LIVING UNDER THE NUCLEAR THREAT
Ethics in a State of Emergency
We are in a state of emergency. The global security situation is alarming. The stakes are as high
as can be. Our reactions are maladaptive and inappropriate to the threat we face. We are challenged
to be exquisitely conscious and courageous in facing difficult realities. According to professional
ethical standards of psycholotherapists, we are required to call attention to threats to life and demand
intervention. We cannot remain silent or neutral. Silence, and so-called neutrality in the face of danger
is a form of collusion with the forces of destruction. We each have an ethical responsibility to do
everything in our power, from whatever position we are in, to avert a catastrophe.
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain
their neutrality."
Dante, quoted by President Kennedy.
Beyond Psychology
Living under the nuclear threat impacts our psyches. Becoming conscious of how we are affected is a
first step. Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton states that nuclear weapons are beyond psychology. They alter
our relationship to life and death, impair "our capacity to confront the bomb" and "our ability to confront
issues vital to our survival." We have a limited capacity to “imagine the real.”
"The presence of these mass-killing devices in the world, creates staggering new problems for us and at
the same time distorts our thinking and blunts our feeling about precisely these problems."
Robert Jay Lifton
Psychic Numbing
Lifton coined the term, “psychic numbing”, “a form of desensitization … an incapacity to feel or confront
certain kinds of experience, due to the blocking or absence of inner forms or imagery that can connect with
such experience.” If one is in a horrific inescapable situation,psychic numbing is a protective survival
mechanism. But in a situation that one can change, psychic numbing is maladaptive and threatens survival
.
Denial
The dictionary defines denial as “ disavowal of the truth …an attempt to disavow the existence of
unpleasant reality.” People feel overwhelmed and helpless in the face of massive threats. Denial is an
attempt to avoid despair, while increasing the basis for despair. Denial is an attempt to avoid knowledge
and the responsibility that knowledge demands.
Colluding with Danger
Our state of collective denial, ignorance, psychic numbing, and silence allows danger to escalate.
As in the beginnings of the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Balkan massacres, the post-election
massacre in East Timor, warnings, cries for help and attempts to raise awareness and intervene were
denied, ignored and dismissed. All could have been prevented.
A shift in consciousness is required to prevent global catastrophe.
IRRATIONAL THINKING AND COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS
Conventialization
We apply old concepts, logic, and strategies of conventional weapons to nuclear weapons.
Peter Weiss, President of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy elaborates that “… the latest Nuclear
Posture Review is making nukes ‘just another weapon in our arsenal’, thereby extinguishing the line between
‘conventional’ weapons and sui generis nuclear weapons.” It is like treating cancer with antibiotics
while ignoring effective treatments and prevention.
Nuclearism
“Nuclearism” defined by Lifton, is “the psychological, political, and military dependence on nuclear
weapons, the embrace of weapons as a solution to a wide variety of human dilemmas, most ironically that
of “security.” Nuclearism, or nuclear fundamentalism is an extension of military fundamentalism, a
hegemonic ideological belief that the best and only way to solve problems is by threat or use of violent
force, domination, control and punishment. We are unfamiliar with bodies of knowledge of political
psychology, violence prevention, tension reduction and conflict transformation. Media and public discourse
offer a narrow, simplistic, dualistic range of ideas.
Irrationality and the Paradox of Security
We act as though it is rational to spend trillions to build weapons that can destroy the world many
times over. We say we build these weapons so that we won’t have to use them. “Nuclear deterrence
is a scheme for making nuclear war less probable by making it more probable.” There are some
historical cases in which deterrence theory appears to have worked as in WWII, though it cannot be
proven. It is believed that deterrence worked during the 50 years of the Cold War, but there were
several times when it almost broke down. There are other historical examples, like WWI, where deterrence
broke down and demonstrated evidence of spiral theory of mutually provocative escalation. Deterrence
theory is psychologically flawed and too uncertain to be used as a basis for global security. If it is
valid in some cases, it is unreliable in others, especially with asymmetrical warfare, weapons of mass
destruction, and anonymous attacks. Paradoxically, the way to be more secure is to make your enemy more
secure.
National Security is an Oxymoron
Actions we take in the name of our “National Security” generate fear, hatred, envy, resentment, and
a desire to imitate, thereby provoking proliferation, rendering ourselves and the planet more vulnerable.
We are provoking a new arms race and entering a second nuclear age, characterized by nuclear anarchy,
weaponization of space, and terrorism. Nuclear weapons states who would prefer to dismantle their nuclear
weapons are instead prepared to increase their nuclear programs because of US policies. Non-nuclear weapons
states, who would prefer not to acquire nuclear weapons will most likely develop them. Today, National
Security is an oxymoron. There is only Universal Security or universal insecurity.
