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Within
a radius of one mile, destruction was total. People were vaporized so that the only shadows
on concrete pavements were left to show where they had been. Many people outside the
radius of total destruction were trapped in their collapsed houses, and were burned alive
by the fire that followed. By the end of 1945, an estimated 80,000 men, women, young
children, babies and old people had died as a result of the bombing. As the years passed
more people continued to die from radiation sickness.
Plutonium for the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki had been made at an enormous nuclear
reactor station located at Hanford in the state of Washington. During the Cold War,
the reactors at Hanford produced enough weapons-usable plutonium for 60,000 nuclear
weapons. The continued existence of plutonium and highly-enriched uranium-235 in the
stockpiles of nuclear weapons states hangs like a dark cloud over the future of humanity.
A full scale thermonuclear war would be the ultimate ecological catastrophe, threatening
to make the world permanently uninhabitable.
Besides playing a large role in the tragedy of Nagasaki, the reactor complex at Hanford
has damaged the health of many thousands of Americans. The prospects for the future
are even worse. Many millions of gallons of radioactive waste are held in Hanford’s aging
6.12. CANCER THREAT FROM RADIOACTIVE LEAKS AT HANFORD 233

storage tanks, the majority of which have exceeded their planned lifetimes. The following
quotations are taken from a Wikipedia article on Hanford, especially the section devoted
to ecological concerns:
“A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat
produced by Hanford’s nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling
water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to
the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks
known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by
this retention, and several tetrabecquerels entered the river every day. These releases were
kept secret by the federal government. Radiation was later measured downstream as far
west as the Washington and Oregon coasts.”
“The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes
into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and
into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and British Colombia. Downwinders were exposed
to radionuclide’s, particularly Iodine 131... These radionuclide’s filtered into the food
chain via contaminated fields where dairy cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested
by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Most of these
airborne releases were a part of Hanford’s routine operations, while a few of the larger
releases occurred in isolated incidents.”
“In response to an article in the Spokane Spokesman Review in September 1985, the
Department of Energy announced its intent to declassify environmental records and in
February, 1986 released to the public 19,000 pages of previously unavailable historical
documents about Hanford’s operations. The Washington State Department of Health col-
laborated with the citizen-led Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) to publicize
data about the health effects of Hanford’s operations. HHIN reports concluded that res-
idents who lived downwind from Hanford or who used the Columbia River downstream
were exposed to elevated doses of radiation that placed them at increased risk for various
cancers and other diseases.”
“The most significant challenge at Hanford is stabilizing the 53 million U.S. Gallons
(204,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. About a
third of these tanks have leaked waste into the soil and groundwater. As of 2008, most
of the liquid waste has been transferred to more secure double-shelled tanks; however, 2.8
million U.S. Gallons (10,600 m3) of liquid waste, together with 27 million U.S. gallons
(100,000 m3) of salt cake and sludge, remains in the single-shelled tanks.That waste was
originally scheduled to be removed by 2018. The revised deadline is 2040. Nearby aquifers
contain an estimated 270 billion U.S. Gallons (1 billion m3) of contaminated groundwater
as a result of the leaks. As of 2008, 1 million U.S. Gallons (4,000 m3) of highly radioactive
waste is traveling through the groundwater toward the Columbia River.”
The documents made public in 1986 revealed that radiation was intentionally and
secretly released by the plant and that people living near to it acted as unknowing guinea
pigs in experiments testing radiation dangers. Thousands of people who live in the vicinity
of the Hanford Site have suffered an array of health problems including thyroid cancers,
autoimmune diseases and reproductive disorders that they feel are the direct result of these
234 WHY WAR?

releases and experiments.

In thinking about the dangers posed by leakage of radioactive waste, we should re-
member that many of the dangerous radioisotopes involved have half-lives of hundreds of
thousands of years. Thus, it is not sufficient to seal them into containers that will last
for a century or even a millennium. We must find containers that will last for a hundred
thousand years or more, longer than any human structure has ever lasted. This logic
has lead Finland to deposit its radioactive waste in a complex of underground tunnels
carved out of solid rock. But looking ahead for a hundred thousand years involves other
problems: If humans survive for that long, what language will they speak? Certainly not
the languages of today. How can we warn them that the complex of tunnels containing
radioactive waste is a death trap? The reader is urged to see a film exploring these prob-
lems, “Into Eternity”, by the young Danish film-maker Michael Madsen. Here is the link:
http://dotsub.com/view/8e40ebda-5966-4212-9b96-6abbce3c6577.
We have already gone a long way towards turning our beautiful planet earth into a
nuclear wasteland. In the future, let us be more careful, as guardians of a precious heritage,
the natural world and the lives of all future generations.

6.13 An accident waiting to happen

In Stanley Kubrick’s film, “Dr. Strangelove”, a paranoid ultra-nationalist brigadier general,
Jack D. Ripper, orders a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union because he believes that the
Soviets are using water fluoridation as a means to rob Americans of their “precious bodily
fluids”. Efforts are made to recall the US bombers, but this proves to be impossible, and
the attack triggers the Soviet “Doomsday Machine”. The world is destroyed.
Kubrick’s film is a black comedy, and we all laugh at it, especially because of the
brilliant performance of Peter Sellers in multiple roles. Unfortunately, however, the film
comes uncomfortably close to reality. An all-destroying nuclear war could very easily be
started by an insane or incompetent person whose hand happens to be on the red button.

This possibility (or probability) has recently come to public attention through newspa-
per articles revealing that 11 of the officers responsible for launching US nuclear missiles
have been fired because of drug addiction. Furthermore, a larger number of missile launch
officers were found to be cheating on competence examinations. Three dozen officers were
involved in the cheating ring, and some reports state that an equal number of others may
have known about it., and remained silent. Finally, it was shown that safety rules were
being deliberately ignored. The men involved, were said to be “burned out”.
According to an article in The Guardian (Wednesday, 15 January, 2014), “Revelations
of misconduct and incompetence in the nuclear missile program go back at least to 2007,
when six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were accidentally loaded onto a B-52 bomber in
Minot, North Dakota, and flown to a base in Louisiana.”
“Last March, military inspectors gave officers at the ICBM base in Minot the equivalent
of a ’D’ grade for launch mastery. Â A month later, 17 officers were stripped of their
6.13. AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN 235

Figure 6.10: Peter Sellers (left) listens while Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper
tells him about the Soviet conspiracy to steal his “precious bodily fluids”.

authority to launch the missiles.”

“In October, a senior air force officer in charge of 450 ICBM’s, major general Michael
Carey, was fired after accusations of drunken misconduct during a summer trip to Moscow.
An internal investigation  found  that Carey drank heavily, cavorted with two foreign
women and visited a nightclub called La Cantina, where Maj. Gen. Carey had alcohol
and kept trying to get the band to let him play with them.”
The possibility that a catastrophic nuclear war could be triggered by a madman gains
force from the recent statements of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has said repeatedly that,
with or without US help, Israel intends to attack Iran. Such an attack, besides being a
war crime, would be literally insane.
If Netanyahu believes that a war with Iran would be short or limited, he is ignoring
several very obvious dangers. Such a war would most probably escalate into a widespread
general war in the Middle East. It could cause a revolution in Pakistan, and the new
revolutionary government of Pakistan would be likely to enter the war on the side of Iran,
bringing with it Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Russia and China, both staunch allies of Iran,
might be drawn into the conflict. There is a danger that the conflict could escalate into
a Third World War, where nuclear weapons might easily be used, either by accident or
intentionally. .
China could do grave economic damage to the United States through its large dollar
holdings. Much of the world’s supply of petroleum passes through the Straits of Hormuz,
and a war in the region could greatly raise the price of oil, triggering a depression that
might rival or surpass the Great Depression of the 1920’s and 1930’s. Â
The probability of a catastrophic nuclear war occurring by accident is made greater
236 WHY WAR?

Figure 6.11: Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove. He has to restrain his black-gloved
crippled hand, which keeps trying to give a Nazi salute.

Figure 6.12: General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) struggles with the Rus-
sian Ambassador. Peter Sellers (right) playing the US President, rebukes them
for fighting in the War Room.
6.13. AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN 237

Figure 6.13: Major T. “King” Kong rides a nuclear bomb on its way down, where
it will trigger the Soviet Doomsday Machine and ultimately destroy the world.

by the fact that several thousand nuclear weapons are kept on “hair-trigger alert” with
a quasi-automatic reaction time measured in minutes. There is a constant danger that a
nuclear war will be triggered by an error in evaluating a signal on a radar screen.
238 WHY WAR?

Figure 6.14: Benjamin Netanyahu has stated repeatedly that, with or without
US support, Israel will attack Iran, an action that could escalate uncontrollably
into World War III.
6.14. FLAWS IN THE CONCEPT OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 239

6.14 Flaws in the concept of nuclear deterrence

Before discussing other defects in the concept of deterrence, it must be said very clearly
that the idea of “massive nuclear retaliation” is completely unacceptable from an ethical
point of view. The doctrine of retaliation, performed on a massive scale, violates not only
the principles of common human decency and common sense, but also the ethical principles
of every major religion. Retaliation is especially contrary to the central commandment of
Christianity which tells us to love our neighbor, even if he or she is far away from us,
belonging to a different ethnic or political group, and even if our distant neighbor has
seriously injured us. This principle has a fundamental place not only in in Christianity
but also in Buddhism. “Massive retaliation” completely violates these very central ethical
principles, which are not only clearly stated and fundamental but also very practical, since
they prevent escalatory cycles of revenge and counter-revenge.
Contrast Christian ethics with estimates of the number of deaths that would follow a US
nuclear strike against Russia: Several hundred million deaths. These horrifying estimates
shock us not only because of the enormous magnitude of the expected mortality, but also
because the victims would include people of every kind: women, men, old people, children
and infants, completely irrespective of any degree of guilt that they might have. As a result
of such an attack, many millions of people in neutral countries would also die. This type
of killing has to be classified as genocide.
When a suspected criminal is tried for a wrongdoing, great efforts are devoted to clar-
ifying the question of guilt or innocence. Punishment only follows if guilt can be proved
beyond any reasonable doubt. Contrast this with the totally indiscriminate mass slaughter
that results from a nuclear attack!
It might be objected that disregard for the guilt or innocence of victims is a universal
characteristic of modern war, since statistics show that, with time, a larger and larger
percentage of the victims have been civilians, and especially children. For example, the
air attacks on Coventry during World War II, or the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo,
produced massive casualties which involved all segments of the population with complete
disregard for the question of guilt or innocence. The answer, I think, is that modern war
has become generally unacceptable from an ethical point of view, and this unacceptability
is epitomized in nuclear weapons.
The enormous and indiscriminate destruction produced by nuclear weapons formed the
background for an historic 1996 decision by the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
In response to questions put to it by WHO and the UN General Assembly, the Court ruled
that “the threat and use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of
international law applicable in armed conflict, and particularly the principles and rules of
humanitarian law.” The only possible exception to this general rule might be “an extreme
circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake”. But
the Court refused to say that even in this extreme circumstance the threat or use of nuclear
weapons would be legal. It left the exceptional case undecided. In addition, the World
Court added unanimously that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and
bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under
240 WHY WAR?

strict international control.”

This landmark decision has been criticized by the nuclear weapon states as being de-
cided “by a narrow margin”, but the structuring of the vote made the margin seem more
narrow than it actually was. Seven judges voted against Paragraph 2E of the decision
(the paragraph which states that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally
illegal, but which mentions as a possible exception the case where a nation might be de-
fending itself from an attack that threatened its very existence.) Seven judges voted for
the paragraph, with the President of the Court, Muhammad Bedjaoui of Algeria casting
the deciding vote. Thus the Court adopted it, seemingly by a narrow margin. But three of
the judges who voted against 2E did so because they believed that no possible exception
should be mentioned! Thus, if the vote had been slightly differently structured, the result
would have be ten to four.
Of the remaining four judges who cast dissenting votes, three represented nuclear
weapons states, while the fourth thought that the Court ought not to have accepted the
questions from WHO and the UN. However Judge Schwebel from the United States, who
voted against Paragraph 2E, nevertheless added, in a separate opinion, “It cannot be ac-
cepted that the use of nuclear weapons on a scale which would - or could - result in the
deaths of many millions in indiscriminate inferno and by far-reaching fallout, have per-
nicious effects in space and time, and render uninhabitable much of the earth, could be
lawful.” Judge Higgins from the UK, the first woman judge in the history of the Court,
had problems with the word “generally” in Paragraph 2E and therefore voted against it,
but she thought that a more profound analysis might have led the Court to conclude in
favor of illegality in all circumstances. Judge Fleischhauer of Germany said in his separate
opinion, “The nuclear weapon is, in many ways, the negation of the humanitarian con-
siderations underlying the law applicable in armed conflict and the principle of neutrality.
The nuclear weapon cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. It causes
immeasurable suffering. The radiation released by it is unable to respect the territorial
integrity of neutral States.”
President Bedjaoui, summarizing the majority opinion, called nuclear weapons “the
ultimate evil”, and said “By its nature, the nuclear weapon, this blind weapon, destabilizes
humanitarian law, the law of discrimination in the use of weapons... The ultimate aim of
every action in the field of nuclear arms will always be nuclear disarmament, an aim which
is no longer utopian and which all have a duty to pursue more actively than ever.”
Thus the concept of nuclear deterrence is not only unacceptable from the standpoint of
ethics; it is also contrary to international law. The World Courts 1996 advisory Opinion
unquestionably also represents the opinion of the majority of the worlds peoples. Although
no formal plebiscite has been taken, the votes in numerous resolutions of the UN General
Assembly speak very clearly on this question. For example the New Agenda Resolution
(53/77Y) was adopted by the General Assembly on 4 December 1998 by a massively affir-
mative vote, in which only 18 out of the 170 member states voted against the resolution.7
7
Of the 18 countries that voted against the New Agenda resolution, 10 were Eastern European countries
hoping for acceptance into NATO, whose votes seem to have been traded for increased probability of
6.14. FLAWS IN THE CONCEPT OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 241

The New Agenda Resolution proposes numerous practical steps towards complete nuclear
disarmament, and it calls on the Nuclear-Weapon States “to demonstrate an unequivocal
commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and without
delay to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to the elimi-
nation of these weapons, thereby fulfilling their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)”. Thus, in addition to being ethi-
cally unacceptable and contrary to international law, nuclear weapons also contrary to the
principles of democracy.
Having said these important things, we can now turn to some of the other defects in
the concept of nuclear deterrence. One important defect is that nuclear war may occur
through accident or miscalculation - through technical defects or human failings. This
possibility is made greater by the fact that despite the end of the Cold War, thousands
of missiles carrying nuclear warheads are still kept on a “hair-trigger” state of alert with
a quasi-automatic reaction time measured in minutes. There is a constant danger that
a nuclear war will be triggered by error in evaluating the signal on a radar screen. For
example, the BBC reported recently that a group of scientists and military leaders are
worried that a small asteroid entering the earths atmosphere and exploding could trigger
a nuclear war if mistaken for a missile strike.
A number of prominent political and military figures (many of whom have ample knowl-
edge of the system of deterrence, having been part of it) have expressed concern about the
danger of accidental nuclear war. Colin S. Grey8 expressed this concern as follows: “The
problem, indeed the enduring problem, is that we are resting our future upon a nuclear
deterrence system concerning which we cannot tolerate even a single malfunction.” General
Curtis E. LeMay9 has written, “In my opinion a general war will grow through a series of
political miscalculations and accidents rather than through any deliberate attack by either
side.” Bruce G. Blair10 has remarked that “It is obvious that the rushed nature of the
process, from warning to decision to action, risks causing a catastrophic mistake.”... “This
system is an accident waiting to happen.”
Today, the system that is supposed to give us security is called Mutually Assured
Destruction, appropriately abbreviated as MAD. It is based on the idea of deterrence,
which maintains that because of the threat of massive retaliation, no sane leader would
start a nuclear war.
Before discussing other defects in the concept of deterrence, it must be said very clearly
that the idea of “massive nuclear retaliation” is a form of genocide and is completely
unacceptable from an ethical point of view. It violates not only the principles of common
human decency and common sense, but also the ethical principles of every major religion.
Having said this, we can now turn to some of the other faults in the concept of nuclear
deterrence. One important defect is that nuclear war may occur through accident or mis-
calculation, through technical defects or human failings, or by terrorism. This possibility
acceptance.
8
Chairman, National Institute for Public Policy
9
Founder and former Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Air Command
10
Brookings Institute
242 WHY WAR?

is made greater by the fact that despite the end of the Cold War, thousands of missiles
carrying nuclear warheads are still kept on “hair-trigger alert” with a quasi-automatic re-
action time measured in minutes. There is a constant danger that a nuclear war will be
triggered by error in evaluating the signal on a radar screen.
Incidents in which global disaster is avoided by a hair’s breadth are constantly occurring.
Will we use the discoveries of modern science constructively, and thus choose the path
leading towards life? Or will we use science to produce more and more lethal weapons,
which sooner or later, through a technical or human failure, will result in a catastrophic
nuclear war? Will we thoughtlessly destroy our beautiful planet through unlimited growth
of population and industry? The choice among these alternatives is ours to make. We live
at a critical moment of history, a moment of crisis for civilization.
No one alive today asked to be born at a time of crisis, but history has given each of
us an enormous responsibility. Of course we have our ordinary jobs, which we need to do
in order to stay alive; but besides that, each of us has a second job, the duty to devote
both time and effort to solving the serious problems that face civilization during the 21st
century. We cannot rely on our politicians to do this for us. Many politicians are under
the influence of powerful lobbies. Others are waiting for a clear expression of popular will.
It is the people of the world themselves who must choose their own future and work hard
to build it.
No single person can achieve the changes that we need, but together we can do it. The
problem of building a stable, just, and war-free world is difficult, but it is not impossible.
The large regions of our present-day world within which war has been eliminated can serve
as models. There are a number of large countries with heterogeneous populations within
which it has been possible to achieve internal peace and social cohesion, and if this is
possible within such extremely large regions, it must also be possible globally.
We must replace the old world of international anarchy, chronic war, and institutional-
ized injustice by a new world of law. The United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court are steps in the right direction.
These institutions need to be greatly strengthened and reformed. We also need a new
global ethic, where loyalty to one’s family and nation will be supplemented by a higher
loyalty to humanity as a whole. Tipping points in public opinion can occur suddenly. We
can think, for example, of the Civil Rights Movement, or the rapid fall of the Berlin Wall,
or the sudden change that turned public opinion against smoking, or the sudden movement
for freedom and democracy in the Arab world. A similar sudden change can occur soon
regarding war and nuclear weapons.
We know that war is madness. We know that it is responsible for much of the suffering
that humans experience. We know that war pollutes our planet and that the almost
unimaginable sums wasted on war prevent the happiness and prosperity of mankind. We
know that nuclear weapons are insane, and that the precariously balanced deterrence
system can break down at any time through human error or computer errors or through
terrorist actions, and that it definitely will break down within our lifetimes unless we
abolish it. We know that nuclear war threatens to destroy civilization and much of the
biosphere.
6.14. FLAWS IN THE CONCEPT OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 243

The logic is there. We must translate into popular action which will put an end to the
undemocratic, money-driven, power-lust-driven war machine. The peoples of the world
must say very clearly that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil; that their possession does
not increase anyone’s security; that their continued existence is a threat to the life of every
person on the planet; and that these genocidal and potentially omnicidal weapons have no
place in a civilized society.
Modern science has abolished time and distance as factors separating nations. On our
shrunken globe today, there is room for one group only: the family of humankind. We
must embrace all other humans as our brothers and sisters. More than that, we must feel
that all of nature is part of the same sacred family; meadow flowers, blowing winds, rocks,
trees, birds, animals, and other humans, all these are our brothers and sisters, deserving
our care and protection. Only in this way can we survive together. Only in this way can
we build a happy future.
“But nobody can predict that the fatal accident or unauthorized act will never happen”,
Fred Ikle of the Rand Corporation has written, “Given the huge and far-flung missile forces,
ready to be launched from land and sea on on both sides, the scope for disaster by accident
is immense... In a matter of seconds - through technical accident or human failure - mutual
deterrence might thus collapse.”
Another serious failure of the concept of nuclear deterrence is that it does not take into
account the possibility that atomic bombs may be used by terrorists. Indeed, the threat of
nuclear terrorism has today become one of the most pressing dangers that the world faces,
a danger that is particularly acute in the United States.
Since 1945, more than 3,000 metric tons (3,000,000 kilograms) of highly enriched ura-
nium and plutonium have been produced - enough for several hundred thousand nuclear
weapons. Of this, roughly a million kilograms are in Russia, inadequately guarded, in
establishments where the technicians are poorly paid and vulnerable to the temptations of
bribery. There is a continuing danger that these fissile materials will fall into the hands of
terrorists, or organized criminals, or irresponsible governments. Also, an extensive black
market for fissile materials, nuclear weapons components etc. has recently been revealed in
connection with the confessions of Pakistan’s bomb-maker, Dr. A.Q. Khan. Furthermore,
if Pakistan’s less-than-stable government should be overthrown, complete nuclear weapons
could fall into the hands of terrorists.
On November 3, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, made a speech to the United Nations in which he called for
“limiting the processing of weapons-usable material (separated plutonium and high en-
riched uranium) in civilian nuclear programmes - as well as the production of new material
through reprocessing and enrichment - by agreeing to restrict these operations to facilities
exclusively under international control.” It is almost incredible, considering the dangers of
nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, that such restrictions were not imposed long
ago. Nuclear reactors used for “peaceful” purposes unfortunately also generate fissionable
isotopes of plutonium, neptunium and americium. Thus all nuclear reactors must be re-
garded as ambiguous in function, and all must be put under strict international control.
One might ask, in fact, whether globally widespread use of nuclear energy is worth the
244 WHY WAR?

Figure 6.15: Recent studies by atmospheric scientists have shown that the smoke from
burning cities produced by even a limited nuclear war would have a devastating effect on
global agriculture. The studies show that the smoke would rise to the stratosphere, where it
would spread globally and remain for a decade, blocking sunlight and destroying the ozone
layer. Because of the devastating effect on global agriculture, darkness from even a small
nuclear war (e.g. between India and Pakistan) would result in an estimated billion deaths
from famine. (O. Toon, A. Robock and R. Turco, “The Environmental Consequences of
Nuclear War”, Physics Today, vol. 61, No. 12, 2008, p. 37-42)
6.15. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE CRIMINAL! EVERY WAR IS A CRIME! 245

danger that it entails.

The Italian nuclear physicist Francesco Calogero, who has studied the matter closely,
believes that terrorists could easily construct a simple gun-type nuclear bomb if they were
in possession of a critical mass of highly enriched uranium. In such a simple atomic bomb,
two grapefruit-sized subcritical portions of HEU are placed at opposite ends of the barrel
of an artillery piece and are driven together by means of a conventional explosive. Prof.
Calogero estimates that the fatalities produced by the explosion of such a device in the
center of a large city could exceed 100,000.
We must remember the remark of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the 9/11/2001
attacks on the World Trade Center. He said, “This time it was not a nuclear explosion”.
The meaning of his remark is clear: If the world does not take strong steps to eliminate
fissionable materials and nuclear weapons, it will only be a matter of time before they will
be used in terrorist attacks on major cities. Neither terrorists nor organized criminals can
be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation, since they have no territory against which
such retaliation could be directed. They blend invisibly into the general population. Nor
can a “missile defense system” prevent terrorists from using nuclear weapons, since the
weapons can be brought into a port in any one of the hundreds of thousands of containers
that enter on ships each year, a number far too large to be checked exhaustively.
In this dangerous situation, the only logical thing for the world to do is to get rid of both
fissile materials and nuclear weapons as rapidly as possible. We must acknowledge that the
idea of nuclear deterrence is a dangerous fallacy, and acknowledge that the development of
military systems based on nuclear weapons has been a terrible mistake, a false step that
needs to be reversed. If the most prestigious of the nuclear weapons states can sincerely
acknowledge their mistakes and begin to reverse them, nuclear weapons will seem less
glamorous to countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, where they now are
symbols of national pride and modernism.
Civilians have for too long played the role of passive targets, hostages in the power
struggles of politicians. It is time for civil society to make its will felt. If our leaders
continue to enthusiastically support the institution of war, if they will not abolish nuclear
weapons, then let us have new leaders.

6.15 Nuclear weapons are criminal! Every war is a

crime!
War was always madness, always immoral, always the cause of unspeakable suffering, eco-
nomic waste and widespread destruction, and always a source of poverty, hate, barbarism
and endless cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. It has always been a crime for soldiers
to kill people, just as it is a crime for murderers in civil society to kill people. No flag has
ever been wide enough to cover up atrocities.
But today, the development of all-destroying modern weapons has put war completely
beyond the bounds of sanity and elementary humanity.
246 WHY WAR?

Today, war is not only insane, but also a violation of international law. Both the United
Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles make it a crime to launch an aggressive
war. According to the Nuremberg Principles, every soldier is responsible for the crimes
that he or she commits, even while acting under the orders of a superior officer.
Nuclear weapons are not only insane, immoral and potentially omnicidal, but also
criminal under international law. In response to questions put to it by WHO and the UN
General Assembly, the International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that “the threat and use
of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable
in armed conflict, and particularly the principles and rules of humanitarian law.” The only
possible exception to this general rule might be “an extreme circumstance of self-defense,
in which the very survival of a state would be at stake”. But the Court refused to say that
even in this extreme circumstance the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be legal. It
left the exceptional case undecided. In addition, the Court added unanimously that “there
exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading
to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”
Can we not rid ourselves of both nuclear weapons and the institution of war itself? We
must act quickly and resolutely before our beautiful world and everything that we love are
reduced to radioactive ashes.

Suggestions for further reading

1. A. Robock, L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, O. B. Toon, C. Bardeen, and R. Turco, Cli-
matic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
Vol. 7, p. 2003-2012, (2007).
2. M. Mills, O. Toon, R. Turco, D. Kinnison, R. Garcia, Massive global ozone loss
predicted following regional nuclear conflict, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (USA), vol. 105(14), pp. 5307-12, Apr 8, (2008).
3. O. Toon , A. Robock, and R. Turco, The Environmental Consequences of Nuclear
War, Physics Today, vol. 61, No. 12, p. 37-42, (2008).
4. R. Turco, O. Toon, T. Ackermann, J. Pollack, and C. Sagan, Nuclear Winter: Global
consequences of multiple nuclear explosions, Science, Vol. 222, No. 4630, pp. 1283-
1292, December (1983).
5. A. Robock, L. Oman, G. Stenchikov, Nuclear winter revisited with a modern cli-
mate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences, Journal of
Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, Vol. 112, No. D13, p. 4 of 14, (2007).
6. I. Helfand, An Assessment of the Extent of Projected Global Famine Resulting From
Limited, Regional Nuclear War, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nu-
clear War, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Leeds, MA, (2007).
7. George P. Schultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, A World
Free of Nuclear Weapons, The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007, page A15 and
January 15, (2008), page A15.
8. Mikhail Gorbachev, The Nuclear Threat, The Wall Street Journal, January 30,
(2007), page A15.
6.15. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE CRIMINAL! EVERY WAR IS A CRIME! 247

9. Massimo D’Alema, Gianfranco Fini, Giorgio La Malfa, Arturo Parisi and Francesco
Calogero, For a World Free of Nuclear Weapons, Corriere Della Sera, July 24, (2008).
10. Hoover Institution, Reykjavik Revisited; Steps Towards a World Free of Nuclear
Weapons, October, (2007).
11. Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, David Owen and George Robertson, Start Wor-
rying and Learn to Ditch the Bomb, The Times, June 30, (2008).
12. Des Brown, Secretary of State for Defense, UK, Laying the Foundations for Multi-
lateral Disarmament, Geneva Conference on Disarmament, February 5, (2008).
13. Government of Norway, International Conference on Achieving the Vision of a World
Free of Nuclear Weapons, Oslo, Norway, February 26-27, (2008).
14. Jonas Gahr Støre, Foreign Minister, Norway, Statement at the Conference on
Disarmament, Geneva, March 4, (2008).
15. Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen, Defense Minister, Norway, Emerging Opportunities for
Nuclear Disarmament, Pugwash Conference, Canada, July 11, (2008).
16. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, Australia, International Commission on Nuclear Non-
Proliferation and Disarmament, Media Release, July 9, (2008).
17. Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizäcker, Egon Bahr and Hans-Dietrich Genscher,
Towards a Nuclear-Free World: a German View, International Herald Tribune, Jan-
uary 9, (2009).
18. Hans M. Kristensen and Elliot Negin, Support Growing for Removal of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons from Europe, Common Dreams Newscenter, first posted May 6, (2005).
19. David Krieger, President-elect Obama and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation Website, (2008).
20. J.L. Henderson, Hiroshima, Longmans (1974).
21. A. Osada, Children of the A-Bomb, The Testament of Boys and Girls of Hiroshima,
Putnam, New York (1963).
22. M. Hachiya, M.D., Hiroshima Diary, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, N.C. (1955).
23. M. Yass, Hiroshima, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York (1972).
24. R. Jungk, Children of the Ashes, Harcourt, Brace and World (1961).
25. B. Hirschfield, A Cloud Over Hiroshima, Baily Brothers and Swinfin Ltd. (1974).
26. J. Hersey, Hiroshima, Penguin Books Ltd. (1975).
27. R. Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, Simon and Schuster, New
York, (1995)
28. R. Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1988).
29. D.V. Babst et al., Accidental Nuclear War: The Growing Peril, Peace Research
Institute, Dundas, Ontario, (1984).
30. S. Britten, The Invisible Event: An Assessment of the Risk of Accidental or Unautho-
rized Detonation of Nuclear Weapons and of War by Miscalculation, Menard Press,
London, (1983).
31. M. Dando and P. Rogers, The Death of Deterrence, CND Publications, London,
(1984).
32. N.F. Dixon, On the Psychology of Military Incompetence, Futura, London, (1976).
248 WHY WAR?

