War and Peace – Is a Genuine Survival Ethic Possible?

October 1981
Lakeland

Updated and revised from October 15, 1967, Plainfield

“Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing?” That was the protest of the good Bishop in LES MISERABLES after his visit with a man condemned to death. But I guess that’s one of the differences between fact and fiction – even great fiction. In fact, men have always pre-empted the right to assign their fellows to death. War is the most terrifying and formidable of the ways men and women of the human family willingly, even eagerly, accept death in war as necessary to accomplish goals labeled patriotic, or named as the war to end wars, or because it is God’s will.

War and Peace? Is a genuine survival ethic possible? In attempting to wrestle with the question, inevitably there is repeated the old cliché that there always have been wars, there always will be. In all candor, most people in this nation seem to support the current escalation of money and the use of most of our technical and scientific talent for war preparation, the current euphemism for which is to “close the window of vulnerability.” What is presently projected for the next few years is 1½ trillion dollars! That enormous sum beggars our imagination. But the consequence seems inevitable. There can be no steady, substantial gains in housing, productive employment, new sources of energy, nutrition, medicine and health under any economic system when our treasure and talent is so hugely channeled to prepare for a war, the outcome of which most probably will be the extermination of life on this planet.

Two weeks ago I raised questions about violence on our streets and in our homes – one possibility was not mentioned. Since then, I came across these sentences written by a Jesuit priest, Richard McSorley:

“The taproot of violence in our society today is our intention to use nuclear weapons. Once we have agreed to that, all other evil is minor in comparison.” That statement is not demonstrated social theory, but an intuition, and I have a hunch there is more depth to such an intuition that we might easily concede.

Richard Watt (Christian Century, 4/8/81), who has been co-ordinating a pilot project in a peacemaking ministry in Northeast Ohio, writes, “The starting point for peace education is consciousness-raising, for most church people, like American citizens generally, are simply unaware of the awesome nuclear mathematics and of the strategic doctrines that make nuclear war unthinkable. Nonetheless, people are remarkably open to the message that the arms race must be slowed, stopped, and reversed, and that the time to begin is now. If, as we are told, some 75% of the populace supports increased military spending, I argue that this is a very fragile consensus responding to very limited information. Let the people learn a few basic facts:

that a single Poseidon submarine can destroy every large and medium sized city in the Soviet Union (and we have 41 Polaris and Poseidon submarines);

that a mere 400 to 500 nuclear bombs could destroy two-thirds of the Soviet Union’s industry and 40 million of its people; we possess some 11,000 strategic nuclear bombs;

that from 1971 to 1977 the U.S. sold $56 billion worth of arms, three times the total of the preceding 20 years, and that over 70% went to developing nations;

that in the mid-70s, the Shah of Iran was our number one customer for arms, spending nearly a third of Iran’s gross national product on the military by ‘75-’76;

that if one handed the Pentagon a $1,000 bill every hour of every day, it would take over 200,000 years to hand over what we will spend on the military during the 1980s.

And Richard Watt wrote that prior to the recent mammoth increase for B1 bombers, MX missiles, and hardened silos.

War has always been cruel. 2500 years ago, the Hebrew farmer killed by a sword-thrust by the Assyrian invader who swept down like a wolf on the fold, was just as dead as the Japanese children incinerated at Nagasaki. Atomic deaths are quicker, perhaps. But we must remember that any geographically-confined war, such as such as Iran and Iraq, or Afghanistan and the Soviets, can spread. Destruction can become global. Lives not destroyed by the fusion blast or radiation may die from germ or chemical weapons. At stake are not just armies, navies, and air forces, but the planet itself. The powers of the world have available the forces of fire and fever to destroy people and planet and possibly every living organism.

I’m not sure that listing the potential terror items stir us to change our ways of thinking and behaving about war. But Abraham Maslow reminded, “To be untroubled when one should be troubled can be a sign of sickness. Sometimes smug people have to be scared into their wits.” (p. 196, TOWARD A PSYCHOLOGY OF BEING)

What is a genuine survival ethic? This is not a time to discuss ethical theories. Therefore, a terse definition: by a survival ethic, I mean one that will provide a political, economic, and communications climate in the world which will prevent the exchange of missiles, fire, and poison on a scale that will destroy the peoples of the world. By genuine, I mean an ethic which does not require that any nation or culture be deprived of the values it cherishes and believes necessary. In our country, for example, no genuine survival ethic would provide for the end of our individual liberties and civil rights. No 1984, “Big Brother” overrule could constitute a tolerable survival ethic for us. But we must not assume that our choices must also be adopted by other nations. Some nations will, as some have, choose varieties of communism. Other systems will evolve which will not fit into the political/economic definitions of today.

A genuine survival ethic for our world will tolerate many choices in the framework of world peace through world law. Our ability to reason must be applied to problems; we must open our feelings to the pain of people’s needs everywhere; and we must never stop re-evaluating ongoing efforts in the light of experience and consequences.

This is not to say that we should be naïve in this world where the struggles for power will continue – a contest to win markets, regional, or continental influence; where opposing ideologies are reluctant to make concessions that might be interpreted as weakness; where the grim contests between the have and have-not nations will increasingly add to the dilemmas of who gets what, how, and when. Realism dictates that governments are seldom if ever generous much beyond their own self interests.