The Mirror Image of the Enemy
The image of the enemy has been deliberately exaggerated and distorted to instill fear and provide
justifications and pretexts for provocative arms buildups and missile defense. After the Cold War,
the Evil Empire (USSR) was replaced by "Rogue States", and now the Axis of Evil – all using identical
language, concepts and emotional tone. Images have been used to promote missile defense to protect us
from evil. Visiting the USSR in the 1950s, social psychologist Uri Bronfenbrenner observed that according
to “the mirror image of the enemy” each side perceives its own motives as noble, just, peace-loving,
and necessary, while the enemy ‘s motives are perceived as cruel, hostile and aggressive. With the
"ultimate attribution error" each side explains their own behavior as motivated by environmental factors
(we are peace-loving but have to build arms because of them) , while the enemy’s behavior is genetic –
because of who they are. The image of the enemy is also “homogenized”, an undifferentiated “They.”
The image of the enemy is so powerful that it overrides all reason, and is a justification for accepting
massive traumatization of innocents. It is used as a moral justification for use of force, even when it
makes the situation worse.
Concrete Thinking, Physicalism, and Psychological Ignorance
We assume that enemies are eternally hovering out there, independent of our actions, just waiting to
get us, and all that we can do is commit all of our resources to try to physically wipe them out first,
knowing we can’t be 100% effective. We ignore ways in which we create and provoke enmity. We ignore ways
that we can reduce and transform enmity. We believe that all we can do is kill them and wipe out their
infrastructure. This is illusory, as such actions magnify hatred, fear and aggression which will find
alternate routes of expression. This keeps us in a volatile global military stand-off. Some refuse to
understand the psychological and economic causes of violence and terrorism as a matter of principle, as
if it were rewarding them. We don’t have the sense that there are actions that we can take that can have
great power in reducing enmity. We refuse to consider strategies that include understanding causes,
reducing tension, addressing just grievances and causes of suffering that have much more promise in
making us safer.
The Axis of Futility
Much of the discourse for justifying dangerous strategies focuses on the right-wrong axis.
Much dialogue focuses on how evil they are and how good we are. Even if we can make a case that we
are right and good and they are wrong and evil, and that our actions are justified, this does not make
us safer, and in fact has a paradoxical effect of intensifying conflict. We can always be right and
justified, but there is no way that functioning on the right-wrong axis can make us any safer.
The question is not who is right, but what will increase mutual security. Humility and self-reflection
will go a long way in enhancing our security. People who raise questions and call for self-examination
about some of our actions that might have provoked resentment against us are dismissed as “anti-American”
and their patriotism is called into question, thus blocking thoughtful dialogue on issues that are vital
to our security. Transforming our role in the world and reviewing the ways in which we use our great power
and goodness on the world stage, from provocative to reassuring, from disparity to equality
(like the Marshall plan), from unilateralism to joining the world community, will do far more to
increase universal security than the most sophisticated weapons systems.
"Blowback", the Law of Unintended Consequences and Predictability
Strategies, actions and policies employed for a specific purpose create new unanticipated problems
(such as our empowerment of bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein). In a world with weapons of mass destruction,
blowback would be catastrophic. History is filled with military blunders. From a psychological perspective,
much blowback is predictable and preventable. Taking the perspective of the other, empathy, following
consequences through time, avoiding humiliation, addressing suffering, despair, poverty, culture, and
designing win-win strategies, using language, policies and interventions that give hope and reduce
tension go a long way in reducing violence.
Poor Reality Testing, the Masculine Mystique and Psychological Incorrectness
We are often gripped by tightly held beliefs, based on emotion and socialization, even when contradicted
by facts. We believe them so intensely we assume they are real. This is most obvious in the escalation
and deterioration in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Hypotheses are not revised when reality doesn’t
conform with beliefs. “Reality testing” is defined as “ A fundamental ego function which consists of the
objective evaluation and judgement of the world outside the ego or self.” Reality testing is poor, as
beliefs are impervious to evidence. One powerful example is the Masculine Mystique, as described by
Myriam Miedzan in Boys Will Be Boys. It is a false belief that we must show strength, and if we show
weakness they will attack us. There is an understandable, but erroneous assumption that if we dominate
the enemy, they will back down. This may have been true in the school yard and maybe with conventional
weapons, but with asymmetrical warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and a cultural value and willingness
to die standing up to a dominant power, this belief is false. Similarly there is a belief that we must have
a “credible deterrent”. We cannot appear weak, etc. The saying that you create what you resist applies
here.