33. D. Frei and C. Catrina, Risks of Unintentional Nuclear War, United Nations, Geneva,
(1982).
34. H. L’Etang, Fit to Lead?, Heinemann Medical, London, (1980).
35. SPANW, Nuclear War by Mistake - Inevitable or Preventable?, Swedish Physicians
Against Nuclear War, Lulea, (1985).
36. J. Goldblat, Nuclear Non-proliferation: The Why and the Wherefore, (SIPRI Publi-
cations), Taylor and Francis, (1985).
37. J. Schear, ed., Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Nuclear Risk, Gower, London,
(1984).
38. D.P. Barash and J.E. Lipton, Stop Nuclear War! A Handbook, Grove Press, New
York, (1982).
39. C.F. Barnaby and G.P. Thomas, eds., The Nuclear Arms Race: Control or Catastro-
phe, Francis Pinter, London, (1982).
40. L.R. Beres, Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics, Chicago University
press, Chicago, IL, (1980).
41. F. Blackaby et al., eds., No-first-use, Taylor and Francis, London, (1984).
42. NS, ed., New Statesman Papers on Destruction and Disarmament (NS Report No.
3), New Statesman, London, (1981).
43. H. Caldicot, Missile Envy: The Arms Race and Nuclear War, William Morrow, New
York, (1984).
44. R. Ehrlich, Waging the Peace: The Technology and Politics of Nuclear Weapons,
State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, (1985).
45. W. Epstein, The Prevention of Nuclear War: A United Nations Perspective, Gunn
and Hain, Cambridge, MA, (1984).
46. W. Epstein and T. Toyoda, eds., A New Design for Nuclear Disarmament, Spokesman,
Nottingham, (1975).
47. G.F. Kennan, The Nuclear Delusion, Pantheon, New York, (1983).
48. R.J. Lifton and R. Falk, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and Psychological Case
Against Nuclearism, Basic Books, New York, (1982).
49. J.R. Macy, Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, New Society Publishers,
Philadelphia, PA, (1983).
50. A.S. Miller et al., eds., Nuclear Weapons and Law, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT,
(1984).
51. MIT Coalition on Disarmament, eds., The Nuclear Almanac: Confronting the Atom
in War and Peace, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, (1984).
52. UN, Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, United
Nations, New York, (1980).
53. IC, Proceedings of the Conference on Understanding Nuclear War, Imperial College,
London, (1980).
54. B. Russell, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, Allen and Unwin, London, (1959).
55. F. Barnaby, The Nuclear Age, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, (1974).
6.15. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE CRIMINAL! EVERY WAR IS A CRIME! 249

56. D. Albright, F. Berkhout and W. Walker, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium
1996: World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
(1997).
57. G.T. Allison et al., Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Rus-
sian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, (1996).
58. B. Bailin, The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy, and the Post-
colonial State, Zed Books, London, (1998).
59. P. Bidawi and A. Vanaik, South Asia on a Short Fuse: Nuclear Politics and the
Future of Global Disarmament, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (2001).
60. F.A. Boyle, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence: Could the U.S. War on Terror-
ism Go Nuclear?, Clarity Press, Atlanta GA, (2002).
61. G. Burns, The Atomic Papers: A Citizen’s Guide to Selected Books and Articles on
the Bomb, the Arms Race, Nuclear Power, the Peace Movement, and Related Issues,
Scarecrow Press, Metuchen NJ, (1984).
62. L. Butler, A Voice of Reason, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 54, 58-61, (1998).
63. R. Butler, Fatal Choice: Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of Missile Defense, West-
view Press, Boulder CO, (2001).
64. R.P. Carlisle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Atomic Age, Facts on File, New York, (2001).
65. G.A. Cheney, Nuclear Proliferation: The Problems and Possibilities, Franklin Watts,
New York, (1999).
66. A. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Colombia University Press, New York, (1998).
67. S.J. Diehl and J.C. Moltz, Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation: A Reference
Handbook, ABC-Clio Information Services, Santa Barbara CA, (2002).
68. H.A. Feiveson (Ed.), The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and
De-Alerting of Nuclear Weapons, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.,
(1999).
69. R. Hilsman, From Nuclear Military Strategy to a World Without War: A History
and a Proposal, Praeger Publishers, Westport, (1999).
70. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and The Institute for
Energy and Environmental Research Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age,
International Physicians Press, Cambridge MA, (1992).
71. R.W. Jones and M.G. McDonough, Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: A Guide in Maps
and Charts, 1998, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington
D.C., (1998).
72. R.J. Lifton and R. Falk, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and Psychological Case
Against Nuclearism, Basic Books, New York, (1982).
73. R.E. Powaski, March to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms
Race, 1939 to the Present, Oxford University Press, (1987).
74. J. Rotblat, J. Steinberger and B. Udgaonkar (Eds.), A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World:
Desirable? Feasible?, Westview Press, (1993).
75. The United Methodist Council of Bishops, In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear
Crisis and a Just Peace, Graded Press, Nashville, (1986).
250 WHY WAR?

76. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (Ed.), Dismantling the Bomb and
Managing the Nuclear Materials, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.,
(1993).
77. S.R. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images, Harvard University Press, (1988).
78. P. Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn
of the Atomic Age, University of North Carolina Press, (1985).
79. C. Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies, Basic Books,
(1984).
80. P. Rogers, The Risk of Nuclear Terrorism in Britain, Oxford Research Group, Ox-
ford, (2006).
81. MIT, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpowe
(2003).
82. Z. Mian and A. Glaser, Life in a Nuclear Powered Crowd, INES Newsletter No. 52,
9-13, April, (2006).
83. K. Bergeron, Nuclear Weapons: The Death of No Dual-use, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 15-17, January, (2004).
84. E. Chivian, and others (eds.), Last Aid: The Medical Dimensions of Nuclear War,
W.H. Freeman, San Fransisco, (1982).
85. Medical Association’s Board of Science and Education, The Medical Effects of Nuclear
War, Wiley, (1983).
86. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, Australia, “International Commission on Nuclear Non-
Proliferation and Disarmament”, Media Release, July 9, 2008.
87. Global Zero, www.globalzero.org/paris-conference
88. Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizäcker, Egon Bahr and Hans-Dietrich Genscher,
“Towards a Nuclear-Free World: a German View”, International Herald Tribune,
January 9, 2009.
89. Hans M. Kristensen and Elliot Negin, “Support Growing for Removal of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons from Europe”, Common Dreams Newscenter, first posted May 6, 2005.
90. David Krieger, “President-elect Obama and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”,
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Website, 2008.
91. J.L. Henderson, Hiroshima, Longmans (1974).
92. A. Osada, Children of the A-Bomb, The Testament of Boys and Girls of Hiroshima,
Putnam, New York (1963).
93. M. Hachiya, M.D., Hiroshima Diary, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, N.C. (1955).
94. M. Yass, Hiroshima, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York (1972).
95. R. Jungk, Children of the Ashes, Harcourt, Brace and World (1961).
96. B. Hirschfield, A Cloud Over Hiroshima, Baily Brothers and Swinfin Ltd. (1974).
97. J. Hersey, Hiroshima, Penguin Books Ltd. (1975).
98. R. Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, Simon and Schuster, New
York, (1995)
99. R. Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1988).
6.15. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE CRIMINAL! EVERY WAR IS A CRIME! 251

100. D.V. Babst et al., Accidental Nuclear War: The Growing Peril, Peace Research
Institute, Dundas, Ontario, (1984).
101. S. Britten, The Invisible Event: An Assessment of the Risk of Accidental or Unautho-
rized Detonation of Nuclear Weapons and of War by Miscalculation, Menard Press,
London, (1983).
102. M. Dando and P. Rogers, The Death of Deterrence, CND Publications, London,
(1984).
103. N.F. Dixon, On the Psychology of Military Incompetence, Futura, London, (1976).
104. D. Frei and C. Catrina, Risks of Unintentional Nuclear War, United Nations, Geneva,
(1982).
105. H. L’Etang, Fit to Lead?, Heinemann Medical, London, (1980).
106. SPANW, Nuclear War by Mistake - Inevitable or Preventable?, Swedish Physicians
Against Nuclear War, Lulea, (1985).
107. J. Goldblat, Nuclear Non-proliferation: The Why and the Wherefore, (SIPRI Publi-
cations), Taylor and Francis, (1985).
108. IAEA, International Safeguards and the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, In-
ternational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, (1985).
109. J. Schear, ed., Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Nuclear Risk, Gower, London,
(1984).
110. D.P. Barash and J.E. Lipton, Stop Nuclear War! A Handbook, Grove Press, New
York, (1982).
111. C.F. Barnaby and G.P. Thomas, eds., The Nuclear Arms Race: Control or Catastro-
phe, Francis Pinter, London, (1982).
112. L.R. Beres, Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics, Chicago University
press, Chicago, IL, (1980).
113. F. Blackaby et al., eds., No-first-use, Taylor and Francis, London, (1984).
114. NS, ed., New Statesman Papers on Destruction and Disarmament (NS Report No.
3), New Statesman, London, (1981).
115. H. Caldicot, Missile Envy: The Arms Race and Nuclear War, William Morrow, New
York, (1984).
116. R. Ehrlich, Waging the Peace: The Technology and Politics of Nuclear Weapons,
State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, (1985).
117. W. Epstein, The Prevention of Nuclear War: A United Nations Perspective, Gunn
and Hain, Cambridge, MA, (1984).
118. W. Epstein and T. Toyoda, eds., A New Design for Nuclear Disarmament, Spokesman,
Nottingham, (1975).
119. G.F. Kennan, The Nuclear Delusion, Pantheon, New York, (1983).
120. R.J. Lifton and R. Falk, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and Psychological Case
Against Nuclearism, Basic Books, New York, (1982).
121. J.R. Macy, Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, New Society Publishers,
Philadelphia, PA, (1983).
122. A.S. Miller et al., eds., Nuclear Weapons and Law, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT,
(1984).
252 WHY WAR?

123. MIT Coalition on Disarmament, eds., The Nuclear Almanac: Confronting the Atom
in War and Peace, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, (1984).
124. UN, Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, United Na-
tions, New York, (1980).
125. IC, Proceedings of the Conference on Understanding Nuclear War, Imperial College,
London, (1980).
126. B. Russell, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, Allen and Unwin, London, (1959).
127. F. Barnaby, The Nuclear Age, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, (1974).
128. D. Albright, F. Berkhout and W. Walker, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium
1996: World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
(1997).
129. G.T. Allison et al., Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Rus-
sian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, (1996).
130. B. Bailin, The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy, and the Post-
colonial State, Zed Books, London, (1998).
131. G.K. Bertsch and S.R. Grillot, (Eds.), Arms on the Market: Reducing the Risks of
Proliferation in the Former Soviet Union, Routledge, New York, (1998).
132. P. Bidawi and A. Vanaik, South Asia on a Short Fuse: Nuclear Politics and the
Future of Global Disarmament, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (2001).
133. F.A. Boyle, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence: Could the U.S. War on Terror-
ism Go Nuclear?, Clarity Press, Atlanta GA, (2002).
134. G. Burns, The Atomic Papers: A Citizen’s Guide to Selected Books and Articles on
the Bomb, the Arms Race, Nuclear Power, the Peace Movement, and Related Issues,
Scarecrow Press, Metuchen NJ, (1984).
135. L. Butler, A Voice of Reason, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 54, 58-61, (1998).
136. R. Butler, Fatal Choice: Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of Missile Defense, West-
view Press, Boulder CO, (2001).
137. R.P. Carlisle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Atomic Age, Facts on File, New York, (2001).
138. G.A. Cheney, Nuclear Proliferation: The Problems and Possibilities, Franklin Watts,
New York, (1999).
139. A. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Colombia University Press, New York, (1998).
140. S.J. Diehl and J.C. Moltz, Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation: A Reference
Handbook, ABC-Clio Information Services, Santa Barbara CA, (2002).
141. H.A. Feiveson (Ed.), The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-
Alerting of Nuclear Weapons, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C., (1999).
142. R. Hilsman, From Nuclear Military Strategy to a World Without War: A History
and a Proposal, Praeger Publishers, Westport, (1999).
143. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and The Institute for
Energy and Environmental Research Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age,
International Physicians Press, Cambridge MA, (1992).
144. R.W. Jones and M.G. McDonough, Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: A Guide in Maps
and Charts, 1998, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington
D.C., (1998).
6.15. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE CRIMINAL! EVERY WAR IS A CRIME! 253

145. R.J. Lifton and R. Falk, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and Psychological Case
Against Nuclearism, Basic Books, New York, (1982).
146. J. Rotblat, J. Steinberger and B. Udgaonkar (Eds.), A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World:
Desirable? Feasible?, Westview Press, (1993).
147. The United Methodist Council of Bishops, In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear
Crisis and a Just Peace, Graded Press, Nashville, (1986).
148. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (Ed.), Dismantling the Bomb and
Managing the Nuclear Materials, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.,
(1993).
149. S.R. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images, Harvard University Press, (1988).
150. P. Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light: American
Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age, University of North Carolina
Press, (1985).
151. A. Makhijani and S. Saleska, The Nuclear Power Deception: Nuclear Mythology From
Electricity ‘Too Cheap to Meter’ to ‘Inherently Safe’ Reactors, Apex Press, (1999).
152. C. Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies, Basic Books,
(1984).
153. P. Rogers, The Risk of Nuclear Terrorism in Britain, Oxford Research Group, Ox-
ford, (2006).
154. MIT, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpowe
(2003).
155. Z. Mian and A. Glaser, Life in a Nuclear Powered Crowd, INES Newsletter No. 52,
9-13, April, (2006).
156. E. Chivian, and others (eds.), Last Aid: The Medical Dimensions of Nuclear War,
W.H. Freeman, San Fransisco, (1982).
157. G. Kolko, “Another Century of War”, New Press, (2002).
158. G. Kolko, “Confronting the Third World: United States Foreign Policy, 1945-1980”,
Pantheon Books, (1988).
159. John A. Hobson, “Imperialism; A Study”, (1902).
160. M.T. Klare, “Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict”, Owl Books
reprint edition, New York, (2002).
254 WHY WAR?
Chapter 7

MUST WE HAVE PERPETUAL

WAR?

7.1 War as a political, economic and social institution

Because the world spends roughly two trillion dollars each year on armaments, it follows
that very many people make their living from war. This is the reason why it is correct
to speak of war as a social, political and economic institution, and also one of the main
reasons why war persists, although everyone realizes that it is the cause of much of the
suffering of humanity.
We know that war is madness, but it persists. We know that it threatens the survival
of our species, but it persists, entrenched in the attitudes of historians, newspaper editors
and television producers, entrenched in the methods by which politicians finance their
campaigns, and entrenched in the financial power of arms manufacturers - entrenched also
in the ponderous and costly hardware of war, the fleets of warships, bombers, tanks, nuclear
missiles and so on.

7.2 Eisenhower’s farewell address

In his farewell address, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned his nation against the
excessive power that had been acquired during World War II by the military-industrial
complex: “We have been compelled to create an armaments industry of vast proportions,”
Eisenhower said, “...Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large
arms industry is new in American experience. The total influence - economic, political,
even spiritual - is felt in every city, every state house, every office in the federal government.
... We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. ... We must stand guard against
the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-
industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our democratic

255
256 WHY WAR?

Figure 7.1: George Washington, the first U.S. president, warned against “Over-
grown Military Establishments”.

processes. We should take nothing for granted.”

Eisenhower’s words echoed those of another US President, George Washington, who
warned against “overgrown Military Establishments which, under any form of government,
are inauspicious to liberty, and which are regarded as particularly hostile to Republican
Liberty.”
7.2. EISENHOWER’S FAREWELL ADDRESS 257

Figure 7.2: An official portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower. In his famous farewell

address, he warned against the misplaced power of a military-industrial com-
plex.
258 WHY WAR?

7.3 The “War on Terror”

The military-industrial complex needs enemies. Without them it would wither. Thus at
the end of the Second World War, this vast power complex was faced with a crisis, but
it was saved by the discovery of a new enemy: Communism. However, at the end of
the Cold War there was another terrible crisis for the military establishment, the arms
manufacturers and their supporters in research, government and the mass media. People
spoke of the “peace dividend”, i.e., constructive use of the trillion dollars that the world
wastes each year on armaments. However, just in time, the military-industrial complex
was saved from the nightmare of the “peace dividend” by the September 11 attacks on
New York and Washington.
No matter that the attacks were crimes committed by individuals rather than acts
of war, crimes against which police action rather than military action would have been
appropriate. The Bush Administration (and CNN, Fox, etc.) quickly proclaimed that a
state of war existed, and that the rules of war were in effect. The Cold War was replaced
with the “War on Terror”.
To a large extent, this over-reaction to the events of 9/11/2001 can be interpreted in
terms of the needs of the military-industrial complex against which Eisenhower had warned.
Without a state of war and without enemies, this vast conglomerate of organizations and
pressure groups would have languished.
If the aim of the “War on Terror” had been to rid the world of the threat of terrorism,
acts like illegal assassination using drones would have been counterproductive, since they
create many more terrorists than they destroy. But since the real aim is to produce a
state of perpetual war, thus increasing the profits of the military-industrial complex, such
methods are the best imaginable. Urinating on Afghan corpses or burning the Koran or
murderous night-time raids on civilian homes also help to promote the real goal: perpetual
war.
Even the events that initiated the “War on Terror”, seem to have been made worse
than they otherwise might have been, in order to give a better excuse for invading Iraq,
attacking Afghanistan, and attacking civil liberties. There is evidence that a number of
highly placed officials in the US government knew as early as April 2001 that the World
Trade Center might soon be attacked. The testimony given by CIA insider Susan Lindauer
is very explicit about this point. There is also evidence that charges of thermite were placed
on steel structures of several buildings, to melt the steel and ensure their collapse. Molten
steel and traces of thermite were found in the ruins before these were sealed off from public
scrutiny by the FBI.
The collapse of Building 7 (which was not hit by the aircraft) is particularly suspicious.
Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, said shortly afterwards in a
PBS interview: “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me
that they were not sure that they would be able to contain the fire...” (and he said that)
“I think that the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” The phrase ”pull it” is one used to
speak of controlled demolition, and the subsequent free-falling collapse of Building 7 had
all the earmarks of this process.
7.3. THE “WAR ON TERROR” 259

Figure 7.3: Melted steel pouring from the burning World Trade Center. An
ordinary fire is not hot enough to melt steel.

Figure 7.4: Building 7 was not hit by any aircraft, and yet it collapsed many
hours later, during the afternoon, in a manner that looked exactly like a con-
trolled demolition.
260 WHY WAR?

For those who belong to the military-industrial complex, perpetual war is a blessing,
but for the majority of the people of the world it is a curse. Since we who oppose war are
the vast majority, can we not make our wills felt?

7.4 We are militarism’s hostages

Do our “Defense Departments” really defend us? Absolutely not! Their very title is a
lie. The military-industrial complex sells itself by claiming to defend civilians. It justifies
vast and crippling budgets by this claim; but it is a fraud. For the military-industrial
complex, the only goal is money and power. Civilians like ourselves are just hostages. We
are expendable. We are pawns in the power game, the money game.
Nations possessing nuclear weapons threaten each other with “Mutually Assured De-
struction”, which has the very appropriate acronym MAD.
What does this mean? Does it mean that civilians are being protected? Not at all.
Instead they are threatened with complete destruction. Civilians here play the role of
hostages in the power games of their leaders.
A thermonuclear war today would be not only genocidal but also omnicidal. It would
kill people of all ages, babies, children, young people, mothers, fathers and grandparents,
without any regard whatever for guilt or innocence. Such a war would be the ultimate eco-
logical catastrophe, destroying not only human civilization but also much of the biosphere.

There is much worry today about climate change, but an ecological catastrophe of equal
magnitude could be produced by a nuclear war. One can gain a small idea of what this
would be like by thinking of the radioactive contamination that has made an area half
the size of Italy near to Chernobyl permanently uninhabitable. It is too soon to know
the full effects of the Fukushima disaster, but it appears that it will be comparable with
Chernobyl.
The testing of hydrogen bombs in the Pacific half a century ago continues to cause
cancer and birth defects in the Marshall Islands today. This too can give us a small idea
of the environmental effects of a nuclear war.
In 1954, the United States tested a hydrogen bomb at Bikini. The bomb was 1,300
times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fallout from
the bomb contaminated the island of Rongelap, one of the Marshall Islands 120 kilometers
from Bikini.
The islanders experienced radiation illness, and many died from cancer. Even today,
half a century later, both people and animals on Rongelap and other nearby islands suffer
from birth defects. The most common defects have been “jelly fish babies”, born with no
bones and with transparent skin. Their brains and beating hearts can be seen. The babies
usually live a day or two before they stop breathing.
The environmental effects of a nuclear war would be catastrophic. A war fought with
hydrogen bombs would produce radioactive contamination of the kind that we have already
experienced in the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima and in the Marshall Islands,
7.5. WE HAVE COME WITHIN A HAIR’S BREADTH OF DISASTER 261

but on an enormously increased scale.

We have to remember that the total explosive power of the nuclear weapons in the world
today is 500,0000 times as great as the power of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. What is threatened by a nuclear war today is the complete breakdown of human
civilization.
Besides spreading deadly radioactivity throughout the world, a nuclear war would inflict
catastrophic damage on global agriculture. Firestorms in burning cities would produce
many millions of tons of black, thick, radioactive smoke.
The smoke would rise to the stratosphere where it would spread around the earth and
remain for a decade. Prolonged cold, decreased sunlight and rainfall, and massive increases
in harmful ultraviolet light would shorten or eliminate growing seasons, producing a nuclear
famine.
Even a small nuclear war could endanger the lives of the billion people who today y
are chronically undernourished. A full-scale war fought with hydrogen bombs would mean
that most humans would die from hunger. Many animal and plant species would also be
threatened with extinction.

7.5 We have come within a hair’s breadth of disaster

Incidents in which global disaster is avoided by a hair’s breadth are constantly occurring.
For example, on the night of 26 September, 1983, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, a young
software engineer, was on duty at a surveillance center near Moscow. Suddenly the screen
in front of him turned bright red. An alarm went off. It’s enormous piercing sound filled
the room. A second alarm followed, and then a third, fourth and fifth, until the noise was
deafening.
The computer showed that the Americans had launched a strike against Russia. Petrov’s
orders were to pass the information up the chain of command to Secretary General Yuri
Andropov. Within minutes, a nuclear counterattack would be launched.
However, because of certain inconsistent features of the alarm, Petrov disobeyed orders
and reported it as a computer error, which indeed it was. Most of us probably owe our
lives to his brave and coolheaded decision and his knowledge of software systems.
The narrowness of this escape is compounded by the fact that Petrov was on duty only
because of the illness of another officer with less knowledge of software, who would have
accepted the alarm as real.
Narrow escapes such as this show us clearly that in the long run, the combination of
space-age science and stone-age politics will destroy us. We urgently need new political
structures and new ethics to match our advanced technology.
Recently the United States has made provocative moves that seriously risk starting a
war with Russia that might develop into a nuclear war.
At the same time, the United States is making aggressive moves in an attempt to
“contain China”.
262 WHY WAR?

What can be the reason for these actions, which seem to border on insanity? One reason
can be found in the power-drunk thinking of the “Project for a New American Century”,
one of whose members was US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence
of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses
a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”
In other words, the Wolfowitz Doctrine is a declaration that the United States intends
to control the entire world through military power. No thought is given to the protection of
civilian populations, either in the United States or elsewhere. Civilians are mere hostages
in the power game.
The money game is important too. A great driving force behind militarism is the
almost unimaginably enormous river of money that buys the votes of politicians and the
propaganda of the mainstream media.
Numbed by the propaganda, citizens allow the politicians to vote for obscenely bloated
military budgets, which further enrich the corporate oligarchs, and the circular flow con-
tinues.
As long as tensions are maintained; as long as there is a threat of war, the military-
industrial complex gets the money for which it lusts, and the politicians and journalists
get their blood money. The safety of civilians plays no role in the money game. We are
just hostages.
There is a danger that our world, with all the beauty and value that it contains, will
be destroyed by this cynical game for power and money, in which civilians are militarism’s
hostages. Will we let this happen?

7.6 Biden’s aggressive foreign policy

We should praise Joe Biden for the good decisions that he had made during his first few
months in office. He has filled positions in his cabinet with and administration with an
ethnically diverse and gender balanced group of people. For example, we can think of his
new Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, who is a Native American. We can also think
of his choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate. These decisions are to be applauded.
We must also praise President Biden for taking the climate emergency seriously and
acting to support the replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy, as well as for rejoining
the Paris Agreement.
The Biden administration has been successful in its efforts to vaccinate a large number
of US citizens against COVID-19. Thus, there are many reasons for praising Joe Biden’s
actions during the months that he has been in office. But if we turn to foreign policy, the
picture is different.
Joe Biden’s appointment of Antony Blinken as Secretary of State signaled that the
aggressive foreign policy of the United States would remain unchanged. During the ad-
ministrations of every US president, violence, war and murder have been exported to the
remainder of the world, and the appointment of Blinken, who is known for advocating
7.6. BIDEN’S AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICY 263

Figure 7.5: We should praise Joe Biden for his good decisions, but his aggressive
foreign policy threatens the world with disaster.

the invasion of Iraq, signaled that this would not change under Biden. Bombs would be
dropped, and people would be murdered by drones or by the dirty tricks department of
the CIA.

Insults instead of diplomacy in Alaska

A high-level meeting between diplomats from China and the United States took place in
Alaska in March, 2021, but the meeting was decidedly undiplomatic. It degenerated to
public name-calling by both sides, especially accusations of human rights violations. There
is so much need for cooperation between the US and China on important issues, such as
climate action, that one might have hoped for fewer insults and more diplomacy.

Military threats to China

In an era of all-destroying nuclear weapons, war is suicidal or perhaps omnicidal. War is
unthinkable, but the profits made by arms manufacturers are so large and their political
influence so great that war remains a threat. The arms manufacturers do not actually
want war. They only want war to be threatened, in order to justify the obscenely large
expenditures on armaments that are regularly endorsed by politicians whose votes have
been bought by the arms industry.
264 WHY WAR?

Since the Biden administration owes its allegiance to the corporate oligarchy, it is not
surprising that war with China is threatened, even though such a war would be suicidal.

A new cold war with Russia

Similarly, war with Russia is also threatened, and Russia is demonized by the United States
under the Biden administration, just as it was under previous administrations.

Illegal bombing of Syria

According to the United Nations Charter, the use of military force, or even the threat of
use of force, against a sovereign state is a violation of international law, although a nation
being actively attacked has a right to defend itself until the Security Council has had time
to act. Thus Biden’s bombing of Syria was a violation of international law.

Sanctions are also illegal

Richard Nephew, the advisor on sanctions in Biden’s State Department, is the author of a
2017 book entitled The Art of Sanctions: A View of the Field. He brags of the pain and
suffering caused by US sanctions imposed on Iran, Venezuela and other countries. But
according to international law, sanctions may not be imposed by individual countries, but
only by the Security Council. They are also a violation of international laws that forbid
collective punishment.