Sidney Harris wrote in a recent column,

“While it is true that those who take a hopeful view of matters often accomplish more than those who take a dismal view, it is equally true that optimism can betray us into more follies than pessimism can.

“What is rare and valuable in any person is a combination of these two attitudes, which might be summed up in the Old West maxim, ‘Trust everybody and cut the cards.’

“If you are going to trust everybody without cutting the cards, you are going to be badly cheated sooner or later; contrariwise, if you trust nobody you are going to deprive yourself of more opportunities than you will avert losses.”

In such a stance of cautious effort, there are at least two areas of information/communication where we can be more alert to what is happening, otherwise we may find ourselves so far down the road to global war that there can be no turning back. We must penetrate the jargon, and [we must] understand the forces that are a hazard to world peace.

Abraham Lincoln’s philosophy has been summarized, “In any great public crisis, find the truth and put it into plain words before the people. Then give them time and they will vindicate you.” When obscure phrases and terms are used which fail to indicate the devastating nature of military proposals, then there is need for each of us to translate into plain words in order to test proposals with clearer reason and deeper feeling. There is a need to penetrate the jargon of the military establishments (see UNESCO COURIER, Aug-Sept 67).

Examples: the atomic bomb which destroyed Hiroshima has been called a “nominal bomb.” Somehow the impression is given that nominal is minimum or almost a light touch of explosive. But Hiroshima was hit by a bomb with the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT. The military describes this as a 20 kiloton bomb – and the dimension of 20,000 tons of TNT seems to have become blurred.

This also becomes obscure when talking about megaton bombs. The first test H-bomb we set off at Bikini atoll was 15 megatons. The U.S.S.R.'s H-bomb (1961) was 60 megatons. Megaton sounds scientific and technical, but a megaton is the equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT. When one comprehends that our experimental bomb at Bikini atoll was a force of 15 million tons of TNT and the Russian-tested H-bomb was the equivalent of 60 million tons of TNT; and contrast that with the history that the Allies dropped a total of only 1.2 million tons of explosives during the 6 years of war and destroyed cities, industries, population and railway systems. Today there would be no place on any continent to hide when the great powers exchange their nuclear missiles on some future doomsday.

We need to penetrate the jargon in other instances:

Much is said of “tactical battlefield atomic weapons.” But the most of those are as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb, and romantic names such as the Davy Crockett should not lead us into overlooking their power to destroy persons in wide areas, not just gain tactical advantages in wars limited to soldiers.

When one reads military staff talk about “counter force strategy,” does one always understand that this means the destruction of enemy cities and the eradication of populations?

Or that “counter-value strategy” is the policy of “directing strategic nuclear attack not on military targets but on centers of population and industry?”

Or that “bonus kills” refers to those who die as a result of radiation poisoning from fall-out as compared to those who are immediately killed by blast and firestorm?

One megadeath is the death of a million people; megacorpse, one million dead bodies; “overkill,” the power to destroy the entire population of any enemy country more than once.

The neutron bomb has been given the go-ahead by our President and his advisers. “Neutron” somehow seems a harmless word. Of course neutron is a term in atomic physics – but also, somehow, it doesn’t sound so terrible – neutron hints of neutral or a neutered cat which no longer is potent.

But even though the blast impact of a “neutron” bomb may be less than a Titan missile, the deadly, spreading radiation will not be, cannot be limited by the boundaries of a battlefield in East Germany or Poland.

We need to understand the jargon.

Secondly, we must try to understand the forces, deliberate and unwitting which combine to continue the enormous build-up of military power and consequently, reducing to a trickle, comparatively, available resources for great needs on the civilian domestic scene.

When President Eisenhower delivered his last speech as President, January 17, 1961, this General-President whose entire career (other than a brief term as President of Columbia University) was in the military, warned against a new development in American political life which never before had existed to such a degree. He identified it as the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry ... the total influence is felt in every statehouse, every office of the federal government.” He further said, “only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can so manage this complex that security and liberty may prosper together.”

By and large we have not been alert and knowledgeable as Eisenhower advised.

In 1963, then-President Kennedy remarked that defense, space or atomic activities absorbed about 2/3rds of the trained people for exploring our scientific and technical frontiers.

Eighteen years later the war budget has ballooned – what is it annually, $142 billion? $170 billion? The military-industrial complex has increased its strength and power over both the political and economic nature of our nation.

The conversion of jobs to peaceful products and services has never been planned seriously. Yet this is an issue that cannot be avoided permanently. But it has been avoided since World War II.

It is in these such circumstances – the difficult jargon and the forces we fail to understand completely (and there are many such forces) – that there must be progress to world peace through world law and treaty. One may argue with various plans; or criticize harshly the United Nations. But the UN has not been trusted with machinery to stop disputes before they explode – machinery for negotiations, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement and more use and sanction of the World Court. But plainly needed is much more trust by the large nations in such an international peace-keeping process – or a better one if it can be planned and used.

