August 6 marks the anniversary of the US bombing of Hiroshima – which makes it a day to consider power and vulnerability. Johnathan Schell, writing in Yes Magazine, reflects that, "During the Cold War, the principal objection in the United States to a nuclear-weapon-free world was that you could not get there." That objection melted away with the Soviet Union and then the arguments became that because nuclear weapons could not be disinvented, a world free of nukes is "at worst a mirage, at best, highly dangerous"

History shows the opposite, points out Schell. Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan: while the arms race imperils the planet, nuclear weapons haven't helped their possessors vanquish even tiny non-nuclear adversaries.

"If the nuclear powers wish to be safe from nuclear weapons," writes Schelll. "They must surrender their own. Then we will all work together to assure that everyone abides by the commitment."

Schell's meditation on nuclear weapons reminds me of the discussion on today's GRITtv.org about racial politics. For decades, the argument against racial equality was that people of different races were scientifically different. And then it became, if not different, then nonetheless dangerous. That's the well-wired button John McCain's pressing with his latest ads about an Obama-choice being "risky." "Is he ready?" It's all about fear: if you elect a black president, who knows what will happen to you and the world as you know it.

I bet the answer to racial fear-mongering's the same as it is to nuclear madness. In this dangerous election year it's truer than ever: If people with racial power want not to live in fear, they better surrender their racial privilege for their own sake, and the future for the planet.

Comments (30)

1. "Then we will all work together to assure that everyone abides by the commitment." Johnathan Schell

   Good grief. Visions of sugar plums...

   Posted by Benchrest at 08/06/2008 @ 3:22pm

2. Not sure I see a direct correllation to race-baiting and nuclear weapons, Ms Flanders.

   Frankly, my objection during the Cold War to TOTAL (or even substantial reduction)) nuclear disarmament talk was that the proponents were more interested in getting a treaty signed...than making it verifible and equitable.

   With the revelations AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union that they had violated the Biological Weapons Treaty (still operating weaponizing labs in Siberia throughout the 70s and 80s)...I'd say those objections were justified.

   Second...

   "If people with racial power want not to live in fear, they better surrender their racial privilege for their own sake, and the future for the planet."

   Are you suggesting that we (as white people) MUST vote in Obama, simply because he's black and in doing so it will "lessen our racial power and make us less afraid of black people"?!?!?!?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/06/2008 @ 3:24pm

3. Obama-choice being "risky." "Is he ready?" It's all about fear: if you elect a black president, who knows what will happen to you and the world as you know it.

   We bit of a leap here. I don't think that's the purpose of it. I think he is talking about his experience, not his race.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/06/2008 @ 4:54pm

4. FrankGrits-Is it possible for you to write a post where you do not include your childish tantrum?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/06/2008 @ 5:48pm

5. I never really understood this white racial fear.

   Fear of what? What is one to be afraid of?

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/06/2008 @ 8:13pm

6. "History shows the opposite, points out Schell. Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan: while the arms race imperils the planet, nuclear weapons haven't helped their possessors vanquish even tiny non-nuclear adversaries."

   All of the above points are very good. "Well said" to all of you. I'll throw my two cents in with the silly arms race comment.

   Ms. Flanders, you're right. Our nuclear arsenal has not protected us from tiny groups of infringents like the billionaires who attacked on 9/11. However, I dare say the arsenal has protected us from plenty of much larger thugs of the world. The kind of thugs armed, themselves, with armies who'd attack us in a skinny minute if they felt we were defenseless. This kind of talk is so incredibly airy and meaningless it barely reaches the level of ignorance, much less that worthy of an honorable reply. Consider for a moment, Ms. Flanders, an America without nuclear weapons. Now, what do you suppose China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran would do? Do you think they'd embrace us and say "I love you, man"?

   You know, don't answer. I don't even think I want to go there with you.

   Posted by Person at 08/06/2008 @ 8:37pm

7. I think this is one of the first times I've been compelled to completely agree with the end conclusion of a Nation article (though not really the analogy; I'll get to that). Is it just me or is the message just "racism=bad"? Because if it is (and it seems to be), well....yes? Bad things are bad?