An illegal new nuclear weapons program

As mentioned above, the Biden administration owes its allegiance to the corporate oli-
garchy, of which the arms industry is a large part. This probably explains Biden’s endorse-
ment of a program to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new nuclear weapons and
their delivery systems. This is a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’s Article
VI, which requires the nuclear weapons states to quickly and effectively rid themselves of
their nuclear weapons. It is also a violation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons (TPNW), which recently came into force. More importantly, it is a violation of
common humanity and common sense.
7.6. BIDEN’S AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICY 265
266 WHY WAR?
7.7. BIDEN AND PUTIN MEET ON JUNE 16, 2021, IN GENEVA 267

7.7 Biden and Putin meet on June 16, 2021, in Geneva

After meeting in Geneva, Vladimir Putin and Joseph R. Biden issued the following joint
statement:

“We, President of the United States of America Joseph R. Biden and Pres-
ident of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, note the United States and
Russia have demonstrated that, even in periods of tension, they are able to
make progress on our shared goals of ensuring predictability in the strategic
sphere, reducing the risk of armed conflicts and the threat of nuclear war.
“The recent extension of the New START Treaty exemplifies our commit-
ment to nuclear arms control. Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear
war cannot be won and must never be fought.
“Consistent with these goals, the United States and Russia will embark to-
gether on an integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue in the near future
that will be deliberate and robust. Through this Dialogue, we seek to lay the
groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures.”

An open letter to presidents Putin and Biden

Here is the text of a letter signed by a very large number of activists in the peace movement:

“We write to you , world leaders whom we know fully understand the catas-
trophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and the
cataclysmic effects on humanity of a nuclear war: the possible end of civiliza-
tion as we know it.
“We are participants of a growing international campaign for a commitment
by nuclear-armed states to a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. We
have just completed a number of successful global events, including a two-
day conference preparatory to launching this campaign, which have included
over 700 participants from Asia, Africa, Europe, Middle East, South America,
North America, and the Pacific. Arising from these events is an appeal to
you to use your summit to make a mutual bilateral commitment on No First
Use (NFU) as a first step to adoption of such a commitment by other nuclear
weapon states and to the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
“We are mindful that decades ago your predecessors declared ‘A nuclear
war cannot be won and must never be fought’. A few years ago, Mr. Biden,
you declared in an eloquent speech about the threat of nuclear war, ‘If we want
a world free of nuclear weapons, the United States must take the initiative to
lead us there.’ Similarly, Mr. Putin, you have said ‘The understanding that a
third world war could be the end of civilization should restrain us from taking
extreme steps on the international arena that are highly dangerous for modern
268 WHY WAR?

civilization.’ The United Nations set the goal to eliminate nuclear weapons
in its very first resolution, adopted unanimously, and reaffirmed this in 2013
by establishing September 26th as the annual International Day for the Total
Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.
“Now is the perfect time for you to declare a joint commitment that your
nations will not use nuclear weapons first under any circumstances, and to
make this a key step toward fulfilling the UN goal to totally eliminate nuclear
weapons from the planet. We pledge to you - as legislators, former politi-
cal/military leaders and representatives of multiple civil movements endorsing
this goal - to mobilize civil and political support for your effort.
“You should know that such a measure will be supported by most of the
other 189 States Parties of the Non-Proliferation Treaty who unanimously
agreed in 2010 to support ‘policies that could prevent the use of nuclear
weapons’ and ‘to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a
world without nuclear weapons’, and will be strongly supported by the 122 na-
tions that in 2017 approved the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
“We believe it is in your hearts to achieve this noble goal. We call on you
to initiate this vital step at your summit and to lead us all to a planet free of
nuclear weapons.”

Some Suggestions for further reading

1. W.B. Gallie, Understanding War: Points of Conflict, Routledge, London, (1991).
2. R. Falk and S.S. Kim, eds., The War System: An Interdisciplinary Approach, West-
view, Boulder, CO, (1980).
3. J.D. Clarkson and T.C. Cochran, eds., War as a Social Institution, Colombia Uni-
versity Press, New York, (1941).
4. S. Melman, The Permanent War Economy, Simon and Schuster, (1974).
5. D. Yergin, The Prize, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1991).
6. A. Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies of the World and How
They Were Made, Hodder and Staughton, London, (1988).
7. J.D. Rockefeller, Random Remaniscences of Men and Events, Doubleday, New York,
(1909).
8. M.B. Stoff, Oil, War and American Security: The Search for a National Policy on
Oil, 1941-1947, Yale University Press, New Haven, (1980).
9. W.D. Muscable, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1992).
10. J. Stork, Middle East Oil and the Energy Crisis, Monthly Review, New York, (1976).
11. F. Benn, Oil Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, St. Martin’s Press, New York,
(1986).
12. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
13. K. Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran, McGraw-Hill, New
York, (1979).
7.7. BIDEN AND PUTIN MEET ON JUNE 16, 2021, IN GENEVA 269

14. E. Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton, (1982).
15. J. Fitchett and D. Ignatius, Lengthy Elf Inquiry Nears Explosive Finish, International
Herald Tribune, February 1, (2002).
16. J.M. Blair, The Control of Oil, Random House, New York, (1976).
17. M.T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Owl Books
reprint edition, New York, (2002).
18. P. Grose, Allen Dulles: The Life of a Gentleman Spy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
(1994).
19. H. Mejcher, Imperial-Quest for Oil: Iraq, 1910-1928, Ithaca Books, London, (1976).
20. P. Sluglett, Britain in Iraq, 1914-1932, Ithaca Press, London, (1976).
21. D.E. Omissi, British Air Power and Colonial Control in Iraq, 1920-1925, Manchester
University Press, Manchester, (1990).
22. V.G. Kiernan, Colonial Empires and Armies, 1815-1960, Sutton, Stroud, (1998).
23. R. Solh, Britain’s 2 Wars With Iraq, Ithaca Press, Reading, (1996).
24. D. Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict, Routledge, New York,
(1991).
25. S. Warren, Exxon’s Profit Surged in 4th Quarter, Wall Street Journal, February 12,
(2004).
26. R. Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Edu-
cation of Paul O’Neill, Simon and Schuster, New York, (2004).
27. D. Morgan and D.B. Ottaway, In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is Key Issue as U.S.
Drillers Eye Huge Petrolium Pool, Washington Post, September 15, (2002).
28. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraqi War, The Observer, April 4,
(2004).
29. E. Vulliamy, P. Webster and N.P. Walsh, Scramble to Carve Up Iraqi Oil Reserves
Lies Behind US Diplomacy, The Observer, October 6, (2002).
30. Y. Ibrahim, Bush’s Iraq Adventure is Bound to Backfire, International Herald Tri-
bune, November 1, (2002).
31. P. Beaumont and F. Islam, Carve-Up of Oil Riches Begins, The Observer, November
3, (2002).
32. C.J. Cleveland, Physical and Economic Aspects of Natural Resource Scarcity: The
Cost of Oil Supply in the Lower 48 United States 1936-1987, Resources and Energy
13, 163-188, (1991).
33. C.J. Cleveland, Yield Per Effort for Additions to Crude Oil Reserves in the Lower
48 States, 1946-1989, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 76,
948-958, (1992).
34. M.K. Hubbert, Technique of Prediction as Applied to the Production of Oil and Gas,
in NBS Special Publication 631, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of
Standards, (1982).
35. L.F. Ivanhoe, Oil Discovery Indices and Projected Discoveries, Oil and Gas Journal,
11, 19, (1984).
270 WHY WAR?

36. L.F. Ivanhoe, Future Crude Oil Supplies and Prices, Oil and Gas Journal, July 25,
111-112, (1988).
37. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, 2001, US Depart-
ment of Energy, (2001).
38. Energy Information Administration, Caspian Sea Region, US Department of Energy,
(2001).
39. National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy, The White
House, (2004). (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/)
40. M. Klare, Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil, For-
eign Policy in Focus, (Interhemispheric Resource Center/Institute for Policy Stud-
ies/SEEN), Washington DC and Silver City NM, January, (2004).
41. M. Dobbs, US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post, December 30, (2002).
42. R. Sale, Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot, United Press International, April 10, (2003).
43. R. Morris, A Tyrant Forty Years in the Making, New York Times, March 14, (2003).
44. H. Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Prince-
ton University Press, (1978).
45. D.W. Riegel, Jr., and A.M. D’Amato, US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related
Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of
the Persian Gulf War, Report to US Senate (“The Riegel Report”), May 25, (1994).
46. P.E. Tyler, Officers Say US Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas, New York Times,
August 18, (2002).
47. D. Priest, Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show,
Washington Post, December 19, (2003).
48. S. Zunes, Saddam’s Arrest Raises Troubling Questions, Foreign Policy in Focus,
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/), December (2003).
49. D. Leigh and J. Hooper, Britain’s Dirty Secret, Guardian, March 6, (2003).
50. J. Battle, (Ed.), Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein: The US Tilts Towards Iraq,
1980-1984, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, February 25,
(2003).
51. J.R. Hiltermann, America Didn’t Seem to Mind Poison Gas, International Herald
Tribune, January 17, (2003).
52. D. Hiro, Iraq and Poison Gas, Nation, August 28, (2002).
53. T. Weiner, Iraq Uses Techniques in Spying Against its Former Tutor, the US, Philadel-
phia Inquirer, February 5, (1991).
54. S. Hussein and A. Glaspie, Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with US Envoy,
The New York Times, International, September 23, (1990).
55. T.E. Lawrence, A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence, Sunday Times, August
22, (1920).
56. T. Rajamoorthy, Deceit and Duplicity: Some Reflections on Western Intervention in
Iraq, Third World Resurgence, March-April, (2003).
57. P. Knightley and C. Simpson, The Secret Lives of Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Lon-
don, (1969).
58. G. Lenczowski, The Middle East in World Affairs, Cornell University Press, (1962).
7.7. BIDEN AND PUTIN MEET ON JUNE 16, 2021, IN GENEVA 271

59. Y. Nakash, The Shi’is of Iraq, Princeton University Press, (1994).

60. D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the
Creation of the Modern Middle East, Owl Books, (2001).
61. S.K. Aburish, Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, Bloomsbury, London,
(2001).
62. M. Muffti, Sovereign Creations: Pan-Arabism and Political Order in Syria and Iraq,
Cornell University Press, (1996).
63. C. Clover, Lessons of the 1920 Revolt Lost on Bremer, Financial Times, November
17, (2003).
64. J. Kifner, Britain Tried First. Iraq Was No Picnic Then, New York Times, July 20,
(2003).
65. D. Omissi, Baghdad and British Bombers, Guardian, January 19, (1991).
66. D. Vernet, Postmodern Imperialism, Le Monde, April 24, (2003).
67. J. Buchan, Miss Bell’s Lines in the Sand, Guardian, March 12, (2003).
68. C. Tripp, Iraq: The Imperial Precedent, Le Monde Diplomatique, January, (2003).
69. G.H.W. Bush and B. Scowcroft, Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam, Time, 2 March,
(1998).
70. J.A. Baker III, The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace, 1989-1992,
G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, (1995).
71. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraq War, Observer, April 4, (2004).
72. B. Gellman, Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy
Went Beyond Purely Military Targets, Washington Post, June 23, (1991).
73. M. Fletcher and M. Theodoulou, Baker Says Sanctions Must Stay as Long as Saddam
Holds Power, Times, May 23, (1991).
74. J. Pienaar and L. Doyle, UK Maintains Tough Line on Sanctions Against Iraq, In-
dependent, May 11, (1991).
75. C. Johnson, America’s Empire of Bases, TomDispatch.com, January, (2004).
76. B. Blum (translator), Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski Admits: Afghan Is-
lamism Was Made in Washington, Nouvel Observateur, January 15, (1998).
77. D. Rose, Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraq War, The Observer, Sunday April
4, (1994).
78. G. Vidal, Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta, Thunder’s
Mouth Press, (2002).
79. H. Thomas, Preventive War Sets Serious Precedent, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March
20, (2003).
80. C. Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Repub-
lic, Henry Hold and Company, New York, (2004).
81. C. Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Henry
Hold and Company, New York, (2000).
82. M. Parenti, Against Empire: The Brutal Realities of U.S. Global Domination, City
Lights Books, 261 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA94133, (1995).
83. E. Ahmad, Confronting Empire, South End Press, (2000).
84. W. Greider, Fortress America, Public Affairs Press, (1998).
272 WHY WAR?

85. R. Mahajan, Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond, Seven
Stories Press, (2003).
86. J. Pilger, Hidden Agendas, The New Press, (1998).
87. S.R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis, South End Press, (1993).
88. C. Boggs (editor), Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American
Empire, Routledge, (2003).
89. J. Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, Verso, (2992).
90. G. Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, Thun-
der’s Mouth Press, (2002).
91. W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, Common Courage
Press, (2000).
92. M. Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10010, (1989).
93. K. Grossman, Weapons in Space, Seven Stories Press, (2001).
94. R.J. Barnet, Intervention and Revolution: The United States in the Third World,
World Publishing, (1968).
95. T. Bodenheimer and R. Gould, Rollback: Right-wing Power in U.S. Foreign Policy,
South End Press, (1989).
96. G. Guma, Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do, Toward
Freedom, (2003).
97. W. Blum, A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present, Z magazine,
June, (1999).
98. W. Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II
99. M. Klare, Endless Military Superiority, The Nation magazine, July 15, (2002).
100. J.M. Cypher, The Iron Triangle: The New Military Buildup, Dollars and Sense mag-
azine, January/February, (2002).
101. L. Meyer, The Power of One, (World Press Review), Reforma, Mexico City, August
5, (1999).
102. C. Johnson, Time to Bring the Troops Home, The Nation magazine, May 14, (2001).
103. W. Hartung, F. Berrigan and M. Ciarrocca, Operation Endless Deployment: The
War With Iraq Is Part of a Larger Plan for Global Military Dominance, The Nation
magazine, October 21, (2002).
104. I. Ramonet, Servile States, Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, October (2002), World
Press Review, December, (2002).
105. J.K. Galbraith, The Unbearable Costs of Empire, American Prospect magazine,
November, (2002).
106. G. Monbiot, The Logic of Empire, The Guardian, August 6, (2002), World Press
Review, October, (2002).
107. W.R. Pitt and S. Ritter, War on Iraq, Context Books
108. W.R. Pitt, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, Pluto Press, (2003).
109. J. Wilson, Republic or Empire?, The Nation magazine, March 3, (2003).
110. R. Dreyfuss, Just the Beginning: Is Iraq the Opening Salvo in a War to Remake the
World?, The American Prospect magazine, April, (2003).
7.7. BIDEN AND PUTIN MEET ON JUNE 16, 2021, IN GENEVA 273

111. D. Moberg, The Road From Baghdad: The Bush Team Has Big Plans For the 21st
Century. Can the Rest of the World Stop Them?, These Times magazine, May,
(2003).
112. P. Cain and T. Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688-200, Longman, (2000).
113. N. Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the
Lessons for Global Power, Basic Books, (2003).
114. E.J. Hobsbawn, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914, Vintage Books, (1989).
115. L. James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, St Martin’s Press, (1997).
116. S. Schama, The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000, Miramax, (2002).
117. A.P. Thorton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies: A Study in British Power, Pal-
grave Macmillan, (1985).
118. G. Kolko, Another Century of War, New Press, (2002).
119. G. Kolko, Confronting the Third World: United States Foreign Policy, 1945-1980,
Pantheon Books, (1988).
120. J. Feffer, B. Egrenreich and M.T. Klare, Power Trip: US Unilateralism and Global
Strategy After September 11, Seven Stories Press, (2003).
121. R.S. Foot, S.N. MacFarlane and M. Mastanduno, US Hegemony and International
Organizations: The United States and Multilateral Institutions, Oxford University
Press, (2003).
122. P. Bennis and N. Chomsky, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September
11th Crisis, Olive Branch Press, (2002).
123. J. Garrison, America as Empire: Global Leader or Rouge Power?, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, (2004).
124. A.J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy,
Harvard University Press, (2002).
125. D.R. Francis, Hidden Defense Costs Add Up to Double Trouble, Christian Science
Monator, February 23, (2004).
126. Bazant, Zdenek and Le, Jia-Liang, Why the Observed Motion History of the World
Trade Center Towers is Smooth, Journal of Engineering Mechanics (January 2011)
127. Chandler, David, NIST Finally Admits Free Fall, video (February 2010)
128. Chandler, David, North Tower Exploding video (February 2010)
129. Chandler, David, Sound Evidence for Explosions, video (July 2010)
130. Chandler, David. The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and
Fundamental Physics, Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010)
131. Chandler, David, Free Fall and Building 7 on 9/11 (Reprinted by AE911Truth in
April 2014)
132. Cole, Jonathan, 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel, video (July 2010)
133. FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Prelim-
inary Observations, and Recommendations (May 2002)
134. Fire Department of New York (FDNY), World Trade Center Task Force Interviews,
The New York Times (October 2001 - January 2002)
135. Griffin, David Ray, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, (2009)
274 WHY WAR?

136. Harrit, Niels (et al.), Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11
World Trade Center Catastrophe, Open Chemical Physics Journal (April 2009)
137. Jones, Steven (et al.), Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center
Destruction, Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2008)
138. Jones, Steven, Revisiting 9/11/2001 - Applying the Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11
Studies (May 2007)
139. Jones, Steven, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse Completely?, Journal
of 9/11 Studies (September 2006)
140. Legge, Frank and Szamboti, Anthony, 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse
Initiation was Impossible, Journal of 9/11 Studies (December 2007)
141. Lee, Richard J., RJ Lee Group, Inc., WTC Dust Signature (May 2004)
142. MacQueen, Graeme, Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers, Chapter
Eight, The 9/11 Toronto Report, Editor: James Gourley (November 2012)
143. MacQueen, Graeme, 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in
the Twin Towers, Journal of 9/11 Studies (2006)
144. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explo-
sion Investigations (Current edition: 2014)
145. NFPA Report, High-Rise Building Fires by John R. Hall, Jr. (September 2013)
146. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology Final Plan: National Building Fire Safety Investment of the
World Trade Center by Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder (August 2002)
147. NIST, June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investiga-
tion of the World Trade Center Disaster (WTC 1 & WTC 2)
148. NIST, Draft Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation
(WTC 1 & WTC 2 in April 2005; WTC 7 in August 2008)
149. NIST, Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
(WTC 1 & WTC 2 in September 2005; WTC 7 in November 2008)
150. NIST: To NIST, Request for Correction from Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones,
Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Frank Legge (April 2007)
151. NIST: From NIST, Response to the Request for Correction (September 2007)
152. NIST: To NIST, Appeal from James R. Gourley, Bob McIlvaine, Steven Jones to
NIST’s Response to the Request for Correction (October 2007)
153. NIST, Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation (NIST
FAQs for WTC 1 & WTC 2 updated September 19, 2011)
154. NIST, Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (NIST FAQs
for WTC 7, updated June 27, 2012)
155. NIST, WTC 7 Technical Briefing (August 26, 2008)
156. NIST, Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Test-
ing (October 2008)
157. Ryan, Kevin, High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC
Towers, Journal of 9/11 Studies (June 2007)
158. Szamboti, Anthony and Johns, Richard, ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent
Paper Published on WTC Collapses, Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014)
7.7. BIDEN AND PUTIN MEET ON JUNE 16, 2021, IN GENEVA 275

159. Szamboti, Anthony and MacQueen, Graeme, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation
of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis, Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009)
160. Szuladziński, Gregory and Szamboti, Anthony and Johns, Richard, Some Misun-
derstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis, International Journal of Protective
Structures (June 2013)
161. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust by
Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker (2005)
276 WHY WAR?
Chapter 8

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

GOVERNANCE

8.1 The future of international law

“With law shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.” Njal’s Saga, Iceland,
c 1270.

Introduction
After the invention of agriculture, roughly 10,000 years ago, humans began to live in
progressively larger groups, which were sometimes multi-ethnic. In order to make towns,
cities and finally nations function without excessive injustice and violence, both ethical
and legal systems were needed. Today, in an era of global economic interdependence,
instantaneous worldwide communication and all-destroying thermonuclear weapons, we
urgently need new global ethical principles and a just and enforcible system of international
laws.

What is law?
The principles of law, ethics, politeness and kindness function in slightly different ways,
but all of these behavioral rules help human societies to function in a cohesive and trouble-
free way. Law is the most coarse. The mesh is made finer by ethics, while the rules of
politeness and kindness fill in the remaining gaps.
Legal systems began at a time at a time when tribal life was being replaced by life in
villages, towns and cities. One of the oldest legal documents that we know of is a code
of laws enacted by the Babylonian king Hammurabi in about 1754 BC. It consists of 282
laws, with scaled punishments, governing household behavior, marriage, divorce, paternity,
inheritance, payments for services, and so on. An ancient 2.24 meter stele inscribed with
Hammurabi’s Code can be seen in the Louvre. The laws are written in the Akkadian
language, using cuneiform script.

277
278 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.1: A portion of Hammurabi’s Code, c. 1754 BC

Humanity’s great ethical systems also began during a period when the social unit was
growing very quickly. It is an interesting fact that many of history’s greatest ethical teachers
lived at a time when the human societies were rapidly increasing in size. One can think,
for example of Moses, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Gautama Buddha, the Greek philosophers, and
Jesus. Muhammad came slightly later, but he lived and taught at a time when tribal life
was being replaced by city life in the Arab world. During the period when these great
teachers lived, ethical systems had become necessary to over-write raw inherited human
emotional behavior patterns in such a way that increasingly large societies could function
in a harmonious and cooperative way, with a minimum of conflicts.

Magna Carta, 1215

2015 marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, which is considered to be the
foundation of much of our modern legal system. It was drafted by the Archbishop of
Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular Norman King John of England and a
group of rebel barons. The document promised the protection of church rights, protection
for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations feudal
payments to the Crown. It was renewed by successive English sovereigns, and its protection
against illegal imprisonment and provisions for swift justice were extended from the barons
to ordinary citizens. It is considered to be the basis for British constitutional law, and in
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 279

Figure 8.2: King John is forced to sign the Magna Carta

1789, it influenced the drafting of the Constitution of the United States. Lord Denning
described the Magna Carta as ”the greatest constitutional document of all times: the
foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.

The English Bill of Rights, 1689

When James II was overthrown by the Glorious Revolution the Dutch stadholder William
III of Orange-Nassau and his wife, Mary II of England were invited to be joint sovereigns
of England. The Bill of Rights was originally part of the invitation, informing the couple
regarding the limitations that would be imposed on their powers. Later the same year,
it was incorporated into English law. The Bill of Rights guaranteed the supremacy of
Parliament over the monarch. It forbid cruel and unusual punishments, excessive bail and
excessive fines. Freedom of speech and free elections were also guaranteed, and a standing
army in peacetime was forbidden without the explicit consent of Parliament. The Bill of
Rights was influenced by the writings of the Liberal philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704).
280 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.3: Lord Denning described the Magna Carta as ”the greatest constitu-
tional document of all times: the foundation of the freedom of the individual
against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789

The history of the Federal Constitution of the United States is an interesting one. It was
preceded by the Articles of Confederation, which were written by the Second Continental
Congress between 1776 and 1777, but it soon became clear that Confederation was too
weak a form of union for a collection of states.
The essential difference between a confederation and a federation, both of them unions
of states, is that a federation has the power to make and to enforce laws that act on
individuals, rather than attempting to coerce states (in Hamilton’s words, “one of the
maddest projects that was ever devised.”) The fact that a confederation of states was
found to be far too weak a form of union is especially interesting because our present
United Nations is a confederation. We are at present attempting to coerce states with
sanctions that are “applied to people collectively and not individually.”The International
Criminal Court, which we will discuss below, is a development of enormous importance,
because it acts on individuals, rather than attempting to coerce states.
There are many historical examples of successful federations; but in general, unions of
states based on the principle of confederation have proved to be too weak. Probably our
best hope for the future lies in gradually reforming and strengthening the United Nations,
until it becomes a federation.
In the case of the Federal Constitution of the United States, there were Anti-Federalists
who opposed its ratification because they feared that it would be too powerful. Therefore,
on June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced in the House of Representatives a series of
39 amendments to the constitution, which would limit the government’s power. Of these,
only amendments 3 to 12 were adopted, and these have become known collectively as the
Bill of Rights.
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 281

Figure 8.4: James Madison, wrote that the more he reflected on the use of force,
the more he doubted “the practicality, the justice and the efficacy of it when
applied to people collectively, and not individually.” He later introduced the
Constitutional amendments that became the U.S. Bill of Rights.
282 WHY WAR?

Of the ten amendments that constitute the original Bill of Rights, we should take
particular notice of the First, Fourth and Sixth, because they have been violated repeatedly
and grossly by the present government of the United States.
The First Amendment requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an estab-
lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.” The right to freedom of speech and freedom
of the press has been violated by the punishment of whistleblowers. The right to assem-
ble peaceably has also been violated repeatedly and brutally by the present government’s
militarized police.
The Fourth Amendment states that “The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.”It is hardly necessary to elaborate on the U.S. Government’s massive
violations of the Fourth Amendment. Edward Snowden’s testimony has revealed a huge
secret industry carrying out illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures of private data,
not only in the United States, but also throughout the world. This data can be used to
gain power over citizens and leaders through blackmail. True democracy and dissent are
thereby eliminated.
The Sixth Amendment requires that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be con-
fronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses
in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”This constitutional
amendment has also been grossly violated.
In the context of federal unions of states, the Tenth Amendment is also interesting.
This amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con-
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.”We mentioned above that historically, federations have been very success-
ful. However, if we take the European Union as an example, it has had some problems
connected with the principle of subsidiarity, according to which as few powers as possible
should be decided centrally, and as many issues as possible should be decided locally. The
European Union was originally designed as a free trade area, and because of its history
commercial considerations have trumped environmental ones. The principle of subsidiarity
has not been followed, and enlightened environmental laws of member states have been
declared to be illegal by the EU because they conflicted with free trade. These are diffi-
culties from which we can learn as we contemplate the conversion of the United Nations
into a federation.
The United States Bill of Rights was influenced by John Locke and by the French
philosophers of the Enlightenment. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man (August,
1789) was almost simultaneous with the U.S. Bill of Rights.
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 283

We can also see the influence of Enlightenment philosophy in the wording of the U.S.
Declaration of independence (1776): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed...”Another criticism that can be leveled against the present government of
the United States is that its actions seem to have nothing whatever to do with the consent
of the governed, not to mention the violations of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness implicit in extrajudicial killings.

Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928

World War I was a catastrophe that still casts a dark shadow over the future of humanity.
It produced enormous suffering, brutalization of values, irreparable cultural loss, and a
total of more than 37 million casualties, military and civilian. Far from being the “war to
end war”, the conflict prepared the way for World War II, during which nuclear weapons
were developed; and these now threaten the existence the of human species and much of
the biosphere.
After the horrors of World War I, the League of Nations was set up in the hope of
ending the institution of war forever. However, many powerful nations refused to join the
League, and it withered. Another attempt to outlaw war was made in 1928. in the form
of a pact named after its authors, U.S. Secretary of State, Frank B. Kellogg and French
Foreign Minister Astrid Briand. The Kellogg-Briand Pact is formally called the General
Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy. It was ultimately
ratified by 62 Nations, including the United States (by a Senate vote of 85 to 1). Although
frequently violated, the Pact remains in force today, establishing a norm which legally
outlaws war.

United Nations Charter, 1945

The Second World War was even more disastrous than the First. Estimates of the total
number of people who died as a result of the war range between 50 million and 80 million.
With the unspeakable suffering caused by the war fresh in their minds, representatives of
the victorious allied countries assembled in San Francisco to draft the charter of a global
organization which they hoped would end the institution of war once and for all.
The Preamble to the United Nations Charter starts with the words: “We , the peoples
of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,
which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind; and to unite our strength
to maintain international peace and security; and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles
and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common
interest; and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and
social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these
aims.”
284 WHY WAR?

Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that “All members shall refrain in their interna-
tional relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state.” This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which
says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace
and security.” Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against
an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has
had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in
preemptive wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called “democratization”, or for
the domination of regions that are rich in oil.
Clearly, the United Nations Charter aims at abolishing the institution of war once
and for all; but the present Charter has proved to be much too weak to accomplish this
purpose, since it is a confederation of the member states rather than a federation. This
does not mean that that our present United Nations is a failure. Far from it! The UN
has achieved almost universal membership, which the League of Nations failed to do. The
Preamble to the Charter speaks of “ the promotion of the economic and social advancement
of all peoples”, and UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the Food and
Agricultural Organization and UNESCO, have worked very effectively to improve the lives
of people throughout the world. Furthermore, the UN has served as a meeting place for
diplomats from all countries, and many potentially serious conflicts have been resolved by
informal conversations behind the scenes at the UN. Finally, although often unenforceable,
resolutions of the UN General Assembly and declarations by the Secretary General have
great normative value.
When we think of strengthening and reforming the UN, then besides giving it the power
to make and enforce laws that are binding on individuals, we should also consider giving
it an independent and reliable source of income. As it is, rich and powerful nations seek
to control the UN by means of its purse strings: They give financial support only to those
actions that are in their own interests.
A promising solution to this problem is the so-called “Tobin tax”, named after the
Nobel-laureate economist James Tobin of Yale University. Tobin proposed that interna-
tional currency exchanges should be taxed at a rate between 0.1 and 0.25 percent. He
believed that even this extremely low rate of taxation would have the beneficial effect of
damping speculative transactions, thus stabilizing the rates of exchange between curren-
cies. When asked what should be done with the proceeds of the tax, Tobin said, almost as
an afterthought, “Let the United Nations have it.”
The volume of money involved in international currency transactions is so enormous
that even the tiny tax proposed by Tobin would provide the United Nations with between
100 billion and 300 billion dollars annually. By strengthening the activities of various
UN agencies, the additional income would add to the prestige of the United Nations and
thus make the organization more effective when it is called upon to resolve international
political conflicts. The budgets of UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization,
the Food and Agricultural Organization, UNESCO and the UN Development Programme,
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 285

Figure 8.5: Clearly, the United Nations Charter aims at abolishing the institu-
tion of war once and for all.

should not just be doubled but should be multiplied by a factor of at least twenty.
With increased budgets the UN agencies could sponsor research and other actions aimed
at solving the world’s most pressing problems: AIDS, drug-resistant infections diseases,
tropical diseases, food insufficiencies, pollution, climate change, alternative energy strate-
gies, population stabilization, peace education, as well as combating poverty, malnutrition,
illiteracy, lack of safe water and so on. Scientists would would be less tempted to find
jobs with arms-related industries if offered the chance to work on idealistic projects. The
United Nations could be given its own television channel, with unbiased news programs,
cultural programs, and “State of the World” addresses by the UN Secretary General.
In addition, the voting system of the United Nations General Assembly needs to be
reformed, and the veto power in the Security Council needs to be abolished.

International Court of Justice, 1946

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial arm of the United Nations. It
was established by the UN Charter in 1945, and it began to function in 1946. The ICJ
is housed in the Peace Palace in the Hague, a beautiful building constructed with funds
donated by Andrew Carnegie. Since 1946, the ICJ has dealt with only 161 cases. The
reason for this low number is that only disputes between nations are judged, and both the
countries involved in a dispute have to agree to abide by the Court’s jurisdiction before
the case can be accepted.
Besides acting
286 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.6: In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed
“the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nurem-
berg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal”. The General Assembly
also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg
Principles.

Nuremberg Principles, 1947

In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed “the principles of
international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment
of the Tribunal”. The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission
to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI,
which is particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:
Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under interna-
tional law:

a) Crimes against peace: (I) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of

aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (II)
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the acts men-
tioned under (I).

Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials,
said that “To initiate a war of aggression is therefore not only an international crime; it is
the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within
itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Furthermore, the Nuremberg principles state
that “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior
does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice
was in fact possible to him.”The training of soldiers is designed to make the trainees into
automatons, who have surrendered all powers of moral judgment to their superiors. The
Nuremberg Principles put the the burden of moral responsibility squarely back where it
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 287

ought to be: on the shoulders of the individual.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. 48 nations voted for adoption, while 8 nations abstained
from voting. Not a single state voted against the Declaration. In addition, the Gen-
eral Assembly decided to continue work on the problem of implementing the Declaration.
The Preamble to the document stated that it was intended “as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and nations, to the end that every individual and every or-
gan of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.”
Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration state that “all human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and in rights”, and that everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms
mentioned in the Declaration without distinctions of any kind. Neither race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property or social
origin must make a difference. The Declaration states that everyone has a right to life,
liberty and security of person and property. Slavery and the slave trade are prohibited, as
well as torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments. All people must be equal
before the law, and no person must be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. In
criminal proceedings an accused person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by
an impartial public hearing where all necessary provisions have been made for the defense
of the accused.
No one shall be subjected to interference with his privacy, family, home or correspon-
dence. Attacks on an individual’s honor are also forbidden. Everyone has the right of
freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a state, the right to leave any
country, including his own, as well as the right to return to his own country. Every person
has the right to a nationality and cannot be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality.
All people of full age have a right to marry and to establish a family. Men and women
have equal rights within a marriage and at its dissolution, if this takes place. Marriage
must require the full consent of both parties.
The Declaration also guarantees freedom of religion, of conscience, and of opinion and
expression, as well as freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Everyone is entitled
to participate in his or her own government, either directly or through democratically
chosen representatives. Governments must be based on the will of the people, expressed in
periodic and genuine elections with universal and equal suffrage. Voting must be secret.
Everyone has the right to the economic, social and cultural conditions needed for dignity
and free development of personality. The right to work is affirmed. The job shall be of
a person’s own choosing, with favorable conditions of work, and remuneration consistent
with human dignity, supplemented if necessary with social support. All workers have the
right to form and to join trade unions.
Article 25 of the Declaration states that everyone has the right to an adequate standard
of living, including food, clothing, housing and medical care, together with social services.
288 WHY WAR?

All people have the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood or old age. Expectant mothers are promised special care and assistance, and
children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Ev-
eryone has the right to education, which shall be free in the elementary stages. Higher
education shall be accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education must be directed
towards the full development of the human personality and to strengthening respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms. Education must promote understanding, toler-
ance, and friendship among all nations, racial and religious groups, and it must further the
activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
A supplementary document, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, was adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly on the 12th of December, 1989. Furthermore, in
July 2010, the General Assembly passed a resolution affirming that everyone has the right
to clean drinking water and proper sanitation.
Many provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example Article 25,
might be accused of being wishful thinking. In fact, Jean Kirkpatrick, former US Ambas-
sador to the UN, cynically called the Declaration “a letter to Santa Claus”. Nevertheless,
like the Millennium Development Goals, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has
great value in defining the norms towards which the world ought to be striving.
It is easy to find many examples of gross violations of basic human rights that have taken
place in recent years. Apart from human rights violations connected with interventions of
powerful industrial states in the internal affairs of third world countries, there are many
cases where governmental forces in the less developed countries have violated the human
rights of their own citizens. Often minority groups have been killed or driven off their land
by those who coveted the land, as was the case in Guatemala in 1979, when 1.5 million
poor Indian farmers were forced to abandon their villages and farms and to flee to the
mountains of Mexico in order to escape murderous attacks by government soldiers. The
blockade of Gaza and extrajudicial killing by governments must also be regarded as blatant
human rights violations, and there are many recent examples of genocide.
Wars in general, and in particular, the use of nuclear weapons, must be regarded as
gross violations of human rights. The most basic human right is the right to life; but this
is right routinely violated in wars. Most of the victims of recent wars have been civilians,
very often children and women. The use of nuclear weapons must be regarded as a form
of genocide, since they kill people indiscriminately, babies, children, young adults in their
prime, and old people, without any regard for guilt or innocence.

Geneva Conventions, 1949

According to Wikipedia, “The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three ad-
ditional protocols, that establish the standards if international law for the humanitarian
treatment of war. The singular term, Geneva Convention, usually denotes the agreements
of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939-1945), which updated
the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929) and added a fourth. The Geneva
Conventions extensively defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and mil-
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 289

Figure 8.7: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has great value in defin-
ing the norms towards which the world ought to be striving.
290 WHY WAR?

itary personnel); established protection for the wounded; and established protections for
civilians in and around a war-zone. The treaties if 1949 were ratified, in whole or with
reservations, by 196 countries.”
In a way, one might say that the Geneva Conventions are an admission of defeat by the
international community. We tried to abolish war entirely through the UN Charter, but
failed because the Charter was too weak.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, collective punishment is war crime. Article
33 states that “No protected person may be punished for an offense that he or she did
not personally commit.” Articles 47-78 also impose substantial obligations on occupying
powers, with numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied
territory. Thus Israel violated the Geneva Conventions by its collective punishment of the
civilian population of Gaza in retaliation for largely ineffective Hamas rocket attacks. The
larger issue, however, is the urgent need for lifting of Israel’s brutal blockade of Gaza,
which has created what Noam Chomsky calls the “the world’s largest open-air prison”.
This blockade violates the Geneva conventions because Israel, as an occupying power, has
the duty of providing for the welfare of the people of Gaza.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1968

In the 1960’s, negotiations were started between countries that possessed nuclear weapons,
and others that did not possess them, to establish a treaty that would prevent the spread of
these highly dangerous weapons, but which would at the same time encourage cooperation
in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The resulting treaty has the formal title Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (abbreviated as the NPT). The treaty also
aimed at achieving general and complete disarmament. It was opened for signature in
1968, and it entered into force on the 11th of May, 1970.
190 parties have joined the NPT, and more countries have ratified it than any other
arms limitation agreement, an indication of the Treaty’s great importance. Four countries
outside the NPT have nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. North
Korea had originally joined the NPT, but it withdrew in 2003. The NPT has three main
parts or “pillars”, 1) Non-Proliferation, 2) disarmament, and 3) the right to peaceful use
of nuclear technology. The central bargain of the Treaty is that “the NPT non-nuclear
weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear weapon states
agree to share the benefits of peaceful use of nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear
disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”.
Articles I and II of the NPT forbid states that have nuclear weapons to help other
nations to acquire them. These Articles were violated, for example, by France, which
helped Israel to acquire nuclear weapons, and by China, which helped Pakistan to do
the same. They are also violated by the “nuclear sharing” agreements, through which
US tactical nuclear weapons will be transferred to several countries in Europe in a crisis
situation. It is sometimes argued that in the event of a crisis, the NPT would no longer
be valid, but there is nothing in the NPT itself that indicates that it would not hold in all
situations.
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 291

The most blatantly violated provision of the NPT is Article VI. It requires the member
states to pursue “negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of
the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”, and negotiations
towards a “Treaty on general and complete disarmament”. In other words, the states that
possess nuclear weapons agreed to get rid of them. However, during the 47 years that have
passed since the NPT went into force, the nuclear weapon states have shown absolutely
no sign of complying with Article VI. There is a danger that the NPT will break down
entirely because of the majority of countries in the world are so dissatisfied with this long-
continued non-compliance. Looking at the NPT with the benefit of hindsight, we can see
the third “pillar”, the “right to peaceful use of nuclear technology” as a fatal flaw of the
treaty. In practice, it has meant encouragement of nuclear power generation, with all the
many dangers that go with it.
The enrichment of uranium is linked to reactor use. Many reactors of modern design
make use of low enriched uranium as a fuel. Nations operating such a reactor may claim
that they need a program for uranium enrichment in order to produce fuel rods. However,
by operating their ultracentrifuges a little longer, they can easily produce highly enriched
(weapons-usable) uranium.
The difficulty of distinguishing between a civilian nuclear power generation program
and a military nuclear program is illustrated by the case of Iran. In discussing Iran, it
should be mentioned that Iran is fully in compliance with the NPT. It is very strange
to see states that are long-time blatant violators of the NPT threaten Iran because of a
nuclear program that fully complies with the Treaty. I believe that civilian nuclear power
generation is always a mistake because of the many dangers that it entails, and because of
the problem of disposing of nuclear waste. However, a military attack on Iran would be
both criminal and insane. Why criminal? Because such an attack would violate the UN
Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. Why insane? Because it would initiate a conflict
that might escalate uncontrollably into World War III.

Biological Weapons Convention, 1972

During World War II, British and American scientists investigated the possibility of using
smallpox as a biological weapon. However, it was never used, and in 1969 President
Nixon officially ended the American biological weapons program, bowing to the pressure
of outraged public opinion. In 1972, the United States, the United Kingdom and the
Soviet Union signed a Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and
Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction.
Usually this treaty is known as the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and it has now
been signed by virtually all of the countries of the world.
However, consider the case of smallpox: A World Health Organization team led by
D.A. Henderson devised a strategy in which cases of smallpox were isolated and all their
contacts vaccinated, so that the disease had no way of reaching new victims. Descriptions of
the disease were circulated, and rewards offered for reporting cases. The strategy proved
to be successful, and finally, in 1977, the last natural case of smallpox was isolated in
292 WHY WAR?

Somalia. After a two-year waiting period, during which no new cases were reported, WHO
announced in 1979 that smallpox, one of the most frightful diseases of humankind, had been
totally eliminated from the world. This was the first instance of the complete eradication
of a disease, and it was a demonstration of what could be achieved by the enlightened use
of science combined with international cooperation. The eradication of smallpox was a
milestone in human history.
It seems that our species is not really completely wise and rational; we do not really
deserve to be called “Homo sapiens”. Stone-age emotions and stone-age politics are alas
still with us. Samples of smallpox virus were taken to“carefully controlled” laboratories
in the United States and the Soviet Union. Why? Probably because these two Cold War
opponents did not trust each other, although both had signed the Biological Weapons
Convention. Each feared that the other side might intend to use smallpox as a biological
weapon. There were also rumors that unofficial samples of the virus had been saved by a
number of other countries, including North Korea, Iraq, China, Cuba, India, Iran, Israel,
Pakistan and Yugoslavia.

Chemical Weapons Convention, 1997

On the 3rd of September, 1992, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva adopted a Con-
vention on the Prohibition of Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical
Weapons and on their Destruction. This agreement, which is usually called the Chemi-
cal Weapons Convention (CWC), attempted to remedy some of the shortcomings of the
Geneva Protocol of 1925. The CWC went into force in 1997, after Hungary deposited the
65th instrument of ratification.
The provisions of Article I of the CWC are as follows: 1. Each State Party to this
convention undertakes never under any circumstances: (a) To develop, produce, otherwise
acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical
weapons to anyone; (b) To use chemical weapons; (c) To engage in any military prepa-
ration to use chemical weapons; (d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone
to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party in accordance with the provisions
of this Convention. 2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns
or possesses, or that are located any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance
with the provisions of this Convention. 3. Each State Party undertakes to destroy all
chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with
the provisions of this Convention. 4. Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical
weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under
its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. 5. Each
State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
The CWC also makes provision for verification by teams of inspectors, and by 2004,
1,600 such inspections had been carried out in 59 countries. It also established an Orga-
nization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare. All of the declared chemical weapons
production facilities have now been inactivated, and all declared chemical weapons have
been inventoried. However of the world’s declared stockpile of chemical warfare agents
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 293

(70,000 metric tons), only 12 percent have been destroyed. One hopes that in the fu-
ture the CWC will be ratified by all the nations of the world and that the destruction of
stockpiled chemical warfare agents will become complete.

Mine Ban Treaty, 1999

In 1991, six NGOs organized the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and in 1996,
the Canadian government launched the Ottawa process to ban landmines by hosting a
meeting among like-minded anti-landmine states. A year later, in 1997, the Mine Ban
Treaty was adopted and opened for signatures. In the same year, Jody Williams and the
International Campaign to ban Landmines were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
After the 40th ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty in 1998, the treaty became binding
international law on the 1st of March, 1999. The Ottawa Treaty functions imperfectly
because of the opposition of several militarily powerful nations, but nevertheless it estab-
lishes a valuable norm, and it represents an important forward step in the development of
international law.

International Criminal Court, 2002

In 1998, in Rome, representatives of 120 countries signed a statute establishing an Interna-
tional Criminal Court (ICC), with jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
Four years were to pass before the necessary ratifications were gathered, but by Thurs-
day, April 11, 2002, 66 nations had ratified the Rome agreement, 6 more than the 60
needed to make the court permanent. It would be impossible to overstate the importance
of the ICC. At last, international law acting on individuals has become a reality! The only
effective and just way that international laws can act is to make individuals responsible
and punishable, since (in the words of Alexander Hamilton) “To coerce states is one of the
maddest projects that was ever devised.”
At present, the ICC functions very imperfectly because of the bitter opposition of
several powerful countries, notable the United States. U.S. President George W. Bush
signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended
to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the ICC. The new law authorizes the use
of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held
by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the ”Hague invasion
clause,” has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the
Netherlands. 1
Despite the fact that the ICC now functions so imperfectly, it is a great step forward in
the development of international law. It is there and functioning. We have the opportunity
to make it progressively more impartial and to expand its powers.
1
http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law
294 WHY WAR?

Arms Trade Treaty, 2013

On April 2, 2013, a historic victory was won at the United Nations, and the world achieved
its first treaty limiting international trade in arms. Work towards the Arms Trade Treaty
(ATT) began in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which requires a consensus
for the adoption of any measure. Over the years, the consensus requirement has meant
that no real progress in arms control measures has been made in Geneva, since a consensus
among 193 nations is impossible to achieve.
To get around the blockade, British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant sent the draft
treaty to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and asked him on behalf of Mexico, Australia
and a number of others to put the ATT to a swift vote in the General Assembly, and on
Tuesday, April 3, 2013, it was adopted by a massive majority. Among the people who have
worked hardest for the ATT is Anna Macdonald, Head of Arms Control at Oxfam. The
reason why Oxfam works so hard on this issue is that trade in small arms is a major cause
of poverty and famine in the developing countries. On April 9, Anna Macdonald wrote:
“Thanks to the democratic process, international law will for the first time regulate the 70
billion dollar global arms trade. Had the process been launched in the consensus-bound
Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, currently in its 12th year of meeting without even
being able to agree on an agenda, chances are it would never have left the starting blocks...”

The passage of the Arms Trade Treaty by a majority vote in the UN General Assembly
opens new possibilities for progress on other seemingly-intractable issues. In particular, it
gives hope that a Nuclear Weapons Convention might be adopted by a direct vote on the
floor of the General Assembly. The adoption of the NWC, even if achieved against the
bitter opposition of the nuclear weapon states, would make it clear that the world’s peoples
consider the threat of an all-destroying nuclear war to be completely unacceptable.

Racism, Colonialism and Exceptionalism

A just system of laws must apply equally and without exception to everyone. If a person,
or, in the case of international law, a nation, claims to be outside the law, or above the law,
then there is something fundamentally wrong. For example, when U.S. President Obama
said in a 2013 speech, “What makes America different, what makes us exceptional, is that
we are dedicated to act”, then thoughtful people could immediately see that something
was terribly wrong with the system. If we look closely, we find that there is a link between
racism, colonialism and exceptionalism. The racist and colonialist concept of “the white
man’s burden”is linked to the Neo-Conservative self-image of benevolent (and violent)
interference in the internal affairs of other countries. 2

2
http://www.countercurrents.org/avery101013.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efI6T8lovqY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdBDRbjx9jo
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 295

The Oslo Principles on Climate Change Obligation, 2015

The future of human civilization and the biosphere is not only threatened by thermonuclear
war: It is also threatened by catastrophic climate change. If prompt action is not taken
to curb the use of fossil fuels: if the presently known reserves of fossil fuels are not left in
the ground, then there is a great danger that we will pass a tipping point beyond which
human efforts to stop a catastrophic increase in global temperatures will be useless because
feedback loops will have taken over. There is a danger of a human-initiated 6th geological
extinction event, comparable with the Permian-Triassic event, during which 96 percent of
marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrates became extinct.
Recently there have been a number of initiatives which aim at making the human
obligation to avert threatened environmental mega-catastrophes a part of international
law. One of these initiatives can be seen in the proposal of the Oslo Principles on Climate
Change Obligations; another is the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth;
and a third can be found in the concept of Biocultural Rights. These are extremely
important and hopeful initiatives, and they point to towards the future development of
international law for which we must strive. 3

The nuclear ban treaty

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been passed by the UN
General Assembly!
On July 7, 2017, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by an
overwhelming majority (122 to 1) at the United Nations General Assembly. Although
opposed by all of the nuclear weapon states, the treaty is a great achievement. Here are
the first two articles of the treaty: 4

Article 1: Prohibitions
1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

(a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile

nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
3
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2015/04/oslo-principles-on-global-climate-change-obligations/
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2015/04/climate-change-at-last-a-breakthrough-to-our-catastrophic-
political-impasse/
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/14/lawsuit-out-love-unprecedented-legal-action-accuses-
dutch-government-failing-climate
http://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/jhre/6-1/jhre.2015.01.01.xml
http://therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/
4
The remaining articles can be found on the following link: http://undocs.org/A/CONF.229/2017/8
296 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.8: Recently there have been a number of initiatives which aim at making
the human obligation to avert threatened environmental mega-catastrophes a
part of international law.
8.1. THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 297

(c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(e) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity pro-
hibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
(f) Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity
prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or
control.

Article 2: Declarations
1. Each State Party shall submit to the Secretary - General of the United Nations, not
later than 30 days after this Treaty enters into force for that State Party, a declaration
in which it shall:

(a) Declare whether it owned, possessed or controlled nuclear weapons or nuclear

explosive devices and eliminated its nuclear weapon programme, including the
elimination or irreversible conversion of all nuclear weapons-related facilities,
prior to the entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party;
(b) Notwithstanding Article 1 (a), declare whether it owns, possesses or controls
any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(c) Notwithstanding Article 1 (g), declare whether there are any nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or in any place under its juris-
diction or control that are owned, possessed or controlled by another State.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit all such declarations
received to the States Parties

Imperfect functioning of treaties

The adoption of a Nuclear Trade Treaty is a great step forward; the adoption of the
ICC, although it is operation is imperfect, is also a great step forward, and likewise the
Antipersonnel Land-Mine Convention is a great step forward. In my opinion, the adoption
of the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, even in the face of powerful opposition,
is also a great step forward. When the will of the majority of the world’s peoples is clearly
expressed in an international treaty, even if the treaty functions imperfectly, the question
of legality is clear. Everyone can see which states are violating international law. In time,
world public opinion will force the criminal states to conform with the law. In the case
of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, world public opinion would have especially great force.
298 WHY WAR?

It is generally agreed that a full-scale nuclear war would have disastrous effects, not only
on belligerent nations but also on neutral countries. Mr.Javier Pérez de Cuéllar , former
Secretary-General of the United Nations, emphasized this point in one of his speeches:
“I feel”, he said, “that the question may justifiably be put to the leading nuclear powers:
by what right do they decide the fate of humanity? From Scandinavia to Latin America,
from Europe and Africa to the Far East, the destiny of every man and woman is affected
by their actions. No one can expect to escape from the catastrophic consequences of a
nuclear war on the fragile structure of this planet. ...”
“No ideological confrontation can be allowed to jeopardize the future of humanity.
Nothing less is at stake: today’s decisions affect not only the present; they also put at
risk succeeding generations. Like supreme arbiters, with our disputes of the moment, we
threaten to cut off the future and to extinguish the lives of innocent millions yet unborn.
There can be no greater arrogance. At the same time, the lives of all those who lived
before us may be rendered meaningless; for we have the power to dissolve in a conflict of
hours or minutes the entire work of civilization, with all the brilliant cultural heritage of
humankind.”
“...In a nuclear age, decisions affecting war and peace cannot be left to military strate-
gists or even to governments. They are indeed the responsibility of every man and woman.
And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us... to break the cycle of mistrust and
insecurity and to respond to humanity’s yearning for peace.”
The eloquent words of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar express the situation in which we now
find ourselves: Accidental nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, insanity of a person in a position
of power, or unintended escalation of a conflict, could at any moment plunge our beau-
tiful world into a catastrophic thermonuclear war which might destroy not only human
civilization but also much of the biosphere. We are reminded that such a disaster could
occur at any moment by the threat of an attack by Israel on Iran and by the threat of an
all-destroying nuclear war started by the conflict in the Korean Peninsula. It is clear that
if the peoples of the world do not act quickly to abolish nuclear weapons, neither we nor
our children nor our grandchildren have much chance of survival.

Hope for the future, and responsibility for the future

Can we abolish the institution of war? Can we hope and work for a time when the
terrible suffering inflicted by wars will exist only as a dark memory fading into the past?
I believe that this is really possible. The problem of achieving internal peace over a large
geographical area is not insoluble. It has already been solved. There exist today many
nations or regions within each of which there is internal peace, and some of these are so
large that they are almost worlds in themselves. One thinks of China, India, Brazil, the
Russian Federation, the United States, and the European Union. Many of these enormous
societies contain a variety of ethnic groups, a variety of religions and a variety of languages,
as well as striking contrasts between wealth and poverty. If these great land areas have been
forged into peaceful and cooperative societies, cannot the same methods of government be
applied globally?
8.2. NUCLEAR WARFARE AS GENOCIDE 299

Today, there is a pressing need to enlarge the size of the political unit from the nation-
state to the entire world. The need to do so results from the terrible dangers of modern
weapons and from global economic interdependence. The progress of science has created
this need, but science has also given us the means to enlarge the political unit: Our almost
miraculous modern communications media, if properly used, have the power to weld all of
humankind into a single supportive and cooperative society.
We live at a critical time for human civilization, a time of crisis. Each of us must accept
his or her individual responsibility for solving the problems that are facing the world today.
We cannot leave this to the politicians. That is what we have been doing until now, and
the results have been disastrous. Nor can we trust the mass media to give us adequate
public discussion of the challenges that we are facing. We have a responsibility towards
future generations to take matters into our own hands, to join hands and make our own
alternative media, to work actively and fearlessly for better government and for a better
society.
We, the people of the world, not only have the facts on our side; we also have numbers
on our side. The vast majority of the world’s peoples long for peace. The vast majority
long for abolition of nuclear weapons, and for a world of kindness and cooperation, a world
of respect for the environment. No one can make these changes alone, but together we can
do it.
Together, we have the power to choose a future where international anarchy, chronic
war and institutionalized injustice will be replaced by democratic and humane global gov-
ernance, a future where the madness and immorality of war will be replaced by the rule of
law.
We need a sense of the unity of all mankind to save the future, a new global ethic for a
united world. We need politeness and kindness to save the future, politeness and kindness
not only within nations but also between nations. To save the future, we need a just and
democratic system of international law; for with law shall our land be built up, but with
lawlessness laid waste.

8.2 Nuclear warfare as genocide

Sixty-five years ago, on December 9, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
a convention prohibiting genocide. It seems appropriate to discuss nuclear warfare against
the background of this important standard of international law.
Cannot nuclear warfare be seen as an example of genocide? It is capable of killing entire
populations, including babies, young children, adults in their prime and old people, without
any regard for guilt or innocence. The retention of nuclear weapons, with the intent to
use them under some circumstances, must be seen as the intent to commit genocide. Is it
not morally degrading to see our leaders announce their intention to commit the “crime of
crimes” in our names?
The use of nuclear weapons potentially involves not only genocide, but also omnicide,
the death of all, since a large-scale thermonuclear war would destroy human civilization
300 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.9: A stamp honoring the great Hungarian biochemist, Albert Szent-
Györgyi, who once wrote: “...Modern science has abolished time and distance
as factors separating nations. On our shrunken globe today, there is room for
one group only: the family of man.”

and much of the biosphere.

If humanity is to survive in an era of all-destroying nuclear weapons, we must develop
an advanced ethic to match our advanced technology. We must regard all humans as our
brothers and sisters. More than that, we must actively feel our kinship with all living
things, and accept and act upon our duty to protect both animate and inanimate nature.
Modern science has, for the first time in history, offered humankind the possibility of
a life of comfort, free from hunger and cold, and free from the constant threat of death
through infectious disease. At the same time,science has given humans the power to oblit-
erate their civilization with nuclear.weapons, or to make the earth uninhabitable through
overpopulation and.pollution. The question of which of these paths we choose is literally
a matter of life or death for ourselves and our children.
Will we use the discoveries of modern science constructively, and thus choose the path
leading towards life? Or will we use science to produce more and more lethal weapons,
which sooner or later, through a technical or human failure, may result in a catastrophic
nuclear war? Will we thoughtlessly destroy our beautiful planet through unlimited growth
of population and industry? The choice among these alternatives is ours to make. We live
at a critical moment of history - a moment of crisis for civilization.
No one living today asked to be born at such a moment, But history has given our
generation an enormous responsibility, and two daunting tasks: We must stabilize global
population, and, more importantly, we must abolish both nuclear weapons and the insti-
tution of war.
The human brain has shown itself to be capable of solving even the most profound and
complex problems. The mind that has seen into the heart of the atom must not fail when
confronted with paradoxes of the human heart.
The problem of building a stable, just, and war-free world is difficult, but it is not im-
8.3. PROTECTING WHISTLEBLOWERS 301

possible. The large regions of our present-day world within which war has been eliminated
can serve as models. There are a number of large countries with heterogeneous populations
within which it has been possible to achieve internal peace and social cohesion, and if this
is possible within such extremely large regions, it must also be possible globally. We must
replace the old world of international anarchy, chronic war and institutionalized injustice,
by a new world of law.
The Nobel laureate biochemist Albert Szent-Györgyi once wrote: “...Modern science
has abolished time and distance as factors separating nations. On our shrunken globe
today, there is room for one group only: the family of man.”

