February 12, 2001

Arms Control and Other Follies
The world won't stop turning just on our say so

A bad doctor is said to be a man who treats the symptoms, while ignoring the cause. However, this is what the peace movement seems to be doing today. A large amount of energy of the peace movement is devoted to useless causes such as controlling the arms trade, stopping new weapons being developed and nuclear weapons proliferating. Is this really going to work, or is the peace movement wasting its time and energy?

YOU CAN'T KEEP A BAD IDEA DOWN

Technology is neither good nor evil, but you would not think so with the effort with which many within the peace movement attack it. Perhaps it is a certain anti-mechanistic bias on the left, from which so much of the peace movement springs. There is definitely a suspicion of technology; machines put people out of jobs and communication technology can disrupt economies "at the touch of a button". Of course the ideas like an efficient market quickly getting the technologically displaced back into work, the general standard of living rising from higher productivity and government policies disrupting economies rather than markets will not be accepted. And to be honest, those of us who see ourselves on the right should not expect the left to meekly accept our views, they are the left and we are the right – we are different.

NO ONE GETS THE LAST WORD

The New Missile Defence system is assailed by many peaceniks as a destabilising element in international relations. This is as may be, but it ignores the second most fundamental law of human events (after original sin) nothing will stay the same. Technology is destabilising, but this hardly means that technology can be stopped. The simple fact is, is that if the technology lends a technical advantage, then it will be adopted, if not by America, then by Russia or China. This is not an excuse to launch into a needless arms race; it is just a statement of fact. As long as there is real competition between independent military powers, there will be a search for advantage. An exceedingly crude long-term picture of military history has been the alternating advantages of defensive and offensive technologies. Cavalry worsted by castles, castles worsted by cannons. I am sure that you could think of other apt analogies. The idea that nuclear missiles will remain the last word in weapon technology is very much mistaken.

FUTILE OPPOSITION

So how should the peace party deal with Star Wars? Absolute opposition is probably doomed, as can be seen from most arguments against it. There is an eerie air of inherent contradiction. Missile defence will destabilise the balance of power and is unworkable. If it is unworkable, it will hardly disturb anything, especially a balance of power. Moreover, if it does work and so disturb the balance of power in favour of America and her allies, is this really going to convince America and her allies that it is a bad idea? I think not.

STAR WAR STRATEGY

So how do we approach this issue? On its merits. This new technology does have its dangers. Firstly, for Americans the missile shield may start to be extended around the world. This is rather foolhardy, as it will make America an automatic target when one side of an overseas quarrel is protected by this shield. Americans should make sure that the missile shield is not extended by a charitable whim to countries that offer no strategic benefit. As for American allies, specifically Britain, Australia and Canada, the New Missile Defence offers a different dilemma. America has invited these countries to join in the NMD programme, in return for providing tracking facilities. The offer should be taken up on a simple risk/reward scenario. Will Britain playing a part in this programme mean that Britain is in more danger of nuclear attack? Undoubtedly. How long will it be before the shield is able to cover Britain properly? I would say that the balance is at the moment very much against Britain participating, although I am sure that the decision will not be taken in regard to anything as vulgar as the national interest.

Text-only printable version of this article

Airstrip One Article Vault

Contact
Emmanuel Goldstein

Go to the most current column by Emmanuel Goldstein

Sign up to receive Airstrip One by e-mail

Airstrip One Article Vault

Emmanuel Goldstein is the pseudonym of a political drifter on the fringes of English classical liberal and Euro-sceptic activity. He is a former member of the Labour Party, who knows Blair and some of his closest buddies better than they realise, yet. He has a challenging job in the real world, working for a profit-making private company and not sponging off the taxpayer in politics, journalism or the civil service. "Airstrip One," appears Mondays at Antiwar.com.