   As for the nuclear analogy, it seems to rely on some pretty sketchy argumentation. It's worth noting that even Schell concedes the validity of nuclear deterrence in the context of the Cold War. The only question, then, is whether nuclear weapons have a role now.

   First, on enforcement. If anything, enforcement may be harder now than it is then. Having so many different countries of various sizes (such as ex-Soviet republics, etc.), along with free-floating ex-Soviet nukes makes it incredibly difficult to actually enforce any kind of nuclear arms ban. Unless Schell believes that all nuclear arms can be completely removed, enforcement is a pretty serious problem because having one state possess them and all others not creates a pretty hideous power disparity. It also, by the way, encourages the development (and possibly use) of more insidious chemical and biological weapons, which is the last incentive we should want to create.

   Second, Schell attacks a poor strawman of the deterrence argument. It's not that nukes help the US in dealing with non-nuclear countries; it's that the possession of nuclear weapons by one country can deter nuclear use by another and can also deter a total war with conventional forces.

   Posted by Thrawn at 08/06/2008 @ 9:47pm

8. Sidenote: Ms. Flanders, in your understanding, what does "surrendering white racial privilege" actually entail? This is somewhat vague and can be interpreted in a number of different ways, so some clarification would definitely be appreciated.

   Posted by Thrawn at 08/06/2008 @ 9:49pm

9. Many years ago Albert Einstein in a magazine article spoke of overcoming Thorsten Veblen's "predatory phase" of human development. In a discussion with a man he described as intelligent, he remarked that another war (nukes existed) would endanger the existence of mankind & the man responded, "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

   In other words, exploitation, racism & empire forever. Or be damned.

   Posted by Sorelish at 08/06/2008 @ 10:14pm

10. Second, Schell attacks a poor strawman of the deterrence argument. It's not that nukes help the US in dealing with non-nuclear countries; it's that the possession of nuclear weapons by one country can deter nuclear use by another and can also deter a total war with conventional forces.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/06/2008 @ 9:47pm

    hence iran's scurrying.

    they've got two newclear powers saying "you is bad".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:25pm

11. "Sidenote: Ms. Flanders, in your understanding, what does "surrendering white racial privilege" actually entail? This is somewhat vague and can be interpreted in a number of different ways, so some clarification would definitely be appreciated.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/06/2008 @ 9:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person"

    Now that right there, my good buddy, is a good point. One that I, myself, would like to have answered.

    Posted by Person at 08/06/2008 @ 10:25pm

12. humans sure is dumb!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:26pm

13. real dumb.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:27pm

14. Efficiency and progress is ours once more, now that we have the Neutron bomb It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done. Away with excess enemy. But no less value to property. No sense in war but perfect sense at home--

    The sun beams down on a brand new day No more welfare tax t' pay Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light. Jobless millions whisked away. At last we have more room to play. All systems go to kill the poor tonight.

    Gonna Kill kill kill kill kill the poor. kill kill kill Kill kill the poor kill kill kill Kill kill the poor…Tonight

    Dead Kennedys

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:28pm

15. thrawn (thrôn)

    adj. Chiefly Scots

    1. Crooked or twisted; misshapen.

    2. Perverse; contrary.

    <<<<<>>>>>

    ha! ha!

    just kidding, dude. keep typing.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:30pm

16. "That's the well-wired button John McCain's pressing with his latest ads about an Obama-choice being "risky." "Is he ready?" It's all about fear: if you elect a black president, who knows what will happen to you and the world as you know it."

    Whether it's her occasionals posts or watching her daily show an aversion to truth and facts, Ms Flanders never fails to demonstrate that intelligence doesn't guarantee an ability to form rational judgments or conclusions.

    Hence, I find myself in rare agreement with both Mask and CCC that it is quite a stretch to somehow equate the legitimate question of Obama's qualifications (as did his Democratic rivals) as somehow being purely racist.

    Question Ms Flanders. Are those African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics who also question his qualifications purely racist?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/06/2008 @ 10:45pm

17. well, cut and run it is!