8.3 Protecting whistleblowers

The world urgently needs a system of international laws for protecting whistleblowers.
There are many reasons for this, but among the most urgent is the need for saving civi-
lization and the biosphere from the threat of a catastrophic nuclear war.
It is generally recognized that a war fought with nuclear weapons would be a humani-
tarian and environmental disaster, affecting neutral nations throughout the world, as well
as combatants. For example, on 4-5 March 2013 the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Espen Barth Eide hosted an international Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of
Nuclear Weapons.
The Conference provided an arena for a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and
developmental consequences of a nuclear weapons detonation. Delegates from 127 countries
as well as several UN organizations, the International Red Cross movement, representatives
of civil society and other relevant stakeholders participated.
The Austrian representatives to the Oslo Conference commented that “Austria is con-
vinced that it is necessary and overdue to put the humanitarian consequences of nuclear
weapons at the center of our debate, including in the NPT. Nuclear weapons are not just a
security policy issue for a few states but an issue of serious concern for the entire interna-
tional community. The humanitarian, environmental, health, economic and developmental
consequences of any nuclear weapons explosion would be devastating and global and any
notion of adequate preparedness or response is an illusion.”
China stated that “China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thor-
ough destruction of nuclear weapons, and [has] actively promoted the establishment of a
world free of nuclear weapons. The complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear
weapons, getting rid of the danger of nuclear war and the attainment of a nuclear-weapon-
free world, serve the common interests and benefits of humankind.”
Japan’s comment included the words: “As the only country to have suffered atomic
bombings during wartime, Japan actively contributed to the Oslo Conference on the Hu-
manitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March. With strengthened resolve to seek a
nuclear-weapons-free world, we continue to advance disarmament and Non-Proliferation
education to inform the world and the next generation of the dreadful realities of nuclear
devastation.” Many other nations represented at the Oslo Conference made similarly strong
302 WHY WAR?

statements advocating the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.

Recently UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has introduced a 5-point Program for the
abolition of nuclear weapons. In this program he mentioned the possibility of a Nuclear
Weapons Convention, and urged the Security Council to convene a summit devoted to the
nuclear abolition. He also urged all countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty.

Three-quarters of all nations support UN Secretary-General Ban’s proposal for a treaty

to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. The 146 nations that have declared their will-
ingness to negotiate a new global disarmament pact include four nuclear weapon states:
China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Nuclear disarmament has been one of the core aspirations of the international commu-
nity since the first use of nuclear weapons in 1945. A nuclear war, even a limited one, would
have global humanitarian and environmental consequences, and thus it is a responsibility
of all governments, including those of non-nuclear countries, to protect their citizens and
engage in processes leading to a world without nuclear weapons.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons discussed above prohibits the pro-
duction of weapons usable fissile material and requires delivery vehicles to be destroyed or
converted to make them non-nuclear capable.
Verification will include declarations and reports from States, routine inspections, chal-
lenge inspections, on-site sensors, satellite photography, radionuclide sampling and other
remote sensors, information sharing with other organizations, and citizen reporting. Per-
sons reporting suspected violations of the convention will be provided protection through
the Convention including the right of asylum.
Thus we can see that the protection of whistleblowers is an integral feature of the Treaty
on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As Sir Joseph Rotblat (1908-2005, Nobel Laureate
1995) frequently emphasized in his speeches, societal verification must be an integral part
8.4. THE ILLEGALITY OF NATO 303

of the process of “going to zero” ( i.e, the total elimination of nuclear weapons). This is
because nuclear weapons are small enough to be easily hidden. How will we know whether
a nation has destroyed all of its nuclear arsenal? We have to depend on information from
insiders, whose loyalty to the whole of humanity prompts them to become whistleblowers.
And for this to be possible, they need to be protected.
In general, if the world is ever to be free from the threat of complete destruction by
modern weapons, we will need a new global ethic, an ethic as advanced as our technology.
Of course we can continue to be loyal to our families, our localities and our countries. But
this must be supplemented by a higher loyalty: a loyalty to humanity as a whole.

8.4 The illegality of NATO

In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US
efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international
law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles.
Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following
words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international
law: “In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared
to be NATO’s legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the
use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted
according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO’s territorial scope, until then limited to the
Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world”
Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that “All members shall refrain in their interna-
tional relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state.” This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which
says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace
304 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.10: Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck
has stated that he considers NATO’s present Charter to be illegal.

and security.”
Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed
attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to
act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive
wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called “democratization”, or for the domina-
tion of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force
for such illegal purposes.
In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed “the principles of
international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment
of the Tribunal”. The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission
to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI
and VII, which are particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:

Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

At present, NATO’s nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects: Today there are an estimated 200 US
8.4. THE ILLEGALITY OF NATO 305

Figure 8.11: The Sixth Nuremberg Principle lists “Planning, preparation, ini-
tiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances” as a crime under international law. The
Seventh Nuremberg Principle states that complicity in a crime against peace
is also a crime.

nuclear weapons still in Europe The air forces of the nations in which they are based are
regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This “nuclear sharing”, as it is called, violates
Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-
weapon states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis
arose, but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all
circumstances.
Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them
within a reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is
guided by a Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in
the foreseeable future.
The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important safe-
guard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the first-use
of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances.
306 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.12: At present, NATO’s nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit
and the text of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects
8.4. THE ILLEGALITY OF NATO 307

The 1996 ICJ decision

Besides acting as an arbitrator in disputes between nations, the ICJ also gives advisory
opinions to the United Nations and its agencies. An extremely important judgment of this
kind was given in 1996: In response to questions put to it by WHO and the UN General
Assembly, the Court ruled that “the threat and use of nuclear weapons would generally be
contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and particularly the
principles and rules of humanitarian law.” The only possible exception to this general rule
might be “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state
would be at stake”. But the Court refused to say that even in this extreme circumstance
the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be legal. It left the exceptional case undecided.
In addition, the World Court added unanimously that “there exists an obligation to pursue
in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all
its aspects under strict international control.”
This landmark decision has been criticized by the nuclear weapon states as being de-
cided “by a narrow margin”, but the structuring of the vote made the margin seem more
narrow than it actually was. Seven judges voted against Paragraph 2E of the decision
(the paragraph which states that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally
illegal, but which mentions as a possible exception the case where a nation might be de-
fending itself from an attack that threatened its very existence.) Seven judges voted for
the paragraph, with the President of the Court, Muhammad Bedjaoui of Algeria casting
the deciding vote. Thus the Court adopted it, seemingly by a narrow margin. But three of
the judges who voted against 2E did so because they believed that no possible exception
should be mentioned! Thus, if the vote had been slightly differently structured, the result
would have be ten to four.
Of the remaining four judges who cast dissenting votes, three represented nuclear
weapons states, while the fourth thought that the Court ought not to have accepted the
questions from WHO and the UN. However Judge Schwebel from the United States, who
voted against Paragraph 2E, nevertheless added, in a separate opinion, “It cannot be ac-
cepted that the use of nuclear weapons on a scale which would, or could, result in the
deaths of many millions in indiscriminate inferno and by far-reaching fallout, have per-
nicious effects in space and time, and render uninhabitable much of the earth, could be
lawful.”
Judge Higgins from the UK, the first woman judge in the history of the Court, had
problems with the word “generally” in Paragraph 2E and therefore voted against it, but
she thought that a more profound analysis might have led the Court to conclude in favor
of illegality in all circumstances.
Judge Fleischhauer of Germany said, in his separate opinion, “The nuclear weapon is, in
many ways, the negation of the humanitarian considerations underlying the law applicable
in armed conflict and the principle of neutrality. The nuclear weapon cannot distinguish
between civilian and military targets. It causes immeasurable suffering. The radiation
released by it is unable to respect the territorial integrity of neutral States.”
President Bedjaoui, summarizing the majority opinion, called nuclear weapons “the
308 WHY WAR?

ultimate evil”, and said “By its nature, the nuclear weapon, this blind weapon, destabilizes
humanitarian law, the law of discrimination in the use of weapons... The ultimate aim of
every action in the field of nuclear arms will always be nuclear disarmament, an aim which
is no longer Utopian and which all have a duty to pursue more actively than ever.”

8.5 Violations of Article VI: Marshall Islands

One can gain a small idea of the terrible ecological consequences of a nuclear war by
thinking of the radioactive contamination that has made large areas near to Chernobyl
and Fukushima uninhabitable, or the testing of hydrogen bombs in the Pacific, which
continues to cause leukemia and birth defects in the Marshall Islands more than half a
century later.
In 1954, the United States tested a hydrogen bomb at Bikini. The bomb was 1,300
times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fallout from
the bomb contaminated the island of Rongelap, one of the Marshall Islands 120 kilometers
from Bikini. The islanders experienced radiation illness, and many died from cancer.
Even today, half a century later, both people and animals on Rongelap and other nearby
islands suffer from birth defects. The most common defects have been “jelly fish babies”,
born with no bones and with transparent skin. Their brains and beating hearts can be
seen. The babies usually live a day or two before they stop breathing.
A girl from Rongelap describes the situation in the following words: “I cannot have
children. I have had miscarriages on seven occasions... Our culture and religion teach
us that reproductive abnormalities are a sign that women have been unfaithful. For this
reason, many of my friends keep quiet about the strange births that they have had. In
privacy they give birth, not to children as we like to think of them, but to things we could
only describe as ‘octopuses’, ‘apples’, ‘turtles’, and other things in our experience. We do
not have Marshallese words for these kinds of babies, because they were never born before
the radiation came.”
The Republic of the Marshall Islands is suing the nine countries with nuclear weapons
at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, arguing they have violated their legal
obligation to disarm.
The Guardian reports that “In the unprecedented legal action, comprising nine separate
cases brought before the ICJ on Thursday, the Republic of the Marshall Islands accuses
the nuclear weapons states of a ‘flagrant denial of human justice’. It argues it is justified
in taking the action because of the harm it suffered as a result of the nuclear arms race.”
“The Pacific chain of islands, including Bikini Atoll and Enewetak, was the site of 67
nuclear tests from 1946 to 1958, including the ‘Bravo shot’, a 15-megaton device equivalent
to a thousand Hiroshima blasts, detonated in 1954. The Marshallese islanders say they
have been suffering serious health and environmental effects ever since.”
“The island republic is suing the five ‘established’ nuclear weapons states recognized
in the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) - the US, Russia (which inherited the
Soviet arsenal), China, France and the UK - as well as the three countries outside the
8.5. VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE VI: MARSHALL ISLANDS 309

Figure 8.13: In 1954, the United States tested a hydrogen bomb at Bikini. The
bomb was 1,300 times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

NPT who have declared nuclear arsenals - India, Pakistan and North Korea, and the one
undeclared nuclear weapons state, Israel.”
On July 21, 2014, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the Nuclear Zero lawsuit
that was filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) on April 24, 2014 in U.S.
Federal Court. The U.S., in its move to dismiss the RMI lawsuit, does not argue that the
U.S. is in compliance with its NPT disarmament obligations. Instead, it argues in a variety
of ways that its non-compliance with these obligations is, essentially, justifiable, and not
subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) is a consultant to the Marshall Islands
on the legal and moral issues involved in bringing this case. David Krieger, President
of NAPF, upon hearing of the motion to dismiss the case by the U.S. responded, “The
U.S. government is sending a terrible message to the world - that is, that U.S. courts are
an improper venue for resolving disputes with other countries on U.S. treaty obligations.
The U.S. is, in effect, saying that whatever breaches it commits are all right if it says so.
That is bad for the law, bad for relations among nations, bad for nuclear Non-Proliferation
and disarmament - and not only bad, but extremely dangerous for U.S. citizens and all
humanity.”
David Krieger continued, “In 2009, President Obama shared his vision for the world,
saying, ‘So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the
peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.’ This lawsuit provides the perfect
opportunity for President Obama to move his vision forward. Yet, rather than seizing that
310 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.14: Babies with severe birth defects are still being born on the Marshall
Islands, 60 years after the Bikini test.
8.6. REFORM OF THE UNITED NATIONS 311

Figure 8.15: A just system of international law is our only hope for the future.

opportunity, the U.S. government is seeking dismissal without a full and fair hearing on
the merits of the case.”
Our only hope for the future is to replace brutal rule by military power by a just system
of international law.

8.6 Reform of the United Nations

It is becoming increasingly clear that the concept of the absolutely sovereign nation-state
is a dangerous anachronism in a world of thermonuclear weapons, instantaneous commu-
nication, and economic interdependence. Probably our best hope for the future lies in
developing the United Nations into a World Federation. The strengthened United Nations
should have a legislature with the power to make laws that are binding on individuals, and
the ability to arrest and try individual political leaders for violations of these laws. The
world federation should also have the military and legal powers necessary to guarantee the
human rights of ethnic minorities within nations.
The Charter should not be thought of as cast in concrete for all time. It needs instead to
312 WHY WAR?

grow with the requirements of our increasingly interdependent global society. We should
remember that the Charter was drafted and signed before the first nuclear bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima; and it also could not anticipate the extraordinary development of
international trade and communication which characterizes the world today.
Among the weaknesses of the present U.N. Charter is the fact that it does not give the
United Nations the power to make laws which are binding on individuals. At present, in
international law, we treat nations as though they were persons: We punish entire nations
by sanctions when the law is broken, even when only the leaders are guilty, even though the
burdens of the sanctions fall most heavily on the poorest and least guilty of the citizens,
and even though sanctions often have the effect of uniting the citizens of a country behind
the guilty leaders. To be effective, the United Nations needs a legislature with the power to
make laws which are binding on individuals, and the power to to arrest individual political
leaders for flagrant violations of international law.
Another weakness of the present United Nations Charter is the principle of “one nation
one vote” in the General Assembly. This principle seems to establish equality between
nations, but in fact it is very unfair: For example it gives a citizen of China or India less
than a thousandth the voting power of a citizen of Malta or Iceland. A reform of the voting
system is clearly needed.
The present United Nations Charter contains guarantees of human rights, but there is
no effective mechanism for enforcing these guarantees. In fact there is a conflict between
the parts of the Charter protecting human rights and the concept of absolute national
sovereignty. Recent history has given us many examples of atrocities committed against
ethnic minorities by leaders of nation-states, who claim that sovereignty gives them the
right to run their internal affairs as they wish, free from outside interference.
One feels that it ought to be the responsibility of the international community to
prevent gross violations of human rights, such as the use of poison gas against civilians (to
mention only one of the more recent political crimes); and if this is in conflict with the
notion of absolute national sovereignty, then sovereignty must yield. In fact, the concept
of the absolutely sovereign nation-state as the the supreme political entity is already being
eroded by the overriding need for international law.
Today the development of technology has made global communication almost instan-
taneous. We sit in our living rooms and watch, via satellite, events taking place on the
opposite side of the globe. Likewise the growth of world trade has brought distant coun-
tries into close economic contact with each other: Financial tremors in Tokyo can shake
New York. The impact of contemporary science and technology on transportation and
communication has effectively abolished distance in relations between nations. This close
contact and interdependence will increasingly require effective international law to prevent
conflicts. However, the need for international law must be balanced against the desirability
of local self-government. Like biological diversity, the cultural diversity of humankind is
a treasure to be carefully guarded. A balance or compromise between these two desirable
goals could be achieved by granting only a few carefully chosen powers to a strengthened
United Nations with sovereignty over all other issues retained by the member states.
8.7. FEDERATIONS, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 313

Figure 8.16: The Hanseatic League was an example of a special-purpose federa-

tion. It aimed at controlling lucrative herring fishing in the Baltic. The map
shows Northern Europe in the 1400s, illustrating the extent of the Hanseatic
League.

8.7 Federations, past, present and future

A federation of states is, by definition, a limited union where the federal government has
the power to make laws that are binding on individuals, but where the laws are confined
to interstate matters, and where all powers not expressly delegated to the federal govern-
ment are retained by the individual states. In other words, in a federation each of the
member states runs its own internal affairs according to its own laws and customs; but in
certain agreed-on matters, where the interests of the states overlap, authority is specifically
delegated to the federal government.
For example, if the nations of the world considered the control of narcotics to be a
matter of mutual concern; if they agreed to set up a commission with the power to make
laws preventing the growing, refinement and distribution of harmful drugs, and the power
to arrest individuals for violating those laws, then we would have a world federation in the
area of narcotics control.
If the community of nations decided to give the federal authority the additional power to
make laws defining the rights and obligations of multinational corporations, and the power
to arrest or fine individuals violating those laws, then we would have a world federation
with even broader powers; but these powers would still be carefully defined and limited. In
setting up a federation, the member states can decide which powers they wish to delegate
314 WHY WAR?

Figure 8.17: Logo of the Universal Postal Union, a special-purpose federation.

Mail is delivered even between waring nations.

Figure 8.18: Logo of the International Tennis Federation, which organizes world-
wide events in the sport. It is another example of a special-purpose federation.
8.7. FEDERATIONS, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 315

to it; and all powers not expressly delegated are retained by the individual states.
Since the federal structure seems well suited to a world government with limited and
carefully-defined powers that would preserve as much local autonomy as possible, it is
worthwhile to look at the histories of a few of the federations. There is much that we can
learn from their experiences.
In ancient Greece there were many federations, one example being the Amphictyonic
League. This was originally a league of 12 tribes, and it was devoted to regulating religious
matters and maintaining shrines. The League had meetings in the spring at the temple of
Demeter near Thermopylae and in the autumn at Delphi. The Amphictyonic League is an
example of a special-purpose federation. It had authority over certain religious matters,
but all other decisions were taken locally by the members of its constituent tribes.
Another special-purpose federation was the Hanseatic League which flourished in North-
ern Europe during the 12th-17th centuries. The Hanseatic League began as an association
of merchants who were interested in salting and selling the herring catch of the Baltic.
This was a profitable business during the late Middle Ages because there were so many
fast days on which it was forbidden to eat meat, but permissible to eat fish. At the height
of its power, the Hansa included merchants from more than sixty cities, for example mer-
chants from such cities as Bruges, Hamburg, Lubeck, Rostock, Danzig, Riga, Novgorod
and Bergen. Each city had its own merchant association, but matters concerning intercity
trade were organized by a loose federation, the Hanseatic Diet.
As a final example of a special-purpose federation, we can think of the Universal Postal
Union. Prior to the UPU, countries that wished to cooperate with each other in postal
matters did so through bilateral treaties. However, this was a clumsy solution, and in
1863 an international postal congress was held at the request of the United States. As a
result of the congress, the Treaty of Berne was signed in 1874, creating the General Postal
Union. In 1878 it was renamed, and it became the Universal Postal Union. The UPU
introduced several innovations:- a more or less uniform flat rate to mail a letter anywhere
in the world; equal treatment of foreign and domestic mail; and the retention by each
country of the money collected for international postage. After the formation of the UPU,
it was no longer necessary for a letter or package to bear the stamps of all the countries
through which it would pass, as had previously been the case. The Universal Postal Union
has proved to be incredibly robust, and it has usually continued to function well despite
the political upheavals and animosities of its constituent members.
From these examples of special-purpose federations we can see that it is possible to limit
the authority of a federation to a small domain of activities. However, we can notice in the
evolution of the Hanseatic League, a gradual enlargement of federal powers: The League
began as an organization of merchants, but it gradually acquired political and military
powers, as can be seen from the Hansa’s destruction of Copenhagen’s castle in 1369.
Let us next turn to the history of nations that have been formed as federations of
smaller units. Almost half of the countries of today’s world are federations.
The Swiss Federation is an interesting example, because it’s regions speak three different
languages: German, French and Italian. In 1291, citizens of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden,
standing on the top of a small mountain called Rütli, swore allegiance to the first Swiss
316 WHY WAR?

federation with the words “we will be a one and only nation of brothers”. During the 14th
century, Luzern, Zürich, Glarus, Zug and Bern also joined. Later additions during the
15th and 16th centuries included Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel, Schaffhausen and Appenzell.
In 1648 Switzerland declared itself to be an independent nation, and in 1812, the Swiss
Federation declared its neutrality. In 1815, the French-speaking regions Valais, Neuchatel
and Genéve were added, giving Switzerland its final boundaries.
The Federal Constitution of United States of America is one of the most important and
influential constitutions in history. It later formed a model for many other governments,
especially in South America. The example of the United States is especially interesting
because the original union of states formed by the Articles of Confederation in 1777 proved
to be too weak, and it had to be replaced eleven years later by a federal constitution.
Additional lessons can be learned from the tragedy of the American Civil War.
During the revolutionary war against England the 13 former colonies sent representa-
tives to a Continental Congress, and on May 10, 1776, the Congress authorized each of
the colonies to form its own local provincial government. On July 4, 1776 it published a
formal Declaration of Independence. The following year, the Congress adopted the Articles
of Confederation defining a government of the new United States of America. The revolu-
tionary war continued until 1783, when the Treaty of Paris was signed by the combatants,
ending the war and giving independence to the United States. However, the Articles of
Confederation soon proved to be too weak. The main problem with the Articles was that
laws of the Union acted on its member states rather than on individual citizens.
In 1887, a Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia with the aim of drafting a
new and stronger constitution. In the same year, Alexander Hamilton began to publish the
Federalist Papers, a penetrating analysis of the problems of creating a workable government
uniting a number of semi-independent states. The key idea of the Federalist Papers is
that the coercion of states is neither just nor feasible, and that a government uniting
several states must function by acting on individuals. This central idea was incorporated
into the Federal Constitution of the United States, which was adopted in 1788. Another
important feature of the new Constitution was that legislative power was divided between
the Senate, where the states had equal representation regardless of their size, and the
House of Representatives, where representation was proportional to the populations of the
states. The functions of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary were separated in
the Constitution, and in 1789 a Bill of Rights was added.
George Mason, one of the architects of the federal constitution of the United States,
believed that “such a government was necessary as could directly operate on individuals,
and would punish those only whose guilt required it”, while James Madison (another drafter
of the U.S. federal constitution) remarked that the more he reflected on the use of force,
the more he doubted “the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to
people collectively, and not individually”. Finally, Alexander Hamilton, in his Federalist
Papers, discussed the Articles of Confederation with the following words: “To coerce the
states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised... Can any reasonable man
be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of
supporting itself - a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must
8.7. FEDERATIONS, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 317

involve the innocent with the guilty. The single consideration should be enough to dispose
every peaceable citizen against such a government... What is the cure for this great evil?
Nothing, but to enable the... laws to operate on individuals, in the same manner as those
of states do.”
The United Nations has a charter analogous to the Articles of Confederation: It acts by
attempting to coerce states, a procedure which Alexander Hamilton characterized as “one
of the maddest projects that was ever devised”. Whether this coercion takes the form of
economic sanctions, or whether it takes the form of military intervention, the practicability,
the justice and the efficacy of the U.N.’s efforts are hampered because they are applied to
people collectively and not one by one. What is the cure for this great evil? “Nothing”,
Hamilton tells us, “but to enable the laws to act on individuals, in the same manner as
those of states do.”
In looking at the history of the Articles of Confederation, it is important to remem-
ber that the present United Nations Charter is similar to this fatally weak union, that
lasted only eleven years, from 1777 to 1788. Like it, the UN attempts to act by coercing
states. Although the United Nations Charter has lasted almost sixty years and has been
enormously valuable, its weaknesses are also apparent, like those of the Articles. One
can conclude that the proper way to reform the United Nations is to make it into a full
federation, with the power to make and enforce laws that are binding on individuals.
Because the states were initially distrustful of each other and jealous of their indepen-
dence, the powers originally granted to the US federal government were minimal. However,
as it evolved, the Federal Government of the United States gradually became stronger, and
bit by bit it became involved in an increasingly wide range of activities. (We can recall
that during the evolution of the Hanseatic League, the League also increased its range of
activities.)
What is to be learned from the American Civil War? First we can learn that for a
federation to function successfully it requires a very careful division of the powers that
are granted to the federal government and those that are retained by the member states.
In general, this division should be made by following the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., by
the principle that a decision ought to be taken at the lowest level at which there are no
important externalities. The American Civil War was caused by a disagreement between
North and the South on the division of powers between the Federal Government and the
states. A second aspect of the Civil War was that it marked a departure from the main
principle of the US Constitution - the principle that coercion of states is neither just nor
feasible and that therefore the federal government must act on private citizens. It might
be claimed that during the American Civil War, the North successfully coerced the South,
but the counterargument is that a conflict which produced a million casualties can hardly
be characterized as a success. The lessons of the American Civil War should be borne in
mind as we work to reform and improve the United Nations.
The successes and problems of the European Union provide invaluable experience as we
consider the measures that will be needed to strengthen and reform the United Nations.
On the whole, the EU has been an enormous success, demonstrating beyond question
that it is possible to begin with a very limited special-purpose federation and to gradually
318 WHY WAR?

expand it, judging at each stage whether the cautiously taken steps have been successful.
The European Union has today made war between its member states virtually impossible.
This goal, now achieved, was in fact the vision that inspired the leaders who initiated the
European Coal and Steel Community in 1950.
The European Union is by no means without its critics or without problems, but, as
we try to think of what is needed for United Nations reform, these criticisms and problems
are just as valuable to us as are the successes of the EU.
Countries that have advanced legislation protecting the rights of workers or protecting
the environment complain that their enlightened laws will be nullified if everything is
reduced to the lowest common denominator in the EU. This complaint is a valid one, and
two things can be said about it: Firstly, diversity is valuable, and therefore it may be
undesirable to homogenize legislation, even if uniform rules make trade easier. Secondly,
if certain rules are to be made uniform, it is the most enlightened environmental laws or
labor laws that ought to be made the standard, rather than the least enlightened ones.
Similar considerations would hold for a reformed and strengthened United Nations.
Another frequently heard complaint about the EU is that it takes decision-making far
away from the voters, to a remote site where direct political will of the people can hardly
be felt. This criticism is also very valid. Often, in practice, the EU has ignored or mis-
understood one of the basic ideas of federalism: A federation is a compromise between
the desirability of local self-government, balanced against the necessity of making central
decisions on a few carefully selected issues. As few issues as possible should taken to Brux-
elles, but there are certain issues that are so intrinsically transnational in their implications
that they must be decided centrally. This is the principle of subsidiarity, so essential for
the proper operation of federations - local government whenever possible, and only a few
central decisions when absolutely necessary. In applying the principle of subsidiarity to a
world government of the future, one should also remember that UN reform will take us
into new and uncharted territory. Therefore it is prudent to grant only a few carefully
chosen powers, one at a time, to a reformed and strengthened UN, to see how these work,
and then to cautiously grant other powers, always bearing in mind that wherever possible,
local decisions are the best.
We are faced with the challenge of constructing a world government which will preserve
the advantages of local self-government while granting certain carefully chosen powers to
larger regional or global authorities. Which things should be decided locally, or regionally,
and which globally?
Security, and controls on the manufacture and export of armaments will require an ef-
fective authority at the global level. It should also be the responsibility of the international
community to prevent gross violations of human rights.
Looking towards the future, we can perhaps foresee a time when the United Nations
will have been converted to a federation and given the power to make international laws
which are binding on individuals. Under such circumstances, true police action will be
possible, incorporating all of the needed safeguards for lives and property of the innocent.

One can hope for a future world where public opinion will support international law to
8.8. THE TOBIN TAX 319

such an extent that a new Hitler or Saddam Hussein or a future Milosevic will not be able
to organize large-scale resistance to arrest - a world where international law will be seen
by all to be just, impartial and necessary - a well-governed global community within which
each person will owe his or her ultimate loyalty to humanity as a whole.