There is a story of the wars between the Royalists and the Cromwell Puritans in 17th century England. A Royalist general before fighting at the battle of Edgehill prayed this way, “O Lord thou knowest how busy I shall be this day; if I forget thee, do not forget me. March on, boys.” This is rather typical – not only in prayer but in reference to such organizations as the U.N. “If I forget thee, do not forget me.” Well, a world of peace through law won’t work if we expect it to remember us while we forget the responsibility to take the hopeful risks of peace rather than the fatal chances of war.

Some of us remember the growth of totalitarianism in the 20s and 30s. The dictators ruled by force through obedient military establishments whose responsibility it was to carry out orders, regardless of what those orders might be. This was shown clearly in the Nuremberg trials. But the dictators acquired and held power because they had the explicit support or the silent acquiescence of the largest segment of people – the middle and upper classes, people like ourselves, by and large.

We, too, will be silent or acquiescent unless attitudes change. There can be no growing influence of public opinion for peace unless public opinion exerts its force. How [can we] change attitudes? There are many ways. But I would like to speak of just one attitude change which would help build a world of law, not war – we to accept and communicate an expanded idea of patriotism.

Patriotism is attributed to the Armed Forces, the Marine, the Air Force pilot, the men and women in uniform, volunteers and draftees alike, who carry out orders in the face of danger, suffering wounds, imprisonment, death, to fulfill volunteer or imposed obligation to the country in time of war. Nathan Hale, courageously going to the gallows, John Paul Jones, Andrew Jackson, U.S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Sgt. Alvin York, the millions of unsung men and women – those awarded medals of honor and Purple Hearts – these have been called the patriots and rightly so. Honor to them.

Patriotism is also more loosely used to designate those in organizations hewing to the military line and criticizing all varieties of dissenters. “My country right or wrong, right or wrong my country.”

But the definition should be wider, not only those who die in war, but also those who work for peace are patriots too. The values we prize, the very existence of human life in our world now depends more on peacemakers than it does those overaged politicians who plan the deployment of our young warriors. Jean Giraudoux, in his play “Tiger at the Gates,” has Andromache (Hector’s wife) say to Demokos, the passionate nationalist, “But which is the worse cowardice? To appear cowardly to others, and make sure of peace? Or to be cowardly in your own eyes, and lose a war?”

Demokos answers, “Cowardice is not to prefer death on every hand, rather than the death of one’s own native land.”

The warrior’s wife replies, “Everyone dies for his country. If you lived in it well and wisely and actively, you die for it too.”

How can we fail to recognize in this age where instantaneous death for most of the world is the wired button near the finger of the Chief Executive of at least two nations, each hostile to the other? Can we perceive that patriotism is keeping the peace as well as struggling valiantly in war? Such is an attitude change which would move us toward growing insistence on a world governed by law with rights guaranteed.

In the October 15th issue of The Washington Spectator, [there] appears a news item that I did not see in our newspaper. Near Amarillo, TX, is a place where nuclear weapons are put together.

This summer, Catholic Bishop ... asked the 2400 employees of Pantex [quote...]. Who is the patriot?

Historian Sir Arthur Bryant wrote of the Celtic pioneer-freeman of Britain before the Norman invasion, “He was wont to speak his mind out freely in the court of the village or shire – for among this simple people, the man who spoke the truth fearlessly was as honored as the man who fought bravely.” (MEDIEVAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, p. 18).

I have tried to say that a genuine ethic of survival in this world where war can demolish and exterminate everything living requires:

that we must be critical of jargon which blurs the horrible realities of war;

that we must understand the forces that by definition need a constantly intensifying war machine;

that we must give increasing sanction to world peace through world law, with a strengthened U.N. as the most obvious and available instrument through which the process can move;

that before this can happen in any substantial degree, public opinion must gather much more strongly in favor of replacing war with law through international peace-keeping.

Is this dreaming the impossible dream? I don’t know. But when gloom is heavy upon me, when I consider the insensibility of so many to the horror of war and the beauty of peace, there are times I pick up a paper with some words written by a friend of mine, who for many years has dreamed that impossible dream. He too became discouraged often, but also he wrote:

“There are no ‘great men.’ Those of the ‘great men’ whom I have observed directly were just men into whom the people, the mass of people, had poured their dreams. Some of these men were big enough to shoulder their load of dreams and become ‘great’ and some have been so small that there was no discernible relation between the true man and the public image of the man.

“But whether the man was ‘great’ or a pygmy, hidden behind an image of greatness, the thing that really made for “greatness” was the great dream that people dared to dream. When millions of people dared to hold the faith that people need not starve in the midst of plenty, great new leaders appeared and the depression was licked. When millions and millions of people dared to abide by the faith that a ‘master race’ was a myth, a false god, then great leaders emerged and Hitler crawled into his bunker.

“And if we look to great men to save us, we are lost. But when you and I, many of us, each of us, stand up and say out loud, ‘War in an atomic age is suicide,’ then from somewhere as has always happened and always will happen, a great leader will appear.

“There are no great men. But great men (and women) always appear when the people dare to dream great dreams. It is the little people who dream and will not stop dreaming who are the heroic men and women.”