THE NUCLEAR MYSTIQUE
Mega Mission Creep
Nuclear weapons were developed out of fear that the Nazis would get them first. They were used on
the Japanese with the belief that they would end World War II and save many lives. They were further
developed during the Cold War in an intense arms race with the Soviets. The highly charged image of
the Evil Empire, has been replaced by Rogue States and now the Axis of Evil. These archetypal images
are used in identical ways to create fear, justify abrogation of treaties, development of “missile
defenses” and new weapons systems, and weaponization of space. We now have a gigantic web, a
military-industrial-congressional-media complex and interconnected national and international
institutions and financial investments, and emotional-psychological investments in research and
development, and a scientific imperative, organized around nuclear weapon and systems, with plans
for development to the year 2070. Nukes seem to have a life of their own, finding reasons, policies
and enemies to justify their existence. We are mystified by them.
The Double Standard and Nuclear Provocation
Being absorbed in one’s own security needs, engaging in “justified” self-protective,
conventional activities around weapons policies and treaties, provokes fear, hatred,
and resentment globally. Actions considered self-protective are perceived by others as indications
of aggressive intentions and plans to attack . States naturally claim that if one country reserves
the right to “protect its sovereignty” with weapons of mass destruction, so do they. Then we condemn
them for being hostile and aggressive for wanting what we claim a right to and a need for.
The double standard is demoralizing. Other states too feel a need for and right to similar
self-protection. Weapons of mass destruction take on a psychological and symbolic meaning and
status, creating a desire to join the nuclear weapons club. Military buildup and posturing inspire
the development of countermeasures and terrorism which are far less expensive (1/100 – 1/1000the the cost)
and require far less technology than the systems they can overcome. Because the nuclear weapons states have
not lived up to their 1968 agreement in the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty to negotiate toward disarmament,
other countries increasingly desire to acquire nuclear weapons. How could it be otherwise?
Mystification, flawed rationales, and thought-stopping dismissals
Psychological techniques induce us to accept the absurd as rational. The use of an exaggerated,
distorted image of the enemy, disinformation, misinformation, and censorship, play on fear and use
fear to justify foreign and domestic policy. This keeps us ignorant and precludes balanced, complex
thinking about less dangerous strategies. A monofocus on military strategies precludes safer, more
effective strategies like South Korea’s “Sunshine policy.” Flawed concepts and dismissals such as the
need to maintain a “credible threat,” “the only language they understand is force,” and flawed deterrence
theory mystify us into believing that these are proven concepts that work all the time. False beliefs such
as there are no effective alternatives to military solutions, we have no choice, they will attack us if we
are perceived as weak, we must show resolve, divert us from enlightened action. Nuclear myths and illusions
about effectiveness and necessity are promulgated to elicit support. Reality testing defined as A
fundamental ego function which consists of the objective evaluation and judgement of the world outside the
ego or self. is poor, as beliefs are impervious to evidence.
Structural Absurdities- Absurdities
We live in a state of absurdity that the mind perceives but suppresses. Lifton points out
structural absurdities.
Nuclear Addiction
We are deeply organized around nuclear weapons psychologically, economically, institutionally,
and politically. It also means extricating ourselves from our deadly dependence on and worship of
the weapons, extricating ourselves from nuclearism. There is a profound psychological resistance
to disarmament, because it is experienced as taking away a necessary defense without offering a replacement.
We need to go through a gradual process of withdrawal, economic and technological conversion, and replacement
with more effective strategies.
DANGEROUS EMOTIONS, ATTITUDES AND POSTURING
Fear
There is a belief that if others are afraid of our power they will submit to our demands and we will be safer.
This may work under specific conditions, but not others, and is risky with weapons of mass destruction.
It is a psychological fact that people are most dangerous when they are afraid, even more than when they
are angry. We, too, are more dangerous when w e are afraid. Strategies should be designed to reduce fear
and provide assurances.
Envy and Humiliation
Envy and humiliation are highly associated with violence and the breakdown of deterrence. Many cruel
leaders and dictators have suffered severe humiliation in their youth, and many murders occur after
rejection and humiliation. According to Jewish ethics it is forbidden to humiliate a person as it is
like killing their soul. Much violence emerges from conditions of great economic and social disparity.
For a fraction of what the world spends on weapons and death, we could correct these disparities.
We should be careful about the humiliating rhetoric and coercive strategies that we commonly use.
In the Cuban Missile crisis, the Kennedy’s were acutely aware of the need to allow the Soviets a way
to save face, which was key to averting catastrophe. Saving face, even of our enemies, should be high
in our consciousness.