8.8 The Tobin tax

A strengthened UN would need a reliable source of income to make the organization less
dependent on wealthy countries, which tend to give support only to those interventions
of which they approve. A promising solution to this problem is the so-called “Tobin
tax”, named after the Nobel-laureate economist James Tobin of Yale University. Tobin
proposed that international currency exchanges should be taxed at a rate between 0.1 and
0.25 percent. He believed that even this extremely low rate of taxation would have the
beneficial effect of damping speculative transactions, thus stabilizing the rates of exchange
between currencies. When asked what should be done with the proceeds of the tax, Tobin
said, almost as an afterthought, “Let the United Nations have it.”
The volume of money involved in international currency transactions is so enormous
that even the tiny tax proposed by Tobin would provide the United Nations with between
100 billion and 300 billion dollars annually. By strengthening the activities of various
UN agencies, such as WHO, UNESCO and FAO, the additional income would add to the
prestige of the United Nations and thus make the organization more effective when it is
called upon to resolve international political conflicts.
Besides the Tobin tax, other measure have been proposed to increase the income of
the United Nations. For example, it has been proposed that income from resources of the
sea bed be given to the UN, and that the UN be given the power to tax carbon dioxide
emissions. All of the proposals for giving the United Nations an adequate income have
been strongly opposed by a few nations5 that wish to control the UN through its purse
strings. However, it is absolutely essential for the future development of the United Nations
that the organization be given the power to impose taxes. No true government can exist
without this power. It is just as essential as is the power to make and enforce laws that
are binding on individuals.

8.9 An international police force?

In evaluating the concept of an international police force directly responsible to the United
Nations, it is helpful to examine the way in which police act to enforce laws and to prevent
violence and crime at local and national levels. Within a community which is characterized
by good government, police are not highly armed, nor are they very numerous. Law
and order are not maintained primarily by the threat of force, but by the opinion of the
5
especially by the United States, which has threatened to withdraw from the UN if a Tobin tax is
introduced
320 WHY WAR?

vast majority of the citizens that the system of laws is both just and necessary. Traffic
stops when the signal light is red and moves when it is green whether or not a policeman
is present, because everyone understands why such a system is necessary. Nevertheless,
although the vast majority of the citizens in a well-governed community support the system
of laws and would never wish to break the law, we all know that the real world is not heaven.
The total spectrum of human nature includes evil as well as a good. If there were no police
at all, and if the criminal minority were completely unchecked, every citizen would be
obliged to be armed. No one’s life or property would be safe. Robbery, murder and rape
would flourish.
Within a society with a democratic and just government, whose powers are derived from
the consent of the governed, a small and lightly armed force of police is able to maintain
the system of laws. One reason why this is possible has just been mentioned - the force of
public opinion. A second reason is that the law acts on individuals. Since obstruction of
justice and the murder of policemen both rank as serious crimes, an individual criminal is
usually not able to organize massive resistance against police action.
Edith Wynner, one of the pioneers of the World Federalist movement, lists the following
characteristics of police power in a well-governed society:

1. “A policeman operates within a framework of organized government having legisla-

tive, executive and judicial authority operating on individuals. His actions are guided
by a clearly stated criminal code that has the legislative sanction of the community.
Should he abuse the authority vested in him, he is subject to discipline and court
restraint.”

2. “A policeman seeing a fight between two men does not attempt to determine which
of them is in the right and then help him beat up the one he considers wrong.
His function is to restrain violence by both, to bring them before a judge who has
authority to determine the rights of the dispute, and to see that the court’s decision
is carried out.”

3. “In carrying out his duties, the policeman must apprehend the suspected individual
without jeopardizing either the property or the lives of the community where the
suspect is to be arrested. And not only is the community safeguarded against de-
struction of property and loss of life but the rights of the suspect are also carefully
protected by an elaborate network of judicial safeguards.”

8.10 A few concrete steps towards United Nations re-

form
1. Introduce a Tobin tax on all international currency transactions, the proceeds being
used to support the United Nations. Other new sources of funds for the UN should
also be introduced.
8.11. GOVERNMENTS OF LARGE NATIONS AND GLOBAL GOVERNMENT 321

2. Strengthen UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agri-
cultural Organization, UNESCO and the UN Development Programme. The budgets
of these agencies should not just be doubled but should be multiplied by a factor of
at least twenty. With increased budgets the UN agencies could sponsor research and
other actions aimed at solving the world’s most pressing problems - AIDS, drug-
resistant infections diseases, tropical diseases, food insufficiencies, pollution, climate
change, alternative energy strategies, population stabilization, peace education, as
well as combating poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, lack of safe water and so on. Sci-
entists would would be less tempted to find jobs with arms-related industries if offered
the chance to work on idealistic projects.

3. Give the United Nations its own television channel. Introduce unbiased news pro-
grams, cultural programs, and “State of the World” addresses by the UN Secretary
General.

4. Give the United Nations a Legislature with a reformed voting system. The UN
Legislature should have the power to make laws that are binding on individuals.

5. Expand the International Criminal Court and increase its range of jurisdiction.

6. Prohibit the export of arms and ammunition from industrialized countries to the
developing countries.

7. Give the UN a very strong, permanent and highly mobile Emergency Force/UN
Police Force composed of volunteers from all nations, under the direct command of
the Secretary General, The General Assembly, and the International Criminal Court.

8. Get rid of the veto in the Security Council.

9. Address the problem of third world debt. Reform the World Bank and other UN
financial institutions.

10. In connection with the problems of abolishing nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons, legislation should be introduced to protect whistleblowers, such as Mordechai
Vanunu.

8.11 Governments of large nations and global govern-

ment
The problem of achieving internal peace over a large geographical area is not insoluble.
It has already been solved. There exist today many nations or regions within each of
which there is internal peace, and some of these are so large that they are almost worlds
in themselves. One thinks of China, India, Brazil, Australia, the Russian Federation,
322 WHY WAR?

the United States, and the European Union. Many of these enormous societies contain
a variety of ethnic groups, a variety of religions and a variety of languages, as well as
striking contrasts between wealth and poverty. If these great land areas have been forged
into peaceful and cooperative societies, cannot the same methods of government be applied
globally?
Today there is a pressing need to enlarge the size of the political unit from the nation-
state to the entire world. The need to do so results from the terrible dangers of modern
weapons and from global economic interdependence. The progress of science has created
this need, but science has also given us the means to enlarge the political unit: Our almost
miraculous modern communications media, if properly used, have the power to weld all of
humankind into a single supportive and cooperative society.

Suggestions for further reading

1. Francesco Stipo, World Federalist Manifesto. Guide to Political Globalization, (April
10, 2007), pages 1, 3, 21 and 136.
2. Francesco Stipo, United Nations Reorganization. The Unification of the UN System,
(April 21, 2007).
3. B. Broms, United Nations, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki, (1990).
4. S. Rosenne, The Law and Practice at the International Court, Dordrecht, (1985).
5. S. Rosenne, The World Court - What It Is and How It Works, Dordrecht, (1995).
6. J. D’Arcy and D. Harris, The Procedural Aspects of International Law (Book Series),
Volume 25, Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, New York, (2001).
7. H. Cullen, The Collective Complaints Mechanism Under the European Social Charter,
European Law Review, Human Rights Survey, p. 18-30, (2000).
8. S.D. Bailey, The Procedure of the Security Council, Oxford, (1988).
9. R.A. Akindale, The Organization and Promotion of World Peace: A Study of Universal-
Regional Relationships, Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont., (1976).
10. J.S. Applegate, The UN Peace Imperative, Vantage Press, New York, (1992).
11. S.E. Atkins, Arms Control, Disarmament, International Security and Peace: An
Annotated Guide to Sources,1980-1987, Clio Press, Santa Barbara, CA, (1988).
12. N. Ball and T. Halevy, Making Peace Work: The Role of the International Develop-
ment Community, Overseas Development Council, Washington DC, (1996).
13. F. Barnaby, Ed., The Gaia Peace Atlas: Survival into the Third Millennium, Dou-
bleday, New York, (1988)
14. J.H. Barton, The Politics of Peace: An Evaluation of Arms Control, Stanford Univ.
Press, Stanford, CA, (1981).
15. W. Bello, Visions of a Warless World, Friends Committee on National Education
Fund, Washington DC, (1986).
16. A. Boserup and A. Mack, Abolishing War: Cultures and Institutions; Dialogue with
Peace Scholars Elise Boulding and Randall Forsberg, Boston Research Center for the
Twenty-first Century, Cambridge, MA, (1998).
8.11. GOVERNMENTS OF LARGE NATIONS AND GLOBAL GOVERNMENT 323

17. E. Boulding et al., Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace, Westview Press, Boul-
der, CO, (1979).
18. E. Boulding et al., Eds., Peace, Culture and Society: Transnational Research Dia-
logue, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, (1991).
19. A.T. Bryan et al., Eds., Peace, Development and Security in the Caribbean, St. Mar-
tins Press, New York, (1988).
20. A.L. Burns and N. Heathcote, Peace-Keeping by UN Forces from Suez to Congo,
Praeger, New York, (1963).
21. I. Hauchler and P.M. Kennedy, Eds., Global Trends: The World Almanac of Devel-
opment and Peace, Continuum Pubs., New York, (1995).
22. H.B. Hollins et al., The Conquest of War: Alternative Strategies for Global Security,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO, (1989).
23. H.J. Morgenthau, Peace, Security and the United Nations, Ayer Pubs., Salem, NH,
(1973).
24. C.C. Moskos, Peace Soldiers: The Sociology of a United Nations Military Force, Univ.
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, (1976).
25. John Fielden, The Curse of the Factory System, (1836).
26. A. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments... (1759), ed. D.D. Raphael and A.L.
MacPhie, Clarendon, Oxford, (1976).
27. A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776),
Everyman edn., 2 vols., Dent, London, (1910).
28. Charles Knowlton The Fruits of Philosophy, or The Private Companion of Young
Married People, (1832).
29. John A. Hobson, John Ruskin, Social Reformer, (1898).
30. E. Pease, A History of the Fabian Society, Dutton, New York, (1916).
31. G. Claeys, ed., New View of Society, and other writings by Robert Owen, Penguin
Classics, (1991).
32. W. Bowden, Industrial Society in England Towards the End of the Eighteenth Cen-
tury, MacMillan, New York, (1925).
33. G.D. Cole, A Short History of the British Working Class Movement, MacMillan, New
York, (1927).
34. P. Deane, The First Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press, (1969).
35. Marie Boaz, Robert Boyle and Seventeenth Century Chemistry, Cambridge University
Press (1958).
36. J.G. Crowther, Scientists of the Industrial Revolution, The Cresset Press, London
(1962).
37. R.E. Schofield, The Lunar Society of Birmingham, Oxford University Press (1963).
38. L.T.C. Rolt, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Arrow Books, London (1961).
39. J.D. Bernal, Science in History, Penguin Books Ltd. (1969).
40. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, Unwin Books, London (1952).
41. Wilbert E. Moore, The Impact of Industry, Prentice Hall (1965).
42. Charles Morazé, The Nineteenth Century, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London
(1976).
324 WHY WAR?

43. Carlo M. Cipolla (editor), The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Fontana/Collins,
Glasgow (1977).
44. Martin Gerhard Geisbrecht, The Evolution of Economic Society, W.H. Freeman and
Co. (1972).
45. P.N. Stearns, The Industrial Revolution in World History, Westvieiw Press, (1998).
46. E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, Pennguin Books, London,
(1980).
47. N.J. Smelser, Social Change and the Industrial Revolution: An Application of Theory
to the British Cotton Industry, University of Chicago Press, (1959).
48. D.S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technical Change and Industrial Devel-
opment in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, 2nd ed., Cambridge University
Press, (2003).
49. S. Pollard, Peaceful Conquest: The Industrialization of Europe, 1760-1970, Oxford
University Press, (1981).
50. M. Kranzberg and C.W. Pursell, Jr., eds., Technology in Western Civilization, Oxford
University Press, (1981).
51. M.J. Daunton, Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain,
1700-1850, Oxford University Press, (1990).
52. L.R. Berlanstein, The Industrial Revolution and Work in 19th Century Europe, Rout-
ledge, (1992).
53. J.D. Bernal, Science and Industry in the 19th Century, Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, (1970).
54. P.A. Brown, The French Revolution in English History, 2nd edn., Allen and Unwin,
London, (1923).
55. E. Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France and on the Proceedings of Certain
Societies in London Relative to that Event..., Dent, London, (1910).
56. J.B. Bury, The Idea of Progress, MacMillan, New York, (1932).
57. I.R. Christie, Stress and Stability in Late Eighteenth Century Britain; Reflections
on the British Avoidance of Revolution (Ford Lectures, 1983-4), Clarendon, Oxford,
(1984).
58. H.T. Dickenson, Liberty and Property, Political Ideology in Eighteenth Century Britain,
Holmes and Meier, New York, (1977).
59. W. Eltis, The Classical Theory of Economic Growth, St. Martin’s, New York, (1984).
60. E. Halévy, A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century, (transl. E.I.
Watkin), 2nd edn., Benn, London, (1949).
61. E. Halévy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, (transl. M. Morris), new edn.,
reprinted with corrections, Faber, London, (1952).
62. W. Hazlitt, The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, ed. P.P. Howe, after the edition
of A.R. Walker and A. Glover, 21 vols., J.M. Dent, London, (1932).
63. W. Hazlitt, A Reply to the Essay on Population by the Rev. T.R. Malthus..., Long-
man, Hurst, Rees and Orme, London, (1807).
64. R. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great
Economic Thinkers, 5th edn., Simon and Schuster, New York, (1980).
8.11. GOVERNMENTS OF LARGE NATIONS AND GLOBAL GOVERNMENT 325

65. R.K. Kanth, Political Economy and Laissez-Faire: Economics and Ideology in the
Ricardian Era, Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa N.J., (1986).
66. J.M. Keynes, Essays in Biography, in The Collected Writings of John Maynard
Keynes, MacMillan, London, (1971-82).
67. F. Knight, University Rebel: The Life of William Frend, 1757-1841, Gollancz, Lon-
don (1971).
68. M. Lamb, and C. Lamb, The Works of Charles and Mary Lamb, ed. E.V. Lucas, 7
vols., Methuen, London, (1903).
69. A. Lincoln, Some Political and Social Ideas of English Dissent, 1763-1800, Cambridge
University Press, (1938).
70. D. Locke, A Fantasy of Reason: The Life and Thought of William Godwin, Routledge,
London, (1980).
71. J. Locke, Two Treatises on Government. A Critical Edition with an Introduction and
Apparatus Criticus, ed. P. Laslett, Cambridge University Press, (1967).
72. J. Macintosh, Vindicae Gallicae. Defense of the French Revolution and its English
Admirers against the Accusations of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke..., Robinson,
London, (1791).
73. J. Macintosh, A Discourse on the Study of the Law of Nature and of Nations, Caldell,
London, (1799).
74. T. Paine, The Rights of Man: being an Answer to Mr. Burke’s Attack on The French
Revolution, Jordan, London, part I (1791), part II (1792).
75. H.G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress on
Human Life and Thought, Chapman and Hall, London, (1902).
76. B. Wiley, The Eighteenth Century Background: Studies of the Idea of Nature in the
Thought of the Period, Chatto and Windus, London, (1940).
77. G.R. Morrow, The Ethical and Economic Theories of Adam Smith: A Study in the
Social Philosophy of the 18th Century, Cornell Studies in Philosophy, 13, 91-107,
(1923).
78. H.W. Schneider, ed., Adam Smith’s Moral and Political Philosophy, Harper Torch-
book edition, New York, (1948).
79. F. Rosen, Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill, Routledge, (2003).
80. J.Z. Muller, The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought, Anchor
Books, (2002).
81. J.Z. Muller, Adam Smith in His Time and Ours: Designing the Decent Society,
Princeton University Press, (1995).
82. S. Hollander, The Economics of Adam Smith, University of Toronto Press, (19773).
83. K. Haakonssen, The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith, Cambridge University
Press, (2006).
84. K. Haakonssen, The Science of a Legeslator: The Natural Jurisprudence of David
Hume and Adam Smith, Cambridge University Press, (1981).
85. I. Hont and M. Ignatieff, Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in
the Scottish Enlightenment, Cambridge University Press, (1983).
86. I.S. Ross, The Life of Adam Smith, Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1976).
326 WHY WAR?

87. D. Winch, Adam Smith’s Politics: An Essay in Historiographic Revision, Cam-

bridge University Press, (1979).
Chapter 9

ICAN AWARDED THE 2017

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

9.1 What is ICAN?

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, abbreviated ICAN, is a coali-
tion of 468 NGO’s in 101 countries. The purpose of ICAN is to change the focus in the
disarmament debate to “the the humanitarian threat posed by nuclear weapons, drawing
attention to their unique destructive capacity, their catastrophic health and environmental
consequences, their indiscriminate targeting, the debilitating impact of a detonation on
medical infrastructure and relief measures, and the long-lasting effects of radiation on the
surrounding area.”
ICAN was founded in 2007 by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War, an organization which itself received a Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. IPPNW was
inspired by the success of the campaign that achieved the Ottawa Treaty in 1997, a treaty
which banned antipersonnel land-mines against bitter opposition from the worst offenders.
Thus, from the start. ICAN envisioned a treaty passed and without the participation or
signatures of the nuclear weapons states. ICAN believed that such a treaty would have the
great value of unambiguously underlining the illegality, immorality and omnicidal nature
of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons states would eventually be forced to yield to the will
of the vast majority of humankind.
On July 7, 2017, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by an
overwhelming majority, 122 to 1, by the United Nations General Assembly. The adoption
of the treaty, a milestone in humanity’s efforts to rid itself of nuclear insanity, was to a
large extent due to the efforts of ICAN’s participating organizations.
On December 10, 2017 ICAN’s efforts were recognized by the award of the Nobel Peace
Prize. Part of the motivation for the award was the fact that the threat of a thermonuclear
global catastrophe is higher today than it has been at any time since the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Because of the belligerent attitudes and mental instability of Donald Trump and
Kim Jong Un, the end of human civilization and much of the biosphere is, in the words of

327
328 WHY WAR?

Figure 9.1: From left to right: Berit Reiss-Andersen, Chairman of the Norwegian No-
bel Committee, Setsuko Thurlow, an 85-year-old survivor of the 1945 atomic bombing of
Hiroshima, and ICAN Executive Director Beatrice Fihn.

Beatrice Fihn, “only a tantrum away”.

9.2. THE ICAN NOBEL LECTURE BY BEATRICE FIHN 329

Figure 9.2: Celebrating the award.

9.2 The ICAN Nobel Lecture by Beatrice Fihn

Your Majesties, Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Esteemed guests,
Today, it is a great honour to accept the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf
of thousands of inspirational people who make up the International Campaign
to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Together we have brought democracy to disarmament and are reshaping
international law.
We most humbly thank the Norwegian Nobel Committee for recognizing
our work and giving momentum to our crucial cause.
We want to recognize those who have so generously donated their time and
energy to this campaign.
We thank the courageous foreign ministers, diplomats, Red Cross and Red
Crescent staff, UN officials, academics and experts with whom we have worked
in partnership to advance our common goal.
And we thank all who are committed to ridding the world of this terrible
threat.
At dozens of locations around the world - in missile silos buried in our earth,
on submarines navigating through our oceans, and aboard planes flying high
in our sky - lie 15,000 objects of humankind’s destruction.
Perhaps it is the enormity of this fact, perhaps it is the unimaginable scale
of the consequences, that leads many to simply accept this grim reality. To go
about our daily lives with no thought to the instruments of insanity all around
us.
For it is insanity to allow ourselves to be ruled by these weapons. Many
critics of this movement suggest that we are the irrational ones, the idealists
with no grounding in reality. That nuclear-armed states will never give up
330 WHY WAR?

their weapons.
But we represent the only rational choice. We represent those who refuse
to accept nuclear weapons as a fixture in our world, those who refuse to have
their fates bound up in a few lines of launch code.
Ours is the only reality that is possible. The alternative is unthinkable.
The story of nuclear weapons will have an ending, and it is up to us what
that ending will be.
Will it be the end of nuclear weapons, or will it be the end of us?
One of these things will happen.
The only rational course of action is to cease living under the conditions
where our mutual destruction is only one impulsive tantrum away.
Today I want to talk of three things: fear, freedom, and the future.
By the very admission of those who possess them, the real utility of nuclear
weapons is in their ability to provoke fear. When they refer to their ”deterrent”
effect, proponents of nuclear weapons are celebrating fear as a weapon of war.
They are puffing their chests by declaring their preparedness to exterminate,
in a flash, countless thousands of human lives.
Nobel Laureate William Faulkner said when accepting his prize in 1950,
that ”There is only the question of ’when will I be blown up?’” But since then,
this universal fear has given way to something even more dangerous: denial.
Gone is the fear of Armageddon in an instant, gone is the equilibrium be-
tween two blocs that was used as the justification for deterrence, gone are the
fallout shelters.
But one thing remains: the thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads
that filled us up with that fear.
The risk for nuclear weapons use is even greater today than at the end of
the Cold War. But unlike the Cold War, today we face many more nuclear
armed states, terrorists, and cyber warfare. All of this makes us less safe.
Learning to live with these weapons in blind acceptance has been our next
great mistake.
Fear is rational. The threat is real. We have avoided nuclear war not
through prudent leadership but good fortune. Sooner or later, if we fail to act,
our luck will run out.
A moment of panic or carelessness, a misconstrued comment or bruised ego,
could easily lead us unavoidably to the destruction of entire cities. A calculated
military escalation could lead to the indiscriminate mass murder of civilians.
If only a small fraction of today’s nuclear weapons were used, soot and smoke
from the firestorms would loft high into the atmosphere - cooling, darkening
and drying the Earth’s surface for more than a decade.
It would obliterate food crops, putting billions at risk of starvation.
Yet we continue to live in denial of this existential threat.
But Faulkner in his Nobel speech also issued a challenge to those who came
after him. Only by being the voice of humanity, he said, can we defeat fear;
9.2. THE ICAN NOBEL LECTURE BY BEATRICE FIHN 331

can we help humanity endure.

ICAN’s duty is to be that voice. The voice of humanity and humanitarian
law; to speak up on behalf of civilians. Giving voice to that humanitarian
perspective is how we will create the end of fear, the end of denial. And
ultimately, the end of nuclear weapons.
That brings me to my second point: freedom.
As the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the first
ever anti-nuclear weapons organisation to win this prize, said on this stage in
1985:
”We physicians protest the outrage of holding the entire world hostage. We
protest the moral obscenity that each of us is being continuously targeted for
extinction.”
Those words still ring true in 2017.
We must reclaim the freedom to not live our lives as hostages to imminent
annihilation.
Man - not woman! - made nuclear weapons to control others, but instead
we are controlled by them.
They made us false promises. That by making the consequences of using
these weapons so unthinkable it would make any conflict unpalatable. That it
would keep us free from war.
But far from preventing war, these weapons brought us to the brink multiple
times throughout the Cold War. And in this century, these weapons continue
to escalate us towards war and conflict.
In Iraq, in Iran, in Kashmir, in North Korea. Their existence propels others
to join the nuclear race. They don’t keep us safe, they cause conflict.
As fellow Nobel Peace Laureate, Martin Luther King Jr, called them from
this very stage in 1964, these weapons are “both genocidal and suicidal”.
They are the madman’s gun held permanently to our temple. These weapons
were supposed to keep us free, but they deny us our freedoms.
It’s an affront to democracy to be ruled by these weapons. But they are just
weapons. They are just tools. And just as they were created by geopolitical
context, they can just as easily be destroyed by placing them in a humanitarian
context.
That is the task ICAN has set itself - and my third point I wish to talk
about, the future.
I have the honour of sharing this stage today with Setsuko Thurlow, who
has made it her life’s purpose to bear witness to the horror of nuclear war.
She and the hibakusha were at the beginning of the story, and it is our
collective challenge to ensure they will also witness the end of it.
They relive the painful past, over and over again, so that we may create a
better future.
There are hundreds of organisations that together as ICAN are making great
strides towards that future.
332 WHY WAR?

There are thousands of tireless campaigners around the world who work
each day to rise to that challenge.
There are millions of people across the globe who have stood shoulder to
shoulder with those campaigners to show hundreds of millions more that a
different future is truly possible.
Those who say that future is not possible need to get out of the way of those
making it a reality.
As the culmination of this grassroots effort, through the action of ordinary
people, this year the hypothetical marched forward towards the actual as 122
nations negotiated and concluded a UN treaty to outlaw these weapons of mass
destruction.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides the pathway
forward at a moment of great global crisis. It is a light in a dark time.
And more than that, it provides a choice.
A choice between the two endings: the end of nuclear weapons or the end
of us.
It is not naive to believe in the first choice. It is not irrational to think
nuclear states can disarm. It is not idealistic to believe in life over fear and
destruction; it is a necessity.
All of us face that choice. And I call on every nation to join the Treaty on
the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
The United States, choose freedom over fear. Russia, choose disarmament
over destruction. Britain, choose the rule of law over oppression. France,
choose human rights over terror. China, choose reason over irrationality. In-
dia, choose sense over senselessness. Pakistan, choose logic over Armageddon.
Israel, choose common sense over obliteration. North Korea, choose wisdom
over ruin.
To the nations who believe they are sheltered under the umbrella of nuclear
weapons, will you be complicit in your own destruction and the destruction of
others in your name?
To all nations: choose the end of nuclear weapons over the end of us!
This is the choice that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
represents. Join this Treaty.
We citizens are living under the umbrella of falsehoods. These weapons are
not keeping us safe, they are contaminating our land and water, poisoning our
bodies and holding hostage our right to life.
To all citizens of the world: Stand with us and demand your government
side with humanity and sign this treaty. We will not rest until all States have
joined, on the side of reason.
No nation today boasts of being a chemical weapon state. No nation argues
that it is acceptable, in extreme circumstances, to use sarin nerve agent. No
nation proclaims the right to unleash on its enemy the plague or polio.
9.3. THE NOBEL LECTURE CONTINUED BY SETSUKO THURLOW 333

That is because international norms have been set, perceptions have been
changed.
And now, at last, we have an unequivocal norm against nuclear weapons.
Monumental strides forward never begin with universal agreement.
With every new signatory and every passing year, this new reality will take
hold.
This is the way forward. There is only one way to prevent the use of nuclear
weapons: prohibit and eliminate them.
Nuclear weapons, like chemical weapons, biological weapons, cluster muni-
tions and land mines before them, are now illegal. Their existence is immoral.
Their abolishment is in our hands.
The end is inevitable. But will that end be the end of nuclear weapons or
the end of us? We must choose one.
We are a movement for rationality. For democracy. For freedom from fear.
We are campaigners from 468 organisations who are working to safeguard
the future, and we are representative of the moral majority: the billions of
people who choose life over death, who together will see the end of nuclear
weapons.
Thank you.

9.3 The Nobel Lecture continued by Setsuko Thurlow

Your Majesties, Distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,
My fellow campaigners, here and throughout the world, Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great privilege to accept this award, together with Beatrice, on behalf
of all the remarkable human beings who form the ICAN movement. You each
give me such tremendous hope that we can - and will - bring the era of nuclear
weapons to an end.
I speak as a member of the family of hibakusha - those of us who, by some
miraculous chance, survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
For more than seven decades, we have worked for the total abolition of nuclear
weapons.
We have stood in solidarity with those harmed by the production and test-
ing of these horrific weapons around the world. People from places with long-
forgotten names, like Moruroa, Ekker, Semipalatinsk, Maralinga, Bikini. Peo-
ple whose lands and seas were irradiated, whose bodies were experimented
upon, whose cultures were forever disrupted.
We were not content to be victims. We refused to wait for an immediate
fiery end or the slow poisoning of our world. We refused to sit idly in terror as
the so-called great powers took us past nuclear dusk and brought us recklessly
close to nuclear midnight. We rose up. We shared our stories of survival. We
said: humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.
334 WHY WAR?