    Baghdad: According to a memorandum of understanding to be signed by the two parties after a summary of results is presented to political leaders, Baghdad and Washington have set a time limit for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq during the years 2010 and 2011, subject to change according to circumstances. In addition, Al-Sabaah has learned of an important meeting held this morning by several National Assembly bloc leaders, during which a decision was made to hold a vote on a new provincial election law in the event a comprehensive agreement could be reached. Otherwise the vote will be postponed, perhaps until the next legislative term.

    Well-informed sources told Al-Sabaah: "the two teams of experts - American and Iraqi - will present a summary of their discussions to political leaders of their respective countries over the next few days, stressing that, "negotiations are continuing between the two parties and are near a conclusion, which may permit the rapid signing of the Status of Forces Agreement [SOFA]."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:51pm

18. "The Roman model suggests that it is possible for the United States to maintain its military advantage for centuries if it remains capable of transforming its forces before an opponent can develop counter-capabilities. Transformation coupled with strong strategic institutions is a powerful combination for an adversary to overcome."

    office of the secretary of defence for net assessment, the pentagon.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:58pm

19. <i>Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:58pm </i>

    This is, to put it mildly, a bit disturbing; it seems like historically, hubris has been one of the most destructive elements of a nation.

    <i>Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:30pm </i>

    What, no Googling?

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/06/2008 @ 11:15pm

20. thrawnster, have a read:

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2057689/posts

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:26am

21. ha! ha!

    motherjones got the document through FOIA. they got the scoopage.

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/20 08/07/military-advantage-in-history.pdf

    we got romans, macedonians, mongols, bonapartians,

    and through the magic of modelling at booz allen hamilton,

    and the kind folks in the INFORMATION ASSURANCE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS CENTER of the DOD,

    the u.s.ians...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:31am

22. just moogling.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:31am

23. The way I interpret Ms. Flanders' warning admonishing white people in the US, is to vastly accelerate the melting pot, in a direct, biological fashion...

    <<<<<>>>>>

    woo hoo!

    i can help with that one!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:32am

24. oops,

    already have.

    ¡happy! everyone's a hybrid, for chissake.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:33am

25. The end game is ALL Americans of exactly the same color: a mildly Pink.

    <<<<<>>>>>

    nonsense.

    there will be millions and millions and millions of colours.

    just like there are now!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:34am

26. Given her communistic tendencies,

    {{{{}}}} blacklist 'er!! to the plank!!!

    I'm sure she would be HAPPY w/some national policy,

    {{{{}}}} are you really sure?

    in the mode of China's one-child rule,

    {{{{}}}} we've had one because we love you, too.

    that mandates no one can marry another of the same race....

    {{{{}}}} i did that voluntarily. yum.

    and their children, won't be allowed to marry another of the same `mix'.....

    {{{{}}}} damn! no more incest.

    and just like that, our racial problem definitively solved,

    {{{{}}}} if only they'd all go home. right, chief squawking crow feather?

    in about the same amount of time as the failure that was the Great Society!

    {{{{}}}} you break it, it's yours.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:39am

27. "The end game is ALL Americans of exactly the same color: a mildly Pink. Given her communistic tendencies, I'm sure she would be HAPPY w/some national policy, in the mode of China's one-child rule, that mandates no one can marry another of the same race....and their children, won't be allowed to marry another of the same `mix'.....and just like that, our racial problem definitively solved, in about the same amount of time as the failure that was the Great Society!"

    The Great Society worked in many ways, but in one way it failed was the fear among many white folks that they might actually lose some power and privilege if they started not just believing in, but acting in ways that supported equality and justice and all those other words flag suckers like to spout as they self-righteously beat their breasts.

    Posted by onthehelm at 08/07/2008 @ 01:57am

28. It's hard to refute the basic premise of the McCain campaign that voting for a president is inherently risky. Look at what we got with Bush. The real question is which is riskier, McCain or Obama?

    Posted by robcook1965 at 08/07/2008 @ 07:38am

29. Barak is neither "black", nor "white", he is both, which in time all will be.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2008 @ 07:43am

30. So liberals would have to marry conservatives and vice versa? Haha, talk about a new meaning for bipartisanship :D

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/08/2008 @ 02:25am