Arrogance, Disregard - US unilateralism
US unilateralism and disregard of global treaties (the Kyoto Environmental Protocols,
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Treaty to Ban Landmines, the Biological Weapons Convention,
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Biodiversity Treaty) is causing a range of problematic
emotional reactions around the world, including resentment, fear, hatred, anxiety, terror, dread, envy,
humiliation, intimidation, anger, rage, insult, and a healthy desire for a respectful responsiveness which,
if not met will naturally drive others, in desperation, towards a desire for revenge. This endangers US
citizens. We are losing some of the admiration and good will that we have had in the past.
Egocentrism
Policies, strategies, language organized around one’s own security needs and sense of rightness
with no consciousness about how these are experienced and received by other actors. Making incorrect
assumptions about the psychology of the other, i.e., assuming deterrence will work. Imposing demands
and ultimata is counterproductive in culture where defiance to greater power is valued.
Psychology of Domination, Defeat and Asymmetrical Warfare
Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare. Nuclear proliferation is a response to asymmetrical
nuclear capability. Power imbalances are inherently unstable in the long term. Domination, oppression,
humiliation, and suffering provoke the desire to even the scales as we see in universal myths like David
and Goliath, and in the Mujaheddin rejoicing over their defeat of the Soviet Union superpower. As 9/11 shows,
there is no amount of power that cannot be turned against us. Equality is a stabilizing force.
Psychologically, domination is analogous to bullying in a Global Columbine, provoking explosive reactions
such as 9/11. We teach our children not to bully without realizing that our actions are experienced by
others in a humiliating way. Such actions in the name of our own security are likely to increase the
possibility of terrorism.
GLOBAL SYSTEMS DYNAMICS
The Non-Proliferation Treaty and General Systems Theory
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968 in order to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons, states that the non nuclear weapons states will agree not to acquire nuclear weapons.
In exchange, the nuclear weapons states will agree to negotiate in good faith to work toward the
total elimination of nuclear weapons (otherwise, why would they agree not to acquire them)?.
Nuclear weapons states have not lived up to their agreement, and we are on the verge of provoking
a new nuclear arms race. Since 1968, the NPT has had limited success maintaining a homeostatic balance,
with only Israel, India and Pakistan joining the nuclear weapons club. According to General Systems Theory,
the NPT is likely to go from a homeostatic-maintaining, negative feedback loop, into a positive feedback
spiral, which reinforces change – in one direction or another. If the NPT breaks down, we will spin into
the unconscious positive feedback spiral of provocative proliferation (also called “deviation amplifying
mutual causal process”). 60 more countries can acquire nukes, leading to nuclear anarchy and a certainty
of accidents, terrorism, or deliberate use. A psychologically sound, mature, intelligent, wise positive
feedback spiral would break out of the NPT by thoughtfully negotiating reductions towards elimination.
The NPT is necessary, but not sufficient, for maintaining global security.
We must simultaneously build new kinds of political relationships and institutions, change our posture
in the world, and develop nonmilitary methods of addressing conflict and enmity. For a fraction of
what the world spends on armaments, we could invest in social scientists and develop violence prevention,
“de-enmification” strategies, economic development and peace-building measures - in a “reverse Manhattan
project” that will be far more effective in creating Universal Security.
"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. Ours is a
world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we do about peace;
more about killing than we do about living."
General Omar Bradley
The problems that we have created as a result of the level of thinking that we have done thus
far cannot be solved at the same level of thinking at which we created them.
Albert Einstein
CONSCIOUS NUCLEAR POLITICS
We Get What We Pay For
We now spend almost $400 billion a year on the military, approximately $1 billion on the
State Department, and $12 million on the US Institute of Peace. What if we made a similar
investment in the social sciences, committing money, research (we already have enough knowledge
to prevent violence and transform conflict), developing training, education, personnel, and
deployment towards violence prevention and collective healing from trauma.
We request a significant investment in promising, proven effective methods in tension reduction,
fear reduction, and “de-enmification” and the development of institutions and structures that employ
bloodless forms of force, and strategies that address root causes.
We currently have bodies of knowledge regarding use of negotiations, violence prevention,
tension reduction, and nonviolent forms of force (Richard Wendell Fogg), including economic,
political, psychological, physical, social, educational, moral, and spiritual forms of force,
used in complex combinations. If programs such as the proposed Global Nonviolent Peace Force
www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org and Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s proposed Department of Peace
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/action/peace.ht received the funding, interest, government support
and training that the military received we would be able to make the paradigm shift necessary to t
ranscend violence in the 21st century. We could begin the process of making a gradual transition
to a post-military paradigm. Randall Forsberg’s Global Action to Prevent War www.globalactionpw.org
provides a thoughtful strategy to gradually “wean” us off of our military dependence as we move
towards a sustainable paradigm. We need a transitional period during which we build the new paradigm
and phase out the old, perhaps holding the use of force as a back up while wholeheartedly employing
violence preventing strategies.