Today, I want you to feel in this hall the presence of all those who perished
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I want you to feel, above and around us, a great
cloud of a quarter million souls. Each person had a name. Each person was
loved by someone. Let us ensure that their deaths were not in vain.
I was just 13 years old when the United States dropped the first atomic
bomb, on my city Hiroshima. I still vividly remember that morning. At 8:15,
I saw a blinding bluish-white flash from the window. I remember having the
sensation of floating in the air.
As I regained consciousness in the silence and darkness, I found myself
pinned by the collapsed building. I began to hear my classmates’ faint cries:
”Mother, help me. God, help me.”
Then, suddenly, I felt hands touching my left shoulder, and heard a man
saying: ”Don’t give up! Keep pushing! I am trying to free you. See the light
coming through that opening? Crawl towards it as quickly as you can.” As I
crawled out, the ruins were on fire. Most of my classmates in that building were
burned to death alive. I saw all around me utter, unimaginable devastation.
Processions of ghostly figures shuffled by. Grotesquely wounded people,
they were bleeding, burnt, blackened and swollen. Parts of their bodies were
missing. Flesh and skin hung from their bones. Some with their eyeballs
hanging in their hands. Some with their bellies burst open, their intestines
hanging out. The foul stench of burnt human flesh filled the air.
Thus, with one bomb my beloved city was obliterated. Most of its resi-
dents were civilians who were incinerated, vaporized, carbonized - among them,
members of my own family and 351 of my schoolmates.
In the weeks, months and years that followed, many thousands more would
die, often in random and mysterious ways, from the delayed effects of radiation.
Still to this day, radiation is killing survivors.
Whenever I remember Hiroshima, the first image that comes to mind is of
my four-year-old nephew, Eiji - his little body transformed into an unrecogniz-
able melted chunk of flesh. He kept begging for water in a faint voice until his
death released him from agony.
To me, he came to represent all the innocent children of the world, threat-
ened as they are at this very moment by nuclear weapons. Every second of
every day, nuclear weapons endanger everyone we love and everything we hold
dear. We must not tolerate this insanity any longer.
Through our agony and the sheer struggle to survive - and to rebuild our
lives from the ashes - we hibakusha became convinced that we must warn
the world about these apocalyptic weapons. Time and again, we shared our
testimonies.
But still some refused to see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as atrocities - as war
crimes. They accepted the propaganda that these were ”good bombs” that
had ended a ”just war”. It was this myth that led to the disastrous nuclear
arms race - a race that continues to this day.
9.4. TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS 335

Nine nations still threaten to incinerate entire cities, to destroy life on earth,
to make our beautiful world uninhabitable for future generations. The develop-
ment of nuclear weapons signifies not a country’s elevation to greatness, but its
descent to the darkest depths of depravity. These weapons are not a necessary
evil; they are the ultimate evil.
On the seventh of July this year, I was overwhelmed with joy when a great
majority of the world’s nations voted to adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons. Having witnessed humanity at its worst, I witnessed,
that day, humanity at its best. We hibakusha had been waiting for the ban for
seventy-two years. Let this be the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.
All responsible leaders will sign this treaty. And history will judge harshly
those who reject it. No longer shall their abstract theories mask the genocidal
reality of their practices. No longer shall ”deterrence” be viewed as anything
but a deterrent to disarmament. No longer shall we live under a mushroom
cloud of fear.
To the officials of nuclear-armed nations - and to their accomplices under
the so-called ”nuclear umbrella” - I say this: Listen to our testimony. Heed
our warning. And know that your actions are consequential. You are each an
integral part of a system of violence that is endangering humankind. Let us all
be alert to the banality of evil.
To every president and prime minister of every nation of the world, I beseech
you: Join this treaty; forever eradicate the threat of nuclear annihilation.
When I was a 13-year-old girl, trapped in the smouldering rubble, I kept
pushing. I kept moving toward the light. And I survived. Our light now is
the ban treaty. To all in this hall and all listening around the world, I repeat
those words that I heard called to me in the ruins of Hiroshima: ”Don’t give
up! Keep pushing! See the light? Crawl towards it.”
Tonight, as we march through the streets of Oslo with torches aflame, let
us follow each other out of the dark night of nuclear terror. No matter what
obstacles we face, we will keep moving and keep pushing and keep sharing this
light with others. This is our passion and commitment for our one precious
world to survive.

9.4 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Wikipadia states that

“The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), or the Nu-

clear Weapon Ban Treaty, is the first legally binding international agreement to
comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal being their
total elimination. It was adopted on 7 July 2017, opened for signature on 20
September 2017, and entered into force on 22 January 2021.
336 WHY WAR?

“For those nations that are party to it, the treaty prohibits the develop-
ment, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of
use of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance and encouragement to the pro-
hibited activities. For nuclear armed states joining the treaty, it provides for a
time-bound framework for negotiations leading to the verified and irreversible
elimination of its nuclear weapons programme.
“A mandate adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 23 De-
cember 2016 scheduled two sessions for negotiations: 27 to 31 March and from
15 June to 7 July, 2017.The treaty passed on schedule on 7 July with 122 in
favour, 1 against (Netherlands), and 1 official abstention (Singapore). 69 na-
tions did not vote, among them all of the nuclear weapon states and all NATO
members except the Netherlands.”

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to ICAN very largely because of ICAN’s successful
campaign for adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Index

A billion deaths from famine, 220 All men created equal, 283
A new cold war with Russia, 264 All nations would suffer, 220
Abe, Shinzo, 222 All-destroying nuclear war, 234, 294
Abolish nuclear weapons, 208 All-destroying weapons, 277
Abolishing war, 284 Almost 2 trillion, 146
Abolition of nuclear weapons, 214, 298, 300 Alternative energy strategies, 285
Abolition of war, 214, 298, 300 Alternative media, 299
Absolute sovereignty, 76 Altruism, 65, 72, 109
Acceleration, 27 Ambassador April Glaspie, 156
Acceleration of cultural change, 67 America, 25
Accents, 69 American Civil War, 316, 317
Accident waiting to happen, 220, 234, 241 American Indians, 114
Accidental nuclear war, 208, 214, 232, 237, Amphictyonic League, 315
241, 298 Anachronism of nation-states, 76
Actions of the sexes, 146 Anarchy, 76
Adam Smith, 141 Ancestor worship, 69
Adequate standard of living, 288 Ancient Greece, 315
Administration of property, 119 Anglican Church, 107
Adolf Hitler, 33 Angola, 154
Advantage versus truth, 75 Animal groups, 73
Advertising campaigns, 147 Annan, Kofi, 232, 245
Advisory opinions by ICJ, 307 Annihilation of civilization, 30
Afghanistan, 158 Anthropoid apes, 67
Agent Orange, 189, 212 Anti-Catholic laws, 129
Aggression, 62, 63, 65, 72 Anti-Federalists, 280
Aging storage tanks, 233 Anti-war manifesto, 26
Agreed-upon lies, 75 Antimalarial program, 209
Agricultural revolution, 74 Anxiety about the future, 210
Agricultural societies, 117 Appalling war machine, 147
Agriculture, 112, 215, 244 Arab nationalism and Islam, 71
Akkadian language, 277 Arab-Arab conflicts, 156
Alaska, 67 Arbitrary arrest prohibited, 287
Albert Einstein, 13 Archbishop of Canterbury, 279
Albury, 107 Arctic sea ice, 148
Algeria, 154 Argentina, 67

337
338 INDEX

Aristotle, 74 Bergen, 315

Armaments ($1.7 trillion spent on), 208 Bering Strait, 67
Armistice Day, 218 Berlin destroyed, 205
Arms control, 318 Bernard Lowen, 214
Arms Trade Treaty, 294 Biden and Putin meet in Geneva, 267
Arndt, Ernst Moritz, 80 Biden’s aggressive foreign policy, 262
Arrest political leaders, 312 Bikini, 308
Arrogance, 147 Bikini explosion, 208
Art objects, 67 Bilateral agreements, 150, 213
Article 25, 288 Billion or more deaths, 147
Article 51, 284, 304 Biocultural Rights, 295
Article VI, 240, 291, 305 Biological diversity, 312
Articles of Confederation, 316, 317 Biological weapons, 155, 292
Assistance of Council, 282 Biological weapons convention, 291
Asteroids, 241 Biology of War and Peace, 68
Astonishing unrealism, 220 Biosphere, 146
Asylum, 210 Birth anomalies, 212
Atom bomb, 64 Birth control, 118
Atomic bomb, 26, 33 Birth defects, 189, 208, 308
Atoms for peace?, 221 Birth defects in Marshall Islands, 260
Atrocities, 64, 83, 312 Birth rates, 107
ATT, 294 Bits, 59
Australia, 322 Bitter opposition, 294
Austria, 77 Black comedy, 234
Austrian representative, 301 Blackmail, 282
Automated agriculture, 107 Blair, Bruce G., 241
Blight, 129
B-52 bomber, 234 Blind weapon, 308
Ba’ath Party, 155 Bloated military budgets, 146
Babies torn from mothers, 205 Blockade of Gaza, 288
Babies with birth defects, 309 Blood for oil, 153
Baltic herring catch, 315 Boer War, 160
Ban Ki-Moon, 294, 302 Bohr, Niels, 14, 227
Barak, Ehud, 220 Bohr-Wheeler theory, 227
Barnaby, Frank, 232 Boltzman’s kinetic theory, 25
Battle of Leipzig, 81, 82 Bombardment of Copenhagen, 200
Beatrice Finn, 328 Bombing infrastructure, 157
Bedjaoui, Muhammad, 240, 307 Bombing of Cambodia and Laos, 192
Behavior, 55 Bombing water-purification, 157
Belgian Congo, 34 Bombs Over Cambodia, 193
Belgian Queen Mother, 34 Books, 76
Bending of a light ray, 27, 28 Born free and equal, 287
Benevolence, 119 Born with no bones, 308
INDEX 339

Boterro, 105 Catastrophic mistake, 241

Bottomless pit of war, 146 Catastrophic nuclear war, 214, 215, 220, 235,
Bounties of nature, 119 237, 298, 301
Bravo shot, 308 Cathartic model of instincts, 62
Brazil, 67, 322 Celibacy, 113
Brazil and Paraguay clash over river, 163 Census, 121
Break the cycle of mistrust, 298 Central America, 147
Breakdown of human society, 220 Central Asia, 115
Brink of nuclear war, 147 Central government, 77
Brownian motion, 14, 25 Central Intelligence Agency, 151
Bruges, 315 Central monarchs, 76
Brutalization of values, 283 Ceremonies, 69
Buddha, 74, 278 Chadors, 69
Bumble bees, 57 Chain of causes, 107
Burial customs, 69 Chain-reacting pile, 227
Burned cottages, 146 Chamberlain, Neville, 204
Burning the Koran, 258 Chance of survival, 298
Bush, George W., 293 Cheating ring, 234
Buying votes, 156 Checks to population growth, 114, 117
BWC, 291 Chemical signals, 73
By what right?, 298 Chemical warfare, 212
Chemical weapons, 189
Cajoling, extracting, threatening, 156 Chemical Weapons Convention, 292
Calogero, Francesco, 245 Chemical weapons plant, 155
Cambodia, 193 Chernobyl, 221, 222, 261, 308
Cambodian genocide, 75 Child labor, 115, 144
Cambridge University, 106 Child soldiers, 210
Cancer caused by radioactivity, 212 Children killed by wars, 209, 239
Cancer risk from Hanford, 233 China, 67, 292, 302, 309, 322
Cannibalism, 114 China floods Yellow River, 1938, 163
Canons, use in warfare, 76 China supports nuclear abolition, 301
Canton civilian bombing, 204 China’s dollar holdings, 235
Canute, 120 Chinese-Russian support, 220
Capital, 141, 150 Christian and pagan symbolism, 81
Captain Cook, 114 Christian elements of national cult, 82
Carbon tax, 319 Chronic war, 299, 301
Carefully chosen powers, 312 Churchill, Winston, 155
Carefully selected issues, 318 CIA protegé, 158
Carrying capacity, 119 Circumcision, 69
Caste markings, 69 Citizen reporting, 302
Castles, 76 Civil society, 245, 301
Catastrophic accident, 208 Civil wars, 209
Catastrophic climate change, 147, 295 Civilian victims of war, 239
340 INDEX

Civilians as hostages, 208 Compulsory military service, 30

Civilians as targets, 245 Concentration of CO2, 148
Civilians killed in war, 209 Concubinage, 118
Civilization, 75 Conditioning of soldiers, 200
Civilization’s crisis, 208 Condorcet, Marquis de, 109, 111, 118
Clark, Ramsey, 157 Confederation too weak, 280
Clathrates, 148 Conference on Disarmament, 217, 292, 294
Clay tablets, 74 Confessions of Economic Hit-Man, 151
Climate change, 168, 285 Conflicts over oil, 169
Climate change and conflicts, 168 Conflicts over water, Middle East, 168
Climate change denial, 75 Confucius, 74, 278
Climate Change Obligation, 295 Conscience, 121
Climate emergency, 262 Conscience banished, 199
Climate scientists, 147 Conscience of humanity, 204
Climate-induced water shortages, 168 Consensus requirement, 294
Cluster bombs, 212 Consent of the governed, 283
Coal and Steel Community, 318 Consumed radioactive food, 233
Coalition of 468 NGO’s, 327 Container ships, 232
Coastal cities drowned, 148 Control of the planet’s resources, 151
Cocoons, 57 Control over oilfields, 154
Coercion of states, 293, 317 Convention of 1792, 76
Cohesion, 83 Cooperation, 65, 73, 74, 299
Cold War, 208, 213, 232, 241, 292 Cooperation in animals, 73
Cold War replaced, 258 Cooperative future, 208
Coleridge, William, 121 Cooperative society, 298, 322
Collapse of Building 7, 258 Core aspirations, 302
Collective body, 200 Corn Laws, 127
Collective punishment, 264, 290 Corporate oligarchy, 262
Colombia, 154 Corpses left unburied, 205
Colonial era, 213 Correspondence, 287
Colonialism, 160, 294 Corrupt governments, 150, 154
Color, 287 Corrupt local officials, 213
Comb-making instinct, 57 Corruption of morals, 122
Combating poverty, 285 Courage, 64
Common bonds of humanity, 199 COVID-19, 262
Common land, 142 Crime, 109, 119
Communal aggression, 64 Crime of aggression, 293
Communal defense mechanism, 72 Crime of crimes, 299
Communal defense response, 62, 63 Crimes against humanity, 293
Communication, 76 Crimes against peace, 286
Competition, 68, 141 Crisis, 71
Competition for territory, 117 Crisis of civilization, 299
Complex civilizations, 141 Critical mass, 227
INDEX 341

Crofters houses burned, 142 Defining norms, 288

Cruelty, 144 Degrading punishments prohibited, 287
Cruelty by children, 69 Democratic global governance, 299
Crusades, 71, 75 Demographic studies, 118
Cuba, 292 Demography, 115
Cuban Missile Crisis, 76 Demoralizing effects, 146
Cult of nationalism, 82 Denial of human justice, 308
Cultural barriers to marriage, 68 Depleted uranium shells, 212
Cultural diversity, 312 Designated as an enemy, 199
Cultural evolution, 68, 73 Destruction of civilization, 72
Cultural heritage, 298 Deterrence, flaws in concept, 239
Cultural programs, 285 Developing countries, 150, 153, 212
Culture, 58, 67 Development, 209
Culture of violence, 213 Devotion, 63, 64
Curvature of space, 28 Dialects, 69, 81
CWC, 292 Dickens, Charles, 122
Dictatorships, 154
Damage to agriculture, 147 Diction, 69
Damage to infrastructure, 211 Diet, 69
Damping speculative transactions, 284 Direct costs of war, 208
Dances and songs, 69 Direct political power, 155
Dangerous feedback loops, 148 Direct vote, 294
Dangerous landmark, 148 Dirt huts, 107
Dangerous proliferation, 221 Disability, 288
Dangerous radioisotopes, 223 Disappointment, 105
Daniel Ellsberg, 184, 185 Disarmament, 239, 290
Danish fleet, 200 Disaster avoided by a hair’s breadth, 261
Danton, 76 Disease, 111, 114, 115, 117, 219
Danzig, 315 Diseases related to poverty, 209
Darfur, 75 Disposal of radioactive waste, 223
Darwin’s Autobiography , 132 Disputes of the moment, 298
Darwin’s Origin of Species, 132 Dissenting Academy, 106
Darwin, Charles, 55, 57, 71, 72, 109, 132 Division of Labor, 141
Death rate, 107 Division of powers, 317
Deaths due to sanctions, 157 DNA sequences, 74
Deaths of many millions, 307 Domestic industry, 141
Deaths, 62-78 million, 219 Domestication of animals, 117
Deb Haaland, 262 Domination of oil-rich regions, 284
Debt slavery, 153 Doomsday Machine, 234, 235
Decay of democracy, 146 Dr. Strangelove, 234
Declaration of Human Rights, 210 Drank radioactive milk, 233
Declaration of Independence, 283 Dresden destroyed, 205
Defiled street, 146 Driven from the land, 142
342 INDEX

Droves of vicious rats, 205 Endless crises, 146

Drug addiction, 234 Enewetak, 308
Drug-resistant infections, 285 Enforceable international law, 277
Drug-resistant tuberculosis, 212 Engineering firms, 151
Drugs, 237 English Bill of Rights, 279
Duke of Buccleuch, 141 Enlargement of federal powers, 315
Dulce et Decorum Est, 218 Enlightenment, 76, 105, 282
Duty, 72 Enormous human suffering, 213
Enrichment, 243
Ecological catastrophe, 147, 260 Enrichment of uranium, 291
Ecological considerations, 142, 146 Enrico Fermi, 33
Ecological damage, 189, 211 Environment, 107
Ecological destruction, 170 Environmental component of learning, 59
Economic advancement, 283, 284 Environmental holocaust, 212
Economic growth, 142 Envy, 107
Economic hegemony, 213 Epidemics, 209
Economic hit men, 151 Epidemics in Iraq, 157
Economic inequality, 111, 213 Equal rights within marriage, 287
Economic interdependence, 76, 311 Eradication of smallpox, 209, 292
Economic waste, 245 Erosion of self-respect, 199
Ecstasy, 63 Escalatory cycles of violence, 239
Education, 75, 107, 208, 288 Esquisse, 109
Effects of war on children, 210 Essay on Government, 106
Egypt and Ethiopia dispute Nile, 164, 170 Essay on Population, 105
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus, 68, 71 Essay on Population, 2nd Ed., 118, 121
Eide, Espin Barth, 301 Ether, 25
Einstein and Charlie Chaplin, 14 Ether wind, 25
Einstein in 1947, 14 Ethical and legal systems, 277
Einstein in Italy, 14 Ethical considerations, 142, 146
Einstein’s family, 14 Ethical principles, 71, 239
Einstein’s letter to Freud, 28 Ethics, 107, 277, 300
Einstein’s second wife, Elsa, 14 Ethnic identity, 68
Einstein, Albert, 13 Ethnic minorities, 311, 312
Eisenhower’s farewell address, 256 Ethnicity, 68
Eisenhower, Dwight D., 221 Ethnicity and religion, 71
ElBaradei, Mohamed, 243 Ethology, 55, 58
Electrical generating plants, 211 Euclidean geometry, 13
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 25 Euro-Atlantic region, 303
Electromagnetism, 25 Europe, 160
Elisabeth I, Queen, 120 European colonial conquests, 71
Emergency Force, 321 European Union, 318
Emotions, 55, 75, 76 Everyday experience, 75
Enclosure Acts, 142 Evil, 119
INDEX 343

Evolution, 75, 109, 111 Feudal principalities, 77

Exaltation of selfishness, 150 Fichte, Johan Gottlieb, 79
Exceptionalism, 294 Fichtians, 92
Exchange of ideas, 74 Fielden, John, 144
Excrementous matter, 146 Fighting in the War Room, 235
Exponential growth, 112, 153 Filed teeth, 69
Export of arms, 321 Filth in the street, 146
Exporters of small arms, 213 Financial power, 150
Exposure, 219 Financial support, 284
Expression of emotion by babies, 58 Finn, Beatrice, 328
Expression of emotions, 55, 57 Fire, 83
Extortion, 151 Fire storms, 215
Extracting local resources, 213 Firebombing of Dresden, 239
Extracting raw materials, 153 Firebombing of Hamburg, 204
Extremely long half-lives, 223 Firestorms, 205
First Amendment, 282
Fabians, 160 First Amendment violated, 282
Facial expressions, 57 First professor of economics, 127
Factory system, 144 First-class war aim, 155
Fallout, 240 Fischer, R.A., 65, 72
Falluja 2, 155 Fissile materials, 302
Family, 287 Fission reaction, 214
Family of man, 300, 301 Flags, 63, 82
Family size, 113 Fleeing refugees targeted, 204
Famine, 112, 114, 117, 209, 244 Flocks of birds, 73
Famine relief, 208 Flogged, fettered and tortured, 144
Fanaticism, 63, 77, 92 Food insufficiencies, 285
FAO, 284, 319, 321 Food shortages, 120
Fast breeder reactors, 228 Food supply, 112, 115
Fatal accident, 243 Foreign women, 235
Fatal flaw of the NPT, 291 Fossil fuel industries, 146, 147
Fate of humanity, 298 Fourth Amendment, 282
Fatherland, 80, 82 Fourth Amendment violated, 282
Federal Constitution of US, 316 Fourth Geneva Convention, 290
Federal government, 317 France, 77, 309
Federations today, 315 Franklin D. Roosevelt, 34
Federations, history, 313 Franklin, Benjamin, 105
Feedback loops, 148 Fraud, 107
Feelings of panic, 207 Fraudulent financial reports, 151
Fermi, Enrico, 227 Frederick the Great, 77, 80
Fertility of mixed marriages, 68 Free elections, 279
Festivals, 81, 82 Free market, 142
Feudal barons, 76 Freedom of conscience, 287
344 INDEX

Freedom of peaceable assembly, 287 German nationalists, 82

Freedom of religion, 287 German-speaking students, 77
Freedom of speech, 279, 282 Germanic tribes, 115
Freedom of the individual, 279 Germany, 77
Freedom of the press, 282 Germany’s wars, 81
French culture, 77, 80 Get rid of the veto, 321
French Revolution, 76, 77, 105 Global arms trade, 294
Friendly hands, 74 Global economic interdependence, 277, 299
Friendship, 288 Global ethical principles, 277
Friendship among nations, 288 Global exchanges, 74
Frisch, Karl von, 58 Global governance, 213, 277, 322
Frisch, Otto, 227 Global hegemony, 303
Frozen tundra, 148 Global Policy Forum, 153
Fukushima, 221, 222, 261, 308 Global warming, 148
Future generations, 208, 299 Globalization, 76, 151
Future of humanity, 298 Glorious Revolution, 279
Glory, 79
Gas warfare, 218 Godwin’s Utopia, 119
Gaskell, Dr. Peter, 144 Godwin, William, 105, 107, 109, 112, 113,
General and complete disarmament, 290 117–119, 122
General good, 107 Good faith, 307
Genes, 65 Governmental intervention, 142
Genetic change, 68 Governmental terrorism, 200
Genetic evolution, 73 Grant, Mark Lyall, 294
Genetic pool, 214 Gravitation, 27
Genetic predisposition, 59 Great cities, 150
Genetically programmed responses, 59 Great Depression, 235
Genetically similar individuals, 72 Greece, 153
Geneva Conventions, 290 Greed, 142, 150
Geneva Postal Union, 315 Greed-based economy, 146
Geneva Protocol, 155, 292 Greenhouse gases, 148
Genius for cooperation, 75 Greenland ice sheet, 148
Genocidal war, 260 Grey, Colin S., 241
Genocide, 71, 75, 239, 288, 293, 299 Gross human rights violations, 288
Genocide against Jews, 71 Grossman, Marcel, 14, 28
Geometrical growth, 112 Group identity, 67
George Washington, 256 Group selection, 65, 72
German Fatherland, 80 Growth of population, 120
German language, 80 Growth of world trade, 312
German Luftwaffe, 204 Growth-obsessed economy, 146
German May, 82 Guernica, 204
German nationalism, 71, 79 Guilt, 239
German nationalist movement, 77, 81 Gulf War of 1990, 157, 211, 212
INDEX 345

Gulf War, 2003, 158 Historical conflicts related to water, 163

Gulf Wars, 76 History, 69
Guterres, Antonio, 217 History of federations, 280
Gymnasts, 82 Hitler invades Poland, 204
Hitler Youth, 63
Hague invasion clause, 293 Hitler’s bombing of Warsaw, 204
Hair standing on end, 64 Hitler’s rise to power, 33
Hair-trigger alert, 208, 220, 241 HIV/AIDS, 212, 285, 321
Haldane, J.B.S., 65, 72 Hobson, John Atkinson, 160
Half a century later, 308 Hoffer, Eric, 199
Hambrach Castle, 82 Holocaust, 75
Hamburg, 315 Holy festivals, 81
Hamilton, Alexander, 293, 317 Holy shiver, 62
Hamilton, W.D., 65, 72 Holy war, 81
Hammurabi’s Code, 277 Home, 287
Hanford experiments on humans, 234 Hominids, 67
Hanging, 107 Honey-bees, 57
Hankey, Sir Maurice, 155 Hoodbhoy, Pervez, 231
Hanseatic League, 315, 317 Hope for the future, 67, 298
Happy society, 142 Hospitality, 69
Harvest failures, 120 Hospitals targeted, 204
Hegel, G.W.F., 83 House of Representatives, 316
Heiliger Schauer, 64 Houseman, 117
Heine, Heinrich, 83 Human civilization, 146, 150
Henderson, D.A., 292 Human civilization threatened, 208
Herbicides, 212 Human dignity, 287
Hereditary component of learning, 59 Human emotional nature, 32
Hereditary transmission of power, 111 Human emotions, 58
Hermann Minkowski, 14 Human error and nuclear war, 214
Hermann’s Battle, 83 Human failings, 241
Hero face, 64 Human groups, 73
Heroic behavior, 63 Human history, 150
Heroism, 62 Human institutions, 119
Herring from the Baltic, 315 Human nature, 58, 71, 75, 320
Herring gulls, 59 Human rights, 311, 312, 318
High population density, 117 Human rights abuses, 213
Higher loyalty, 74, 303 Human Rights Declaration, 287
Highland Clearance, 142 Human sacrifice, 219
Highly enriched uranium, 243, 291 Humane global governance, 299
Highly-enriched uranium, 221 Humanitarian law, 239, 240, 246, 307
Hinde, Robert A., 62 Humanity as a whole, 319
Hiroshima, 63, 75, 205, 214, 219, 222, 227, Hume, David, 105
261, 308 Hunger, 107, 121
346 INDEX

Hunter-gatherer societies, 114, 117 Industrialized countries, 150

Hunter-gatherers, 68, 75 Industrialized nations, 153, 213
Hydrological cycle, 216, 220 Industry, 112
Inequality, 146
I cannot have children, 308 Inequality between men and women, 111
ICAN founded by IPPNW, 327 Infant mortality, 112, 122
ICAN wins Nobel Peace Prize, 328 Infanticide, 122
ICBM’s Carey drank heavily, 235 Infectious disease, 300
ICC, 293, 311, 321 Informal conversations, 284
ICJ, 285 Information accumulation, 68
ICJ, Marshall Islands suit, 308 Information from insiders, 303
Ignorance, 107, 109, 111 Information transfer, 74
Illegal assassinations using drones, 258 Infrastructure, 208
Illegal bombing of Syria, 264 Inhuman punishments prohibited, 287
Illegal nuclear weapons program, 264 Initiation of war, 286
Illegality of NATO, 286, 303 Injustice, economic, 76
Illegality of nuclear weapons, 239 Insane person, 234
Illiteracy, 209, 285 Inspections, 302
Immeasurable suffering, 307 Instantaneous communications, 311
Impartial jury, 282 Instinctive behavior, 55
Imperfect functioning, 298 Instincts, 55, 57
Imperialism: A Study, 160 Institution of war, 199, 208, 209, 212, 245,
Imprinting, 62 283, 298
Improvement of society, 112 Institutionalized injustice, 299, 301
Incendiary bombings, 215 Insults instead of diplomacy, 263
Incendiary bombs, 155 Insurrection of peoples, 76
Incendiary rockets, 200 Intellectual improvement, 107
Incompetent person, 234 Inter-group aggression, 72
India, 67, 76, 245, 290, 292, 302, 309, 322 Inter-group marriage, 73
India and Pakistan divide Indus, 163 Interdependence, 74, 76
India’s nuclear weapons, 231 Internal peace, 67, 322
India-Pakistan war danger, 231 Internally displaced persons, 210
Indirect costs of war, 208 International anarchy, 299, 301
Indiscriminate mass slaughter, 239 International borders, 210
Individual conscience, 199 International communication, 312
Individual identity lost, 200 International cooperation, 292
Individual self-interest, 141 International Court of Justice, 246
Individual, value of, 79, 80 International Criminal Court, 280, 293, 311,
Individualism, 80 321
Indo-China conflicts, 209 International law, 150, 213, 277, 290, 293,
Indonesia, 154 299, 301, 303, 311, 312
Industrial Revolution, 144, 146, 160 International Law Commission, 286
Industrial workers, 105 International Monetary Fund, 153
INDEX 347

International police force, 320 Jesus, 74, 278

International Red Cross, 301 Jesus College, 106
International trade, 312 Jewelry, 73
Intertribal aggression, 65 John Locke, 279
Intertribal massacres, 71 John Perkins, 151
Intertribal wars, 117 Johnson Administration, 185
Intolerable economic inequality, 213 Judicial safeguards, 320
Intra-group altruism, 72 Just society, 142
Intragroup aggression, 62
Invasion of Kuwait, 156 Kaiser Wilhelm II, 220
Invention of agriculture, 277 Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, 26
Invention of printing, 73, 74 Kamala Harris, 262
Invention of writing, 73 Kantians, 92
Invisible hand, 141, 142 Kassel destroyed, 205
Iodine 131, 233 Kellogg-Briand Pact, 283
IPCC, 148 Kermit Roosevelt, 151
Iran, 154, 245, 291, 292 Khan, Dr. A.Q., 231
Iran, attack by Israel, 235 Khmer Rouge, 193
Iraq, 154, 155, 292 Killing civilians, 200
Iraq, Syria mobilize troops over drought, 164 Kindness, 65, 277, 299
Iraqi oil, 155 King John of England, 279
Irish potato famine, 129 Kirkpatrick, Jean, 288
Iron Law of Wages, 127 Klare, Michael, 213
Irrational beliefs, 75 Kleist, 83
Irresponsible decisions, 232 Knowledge, 107
Irreversible damage to civilization, 214 Kobe firebombed, 205
Islamic fundamentalists, 158 Koestler, Arthur, 63
Islamic State, 168 Korean Peninsula, 147
Isotope ratios, 148 Korean War, 76
Israel, 235, 290, 292, 309 Kosovo, 71
Israel and Syria fight over Yarmuk River, 163 Krieger. David, 309
Israel as occupying power, 290 Kubrick, Stanley, 234
Israel’s nuclear weapons, 231 Kurdish civilians gassed, 71
It was about oil, 158 Kurds slaughtered, 157
Ituri Provence of Congo, 71 Kuwait, 154, 155
Kwami Nkrumah, 150
Jack D. Ripper, 234
Jackson, Robert H., 287 Language, 61, 68, 73, 80
Japan, 160 Language and ethnic identity, 69
Japan and nuclear abolition, 302 Lao-Tzu, 74, 278
Japanese terror bombing, 204 Laos, 192
Javier Pérez de Cuĺlar, 298 Lapps, 67
Jelly fish babies, 308 Large nations, 322
348 INDEX

Largest act of environmental warfare, 163 Lord Curzon, 155

Late marriage, 117, 118, 129 Lord Denning, 279
Latin, 80 Lorentz invariance, 25
Laudato Si’, 153 Lorentz, H.A., 25
Launch officers cheating, 234 Lorenz, Konrad, 58, 62, 63, 65, 68
Laws acting on individuals, 293, 316, 317 Loss of 175 million lives, 211
Laws binding on individuals, 311, 312, 317– Loss of life, 209
319 Low death rate, 117
Laws must apply equally, 294 Lowest common denominator, 318
Laws of nature, 119 Lowest social class, 112
League of Nations, 283 Loyalty, 63, 64, 75
Learning, 59 Lubeck, 315
Lebanese civil war, 71, 209 Lucky Dragon, 208
Legal systems, 277 Lust, 121
LeMay, General Curtis E., 241 Luxuries, 107
Leo Szilard, 34
Less developed countries, 213 Müller, Adam, 79
Lethal weapons, 300 Macdonald, Anna, 294
Letter to Santa Claus, 288 Magna Carta, 279
Leukemia, 308 Mainz destroyed, 205
Liberalism, 80 Majority vote, 294
Libya, 154 Malaria, 212
Life of comfort, 300 Malaysia, 73
Life on earth threatened, 208 Malice, 107
Limited problems, 74 Malnutrition, 115, 209, 285
Limited reserves of uranium, 228 Malnutrition from sanctions, 157
Limited war, 81 Malthus, Daniel, 105, 109, 112
Linear progression, 113 Malthus, Thomas Robert, 105, 112, 117–120,
Linguistic groups, 111 122, 127, 132
Linnean Society, 132 Manchester Guardian, 160
Literature, 69 Manufactured goods, 160
Local autonomy, 315 Marcel Grossman, 14, 28
Local communities, 69 Marie and Pierre Curie, 33
Local government, 318 Markets, 160
Locke, John, 282 Marriage, 65
London, 144 Marriage across ethnic boundaries, 71
Long human childhood, 109 Marriage requires full consent, 287
Long-distance trading, 73 Marriage within a group, 72
Long-lasting effects of radiation, 327 Marseillaise-singing masses, 77
Long-term effects, 148 Marshall Islands, 208, 308
Long-term survival, 150 Martineau, Harriet, 122
Loot, 83 Mason, George, 317
Lord Cranborne, 204 Mass defect, 26
INDEX 349

Mass increases with velocity, 26 Milk and potato diet, 129

Mass media, 75, 299 Millennium Development Goals, 288
Mass meeting, 82 Mine Ban Treaty, 293
Massacres, 71 Mines, 160
Masses, 79 Minkowski space, 26
Massive nuclear retaliation, 239 Minkowski, Hermann, 26
Material possessions, 107 Minority groups, 288
Maxwell’s equations, 25, 27 Miscalculation, 241
McNamara’s Evil Lives On, 183 Misery, 112, 117, 119
Medical consequences of war, 209 Misplaced power, 256
Men’s choirs, 82 Missile defense system, 245
Mercenary soldiers, 79 Mistaken for a missile strike, 241
Merchants, 76 Modern communications, 322
Mesopotamia, 74, 155 Modern communications media, 299
Methane hydrate crystals, 148 Modern science, 74
Mexico, 154 Modern society, 74
Michael Klare, 153 Modern weapons, 299
Michelson, A.A., 25 Modernism, 245
Michelson-Morley experiment, 25 Mohammed, 278
Middle Ages, 315 Moral improvement, 107
Middle East, 76, 147 Moral responsibility surrendered, 200
Middle East proxy wars, 170 Moral restraint, 117, 118
Middle East water conflicts, 168 Morality, 79, 109
Might makes right, 213 Morally degrading, 299
Migrations, 67 Morals, 121
Mileva Einstein, 14 Morley, E.W., 25
Militant enthusiasm, 63, 64 Morphology, 55
Militarism, 30 Mortality, 114
Militarism’s hostages, 255, 260, 262 Moses, 74, 278
Militaristic government, 222 Mossadegh, 151
Militarization of governments, 154 Mujaheddin, 158
Military attack on Iran, 291 Multi-ethnic societies, 67, 277, 298
Military budgets, 146, 212 Multinational corporations, 213, 315
Military force, 155, 293 Multiracial society, 67
Military hardware, 153 Murder, 83, 151
Military mentality, 14 Murder justified in war?, 199
Military might, 213 Murder of policemen, 320
Military nuclear program, 291 Murderous attacks, 288
Military strength, 160 Murderous night-time raids, 258
Military threats to China, 263 Murdos Armistice, 155
Military-colonial methods, 155 Mustard gas, 155
Military-industrial complex, 146, 212, 256, Mutually Assured Destruction, 260
258, 260 Myth, 81
350 INDEX

Nagasaki, 63, 205, 219, 222, 227, 232, 261, Newton’s solar system, 107
308 Newtonian mechanics, 25, 27
Nanjing Massacre, 204 Niels Bohr, 14
Napoleon, 83, 200 Nixon, 193
Napoleon Bonaparte, 77, 81 Njal’s Saga, 277
Narcotics, 313 Nkrumah, Kwami, 160
Nation-state, 76, 79 No first use, 305
Nation-state an anachronism, 311 No one can win a tsunami, 220
Nation-states, 75, 76 Nobel Lecture by Beatrice Finn, 329
National cult, 82 Nobel Lecture by Setsuko Thurlow, 333
National identity, 77, 80, 83 Nobel Peace Prize, 293, 328
National origin, 287 Noble dead, 81
National pride, 245 Nomadic societies, 115
National Security Agency, 151 Non-Euclidean geometry, 28
National sovereignty, 312 Non-Proliferation, 290
National symbolism, 82 Non-Proliferation Treaty, 290
Nationalism, 63, 75, 76, 79, 81, 83 Normative value, 284, 288
Nationalism and religion, 71 North Africa, 147
Nationalism in England, 83 North Korea, 245, 290, 292, 302, 309
NATO, 303, 304 Norway, 115, 117
NATO illegal, 304 Norwegian Foreign Minister, 301
NATO violates no first use, 305 Not what we intended, 220
NATO’s NPT violations, 305 Novgorod, 315
NATO’s nuclear weapons, 305 NPT, 290
NATO’s Strategic Concept, 305 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 309
Natural laws, 107 Nuclear arms race, 207, 308
Natural selection, 65, 72, 132 Nuclear Ban Treaty, 295
Nazi Party, 71, 82 Nuclear black market, 243
Necessity, 121 Nuclear catastrophe, 214
Negation of humanitarian law, 307 Nuclear criminals, 231
Nelson, 83 Nuclear darkness, 244
Neocolonialism, 150, 160 Nuclear deterrence, flaws, 243
Nerve gas, 155 Nuclear disarmament, 246, 307
Netanyahu, Benjamin, 220, 235, 237 Nuclear environmental catastrophe, 215
Netherlands, 293 Nuclear genocide, 299
Neutral countries, 220, 239 Nuclear Mafia?, 232
New Agenda Resolution, 240 Nuclear nationalism, 231
New ethical principles, 277 Nuclear power generation, 291
New global ethic, 303 Nuclear power plant accidents, 214
New leaders, 208 Nuclear proliferation, 208
New York Times, 185 Nuclear sharing, 290, 305
Newspapers, 76 Nuclear terrorism, 231, 243, 245
Newton’s equations of motion, 27 Nuclear tests, 212
INDEX 351

Nuclear threat greater today, 208 Overpopulation, 300

Nuclear waste, 291 Overwrite ethical principles, 199
Nuclear wasteland, 234 Oxfam, 146, 294
Nuclear weapon states, 294, 307 Ozone layer, 216, 220, 244
Nuclear weapons, 33, 35
Nuclear weapons and terrorism, 208 Pacific ecosystems contaminated, 222
Nuclear weapons states, 308 Pacifism, 28
Nuclear winter, 215 Pack leader, 61
Nuclear winter and nuclear famine, 261 Pagan festivals, 81
Nuclear Zero lawsuit, 309 Pagan tradition, 81
Nuremberg Principles, 245, 286, 291 Pakistan, 76, 245, 290, 292, 302, 309
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, 208, 220, 231,
Oak leaves, 81, 82 235, 290
Oakwood Chapel, 107, 112 Palestinians, 210
Obama, Barak, 294 Pan-Slavic ambitions, 220
Obedience paramount, 199 Paragraph 2E, 307
Obstruction of justice, 320 Paranoia, 208
Ocean floors, 148 Paris Agreement, 262
Odd nucleon numbers, 227 Parish assistance, 120, 122
Oil and conflicts, 169 Parr, Samuel, 113
Oil companies, 154 Passions of mankind, 119, 121
Oil spills, 212 Pastoral societies, 117
Oil-hungry military, 153 Patriotism, 63, 72, 83
Old age, 288 Paul Ehrlich, 216
Oliver Twist, 122 Paul, James A., 153
Olympia Academy, 14 Paupers, 122
Omnicidal nuclear weapons, 246 Pawns in the power game, 260
Omnicidal war, 260 Payoffs, 151
Omnicide, 300 Peace education, 285
On-site sensors, 302 Peace Palace, 285
One nation one vote, 312 Peaceful nuclear technology, 290
Only 12% destroyed, 293 Peasant farmers, 142
Open letter to Putin and Biden, 267 Peierls, Rudolf, 227
Oppression, 107 Penal system, 107
Optimism, 105 Pentagon Papers, 185
Orwellian society, 75 Perfectibility, 109, 118
Osama bin Laden, 157 Periodic and genuine elections, 287
Oslo Conference, 301 Periodical misery, 118
Oslo Principles, 295 Permanently uninhabitable, 221
Ottawa Treaty, 293 Permian-Triassic extinction, 295
Otto Hahn, 33 Permission to marry, 117
Outside the law, 294 Perpetual war, 258
Overgrown Military Establishments, 256 Petrov, Stanislav, 261
352 INDEX

Pforzheim destroyed, 205 Poverty, 105, 109, 112, 114, 115, 120
Philanthropy, 107 Poverty and war, 212
Philippines, 73 Poverty-generating war, 211, 213
Photoelectric effect, 14 Power, 83
Pictographic writing, 74 Power over citizens, 282
Pitt, William, 121 Power struggles, 208
Planck’s quantum hypothesis, 25, 26 Power to impose taxes, 319
Planck, Max, 26 Power-drunk thinking, 262
Planned attack on Iran, 220 Powerful nations and oil, 153
Planned lifetimes exceeded, 233 Powers not expressly delegated, 315
Planning war of aggression, 304 Pre-industrial Europe, 142
Plantations, 160 Precious bodily fluids, 234
Plato, 74 Preemptive wars, 284
Plutonium, 223, 243 Prehistoric trading, 73
Poetry, 69 Prejudices, 118
Poison gas, 26, 71, 155, 156, 218, 312 President Truman, 207
Pol Pot, 193 Prestige of the UN, 285
Police action, 318 Preventable diseases, 209
Politeness, 277, 299 Preventive checks, 114, 115
Political action, 79 Price of grain, 120
Political chaos, 213 Priest, eunuch and tyrant, 121
Political cohesion, 76 Priestly, Joseph, 106
Political conflicts, 319 Priests, 82
Political institutions, 76 Primary health care, 213
Political Justice, 107, 113 Primitive state, 200
Political opinion, 287 Primitive tribes, 75
Political unity of France, 77 Principle of Equivalence, 27
Politicians tell him to kill, 200 Principle of Population, 114
Politics, 107 Principle of population, 118
Pollution, 285, 300 Principle of subsidiarity, 282, 312, 318
Poor families, 142 Printing, 76
Poor Laws, 120, 121 Privacy, 287
Poorest and least guilty, 312 Private banks, 153
Pope Francis I, 153 Private consulting companies, 151
Population, 105, 107, 112 Private judgement, 119
Population genetics, 65 Private life, 79
Population growth, 105, 112, 113, 118, 119 Privileged position, 213
Population pressure, 114, 117 Pro-American states, 155
Population stabilization, 285 Productivity, 141
Positive checks, 114 Progress, 109, 112
Post-Kantians, 79 Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 295, 302
Postures, 73 Prohibitively dangerous reactors, 228
Potentially serious conflicts, 284 Project for a New American Century, 262
INDEX 353

Proliferation risks, 221 Radium, 26, 33

Promiscuity, 118 Rank-determining fights, 62, 63
Propagandist drama, 83 Rational thought banished, 199
Propagation of genes, 72 Rationality, 32
Property, 107, 119 Rats feeding on corpses, 205
Protecting nature, 300 Reactors of modern design, 291
Protecting the environment, 318 Reason, 119, 121
Protecting whistleblowers, 301 Red button, 234
Protections for civilians, 290 Red Cross targeted, 204
Proxy wars in the Middle East, 170 Red shift, 28
Prudence, 119, 122 Reform Act of 1832, 127
Prussia, 77, 80 Reform of the UN, 311
Prussian army officers, 68 Reform of UN voting system, 312
Pseudospeciation, 68 Reform the World Bank, 321
Psychological conditioning, 200 Reformed voting system, 285, 321
Psychological effects of war, 209 Reforming the UN, 284
Psychological techniques, 81 Refugees, 210
Pu-239 generated in reactors, 227 Regime changes, 284
Public health, 208 Reign of Terror, 113
Public opinion, 319 Reinvestment, 160
Putin. Vladimir, 169 Relativity theory, 14
Religion, 68, 81, 287
Quantum hypothesis, 26 Religion and culture, 71
Quasi-automatic reaction, 237 Religion and ethnicity, 71
Quasi-religious attitude, 83 Religious bigotry, 111
Quasi-religious fervor, 81 Renewable energy, 169, 213
Quasi-religious worship, 83 Renunciation of war, 283
Replies to Malthus, 121
Race, 287 Reply to Parr, 113
Racial cleansing, 71 Reprocessing, 243
Racism, 294 Reprocessing fuel rods, 227
Radar, 241 Reproductive abnormalities, 308
Radiation sickness, 205, 214, 308 Republicanism, 79
Radical change, 121 Resolution 678, 156
Radioactive cloud, 222 Resource curse, 150, 213
Radioactive contamination, 147, 221, 308 Resource wars, 153, 168, 213
Radioactive fallout, 208, 212 Resource-extracting firms, 150, 213
Radioactive grass, 222 Resources of the sea bed, 319
Radioactive leaks at Hanford, 232 Respect for the environment, 299
Radioactive release kept secret, 233 Revelations of misconduct, 234
Radioactive wasteland, 232 Revenge, 83
Radioactivity, 26 Revenge and counter-revenge, 239, 245
Radionuclide sampling, 302 Reverential attitude, 83
354 INDEX

Revolution in nuclear nations, 231 Saddam Hussein, 155, 158

Ricardo, David, 127 Saddam Hussein’s atrocities, 71
Riga, 315 Safe drinking water, 213
Rigged elections, 151 Safe water, 209
Right to clean water, 288 Safety rules, 234
Right to form trade unions, 287 Sagatom Saha, 168
Right to life, 288 Saha, Sagatom, 168
Right to proper sanitation, 288 San Francisco, 283
Right to sustenance, 120 Sanctions, 312
Right to work, 287 Sanctions against Iraq, 157
Right-wing nationalism, 154 Sanctions are illegal, 264
Righteousness, 64 Sanctity of the family, 109
Rights of Man, 282 Sanitary water supply, 209
Rights of Mother Earth, 295 Sarin, 155
Rights of the Child, 288 Satellite photography, 302
Riot control agents, 292 Saudi Arabia, 154, 155
Risking human future, 147 Scandinavia, 75, 115
Ritual scarification, 68 Scandinavians, 115
Rituals, 69 Schrade, Herbert, 82
Robespierre, 105 Science, 105
Robock, A., 244 Scientific progress, 107
Roman Empire, 115 Scotland, 146
Romantic Movement, 76 Sea level rise, 148
Rome Treaty, 293 Sea of fire, 205
Rongelap, 308 Seabed, 148
Rookery, 106 Second Essay, 114
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 204 Second World War, 105
Rostock, 315 Secretary General, 321
Rotblat, Joseph, 302 Security, 318
Rotterdam devastated, 204 Security Council, 156, 284, 304
Round dance, 59 Self-defense, 284
Rousseau, Henry, 105 Self-destruction, 63
Rule of law, 299 Self-fulfillment, 107
Rumsfeld, Donald, 156 Self-interest, 141, 146
Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 35 Self-love, 119
Russia, 243, 309 Self-sacrifice in war, 72, 199
Russian Federation, 322 Self-sacrificing courage, 64
Rwandan genocide, 75 Selfish motives, 63, 64
Selfishness, 107, 119, 150
Sacred duty, 64, 83 Selfishness is exalted, 146
Sacred flame, 81, 82 Sellers, Peter, 234
Sacred space, 82 Senate, 316
Saddam attacks Iran, 155 Sense of responsibility, 199
INDEX 355

Senseless rituals, 199 Social goals, 146

Sensibility, 109 Social insects, 73
September 11 attacks, 157, 258 Social justice, 146
Servility, 107 Social origin, 287
Setsuko Thurlow, 328 Social unit enlarged, 74
Several hundred million deaths, 239 Societal verification, 302
Severe droughts, 216 Socrates, 74
Sex, 151 Softening ethnic boundaries, 71
Shadow over the future, 283 Solstice, 81
Shah of Iran, 151, 155 South Africa’s nuclear weapons, 231
Shamanism, 67 South America, 147
Shared knowledge, 74 Southern Asia, 73
Sharing, 150 Southey, Robert, 121
Sharp-shooters, 82 Sovereign states, 211
Sheep-dogs, 61 Sovereignty, 76
Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 121 Soviet atomic bomb, 207
Shi’ite regime, 155 Space-age science, 83
Shi’ites slaughtered, 157 Space-time continuum, 25
Shiver, 64 Space-time symmetry, 26, 27
Shrunken globe, 300, 301 Special interest groups, 146
Siberia, 67 Special relativity, 14, 25
Sickness, 288 Special-purpose federations, 315, 318
Siegfried Sassoon, 218 Specialization, 74
Sigmund Freud, 28 Species, 68
Sinister double meaning, 227 Speculative transactions, 319
Sixth Amendment, 282 Speed of light, 25, 26
Sixth Amendment violated, 282 Speedy public trial, 282
Sixth Nuremberg Principle, 304 Spinning machines, 142
Slaughter of civilians, 204 Stabilizing exchange rates, 284, 319
Slave trade prohibited, 287 Stabilizing population, 300
Slave-like politicians, 147 Stable family structure, 109
Slavery, 111 Stable future, 208
Slavery prohibited, 287 Stanislav Petrov, 261
Slavic majorities, 81 Starvation, 121, 129, 209, 210, 219
Smallpox, 292 State, 79, 80, 83
Smith, Adam, 141 State of the World, 285, 321
Smoking ruins, 142 State Secrets Act, 222
Snowden, Edward, 282 State-sponsored terror, 200
Social advancement, 283, 284 Steam engines, 142
Social classes, 119 Stirred-up Muslims, 158
Social cohesion, 67, 301, 322 Stockpiles of chemical weapons, 292
Social conscience, 150 Stone-age politics, 83, 292
Social disruption by war, 209 Stonehenge, 82
356 INDEX

Straits of Hormuz, 235 Terrorism risks, 221

Strengthening the UN, 284 Terrorism, nuclear, 243
Stronger bargaining power, 213 Textile mills, 142
Submission, 62 Thailand, 73
Subnational organizations, 231 The Guardian, 308
Subsidiarity, 282, 312, 318 The True Believer, 199
Subsidized nuclear power, 223 The Wealth of Nations, 141
Subsistence, 112, 118 Theologians, 77
Success of federations, 280 Thermonuclear reactions, 207
Suffering, 109 Thermonuclear war, 260, 295
Suffering caused by poverty, 213 Thermonuclear weapons, 63, 76, 170, 214,
Suffering caused by war, 213 311
Suicide, 144 Third World debt, 153
Suicide by soldiers, 199 Third world debt, 321
Superbombs, 207 Thought experiment, 27
Superstition, 118 Threat of nuclear war, 214
Supreme international crime, 287 Threat or use of force, 284, 304
Surrey, 107 Threats and costs of war, 208
Survival, 65, 112 Threats to civilization, 146
Sustainability, 146 Threats to the biosphere, 146
Swiss Federation, 316 Thurlow, Setsuko, 328
Swiss Patent Office, 14 Thusnelda, 83
Sykes-Picot Agreement, 155 Thyroid cancer, 222
Symbolism, 81 Tinbergen’s studies of instincts, 59
Syrian war, 168 Tinbergen, Nikolaas, 58
Systems of Equality, 118, 119 Titanic, 148
Szent-Györgyi, Albert, 75, 300, 301 Tobin Tax, 284, 319, 320
Tobin, James, 284, 319
Tabun, 155 Together we can do it, 299
Tactical nuclear weapons, 290 Tokyo firebombed, 205
Taiwan, 73 Tokyo, firebombing, 239
Tartar tribes, 115 Tolerance, 288
Tattoos, 69 Toon, O., 244
Tax-gatherer, 121 Torture, 287
Team-spirit, 63 Total destruction of Hamburg, 204
Teams of inspectors, 292 Totalitarianism, 80
Technical defects, 241 Toxin weapons, 291
Technology, 76, 83, 105, 300 Traces of thermite in 9/11 ruins, 258
Temperature inversion, 216 Trade, 76
Tenant farmers, 142 Traditional duties, 142
Tensor analysis, 28 Traditional rights, 142
Tenth Amendment, 282 Tragically self-contradictory, 221
Terrorism, 204 Training of soldiers, 199, 287
INDEX 357

Transparent skin, 308 United Kingdom, 309

Transportation, 76 United Nations Charter, 211, 245, 283, 284,
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 290, 303, 312, 317
327, 335 United Nations reform, 311
Trench warfare, 63, 218 United States, 67, 160, 243, 309, 322
Tribal identity, 75 United States Constitution, 280
Tribal instincts, 77 Unity of all mankind, 299
Tribal markings, 67, 68, 75 Universal Declaration, 288
Tribal religions, 74 Universal education, 119
Tribalism, 63–65, 72, 74, 75, 79, 200 Universal human brotherhood, 71
Tribes, 67, 83 Universal Postal Union, 315
Triggered by a madman, 235 Universality of religion, 71
Triggered by error, 237 Unknowing human guinea pigs, 234
Tropical diseases, 285 Unlimited growth, 300
Tropical regions uninhabitable, 148 Unreasonable searches, 282
Truth, 75 Unsanitary housing, 115
TTAPS Study, 215 Unspeakable suffering, 283
Turco, R., 244 Uranium, 26, 33
Twentieth century, 105 Uranium-235, 214
Two faces of Janus, 75 Urinating on Afghan corpses, 258
Two trillion dollars yearly for arms, 255 US backed coup, 155
US Bill of Rights, 280, 282, 316
U-235, 223 US Federal Constitution, 280
Ukraine, 147, 153 US sanctions target Iraq’s water system, 164
Ultimate evil, 308 USSR’s civilian deaths, 219
Ultracentrifuges, 227, 291 Utility, 121
UN agencies, 285 Utopian societies, 118
UN General Assembly, 239, 240, 284, 286,
294, 299, 321 Vaccination, 292
UN Secretary General, 284, 285 Vaccinations prevented, 157
UN television channel, 285, 321 Value systems, 69
Unalienable rights, 283 Van Gogh, Vincent, 144
Unauthorized act, 243 Vanunu, Mordechai, 321
Unbiased news programs, 285 Variations of instincts, 57
Undemocratic government, 150 Vast river of money, 146
Understanding, 288 Veils, 69
Unemployment, 288 Venezuela, 154
Unenriched uranium, 214 Verification, 292, 302
Unequal distribution of incomes, 160 Versailles, 77
UNESCO, 284, 319, 321 Vice, 107, 109, 111, 112, 117, 119
Unfair agreements, 213 Victorious allies, 283
Uniform rules, 318 Vietnam, 73, 212
Uniforms, 82 Vietnam War, 183
358 INDEX

Vikings, 75 Weapons of mass destruction, 63

Violation of international law, 303 Weapons systems and oil, 153
Violations of Article VI, 308 Weapons-usable plutonium, 232
Violations of the NPT, 290 Weaving machines, 142
Violence, 30, 62, 83 Wellington, 83
Violence on television, 63 West’s thirst for oil, 155
Violent competition over resources, 168 What is ICAN?, 327
Violent death, 210 What is law?, 277
Violent team sports, 63 Wheeler, John A., 227
Vladimir Putin, 169 Whistleblowers, 282, 301, 302, 321
Volume of money involved, 285 WHO, 319, 321
Von Sponeck, Hans Christof, 303, 304 Why War?, 28
Voting must be secret, 287 Widespread general war, 235
Widowhood, 288
Waggle dance of bees, 58 Wilfred Owen, 218
Wallace, Alfred Russell, 132 Will, 80, 92, 121
Wallace, Robert, 105 Will of the people, 287
War, 83, 111, 114, 115, 117 Willingness to kill, 72
War as an economic institution, 255 Wilson, E.O., 65, 72
War crimes, 287, 290, 293 Wiretappers, 75
War is madness, 255 Wishful thinking, 288
War of subjugation, 81 Wives of Belgian miners, 144
War on Terror, 258 Wolfowitz Doctrine, 262
War to end wars, 283 Wolves, 61
War, unbridled, 83 Women and children, 204, 205
War-addicted economy, 146 Workhouses, 122
War-free world, 301 World arms spending, 209
Wars block development, 213 World Federalism, 311, 320
Wars of religion, 71 World Health Organization, 209, 284, 292,
Wartime prisoners, 290 319
Washington, George, 256 World Trade Center, 157, 232, 245
Wasserman, Harvey, 222 World War I, 155, 204, 219, 221, 283
Water conflicts in the Middle East, 168 World War II, 204, 211, 215, 219, 290
Water purification facilities, 211 World War III, 72, 235, 291
Water system attacked during Gulf War, 164 World Wars, 76
Waterbourne diseases, 212 World without nuclear weapons, 311
Wave of oil, 155 World-destroying war, 220, 221
Wave theory of light, 25 Worldwide communication, 277
Weakness of confederations, 280, 284 Worse than wasted, 213
Wealth and poverty, 298 Worship of free market, 150
Wealthy countries, 213 Wounded, 290
Wealthy families, 151 WWII damages Soviet’s dams, 163
Weapons destabilize regions, 213 Wynner, Edith, 320
INDEX 359

Yokohama firebombed, 205

Yugoslavia, 292

Zürich Polytechnic Institute, 14

Zbigniew Bryzinski, 158
Zionism, 71