PARADIGM SHIFT
If we are to survive, we must make a quantum leap into the next, post-military paradigm. We need
a profound transformation to a new way of thinking and conducting international relationships.
It should be obvious by now that the dualistic, right-wrong, us-them, good-bad military force
paradigm is making us infinitely less secure. The peace and anti-war movements have not effectively
articulated plausible alternatives to violence and inaction. Rich bodies of knowledge about political
psychology, violence prevention, peace and conflict studies are virtually absent in the media and politics.
The challenge now is to raise consciousness, build new institutions, and integrate proven methods informed
by social science.
METAFORCE: Replacing War
Richard Wendell Fogg, director of the Center for the Study of Conflict, says that we don’t need
to abolish war. We need to replace war. Fogg says that we must use force – political force,
economic force, social force, psychological, educational, physical, moral, intellectual, spiritual,
emotional, and aesthetic forms of force – in combinations forming complex, systematic strategies.
They include reducing the opponent’s fear, avoiding cornering the opponent, avoiding retaliating,
satisfying just grievances, understanding the meaning of their attack, removing pressures,
using mediators, working the enemy’s allies, designing win-win solutions, etc, etc, including
some harsher nonviolent approaches when the more positive ones don’t work. Since we don’t have
a concept to describe bloodless forms of force, I have coined the term “Metaforce” which is not
passive, and similar to the Indian terms ahimsa and satyagraha.
Global Nonviolent Peace Force
A Global Nonviolent Peace Force , is being developed to reduce tension and prevent violence so
other strategies can be used to solve problems. It is based on a body of literature about the success
of nonviolent accompaniment and other strategies that have prevented violence around the world.
Graduated Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction (GRIT)
GRIT is an example of a strategy, a conscious, creative positive feedback spiral is the described
by Charles Osgood of “Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction”, known as GRIT
in “Disarmament Demands GRIT.” It is “aimed to reduce and control international tension levels and
to create an atmosphere of mutual trust within which negotiations on critical military and political
issues can have a better chance of succeeding.” There have been some historical cases where this has been
applied successfully as part of a complex strategy in tension reduction and violence prevention.
History, despite its wrenching pain
cannot be unlived, but if faced
With Courage, need not be lived again.
Maya Angelou, Inaugural poem
References
Lifton, Robert Jay & Falk, Richard, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and psychological Case Against
Nuclearism Lifton, Robert, Jay, & Olson, Eric. “The Sense of Immortality: On Death and the Continuity
of Life” in Explorations in Psychohistory. (1974) Simon & Shuster, New York, p.273
Hinsie, M.D., Leland E., & Campbell, M.D., Robert, J. Psychiatric Dictionary, Fourth Edition
Weiss, Peter, personal communication, 3/28/02
Lifton, Robert Jay & Falk, Richard, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and psychological Case Against
Nuclearism, p.ix Green, Robert, The Naked Nuclear Emperor: Debunking Deterrence theory, (2000) The
Disarmament and Security Center, Christchurch, New Zealand
Bronfenbrenner Urie, “The Mirror Image in Soviet-American relations”, in White, Ralph K, Psychology
and the Prevention of Nuclear War, 1986, New York University Press
Hinsie, M.D., Leland E., & Campbell, M.D., Robert, J. Psychiatric Dictionary, Fourth Edition
Jervis, Robert, “Deterrence, the Spiral Model, and Intentions of the Adversary” in White, Ralph K,
Psychology and the Prevention of Nuclear War, 1986, New York University Press
Hinsie, M.D., Leland E., & Campbell, M.D., Robert, J. Psychiatric Dictionary, Fourth Edition
Lifton, Robert Jay & Falk, Richard, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and psychological Case Against
Nuclearism
Lifton, Robert Jay & Falk, Richard, Indefensible Weapons: The Political and psychological Case Against
Nuclearism
Fogg, R.W. (2000) “Nonmilitary responses to nuclear threat or attack”, in Presler, J. & Scholz, S.J.,
Hartsough, David, Personal Communication, www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org
Osgood, Charles, “Disarmament Demands GRIT” in ”, in White, Ralph K, Psychology and the Prevention of
Peacemaking: Lessons form the past, visions for the future, Rodopi, Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA
Nuclear War, 1986, New York University Press
Department of Peace
Global Nonviolent Peace Force
Global Action to Prevent War
