America As Gang-Banger

Sometime in the early 1990s, a rapper I can't remember said, "I ain't no fuckin' role model!" My housemate at the time, a divorced Latino woman with a 12 year old boy, laughed, and said, "You know that's bullshit because tomorrow, there's going to be a million 13 year old boys saying, 'I ain't no fuckin' role model.'"

That's exactly what's happening with the United States right now. Like it or not, we're a role model for the rest of the world, but we don't seem to give a shit, or worse, have no idea that tomorrow-be it next week or next year-all kinds of other countries will be following the same fashions that we set today.

Just like little gang-bangers with thug pants and gunny guns-which they hold sideways like they see in the movies-countries are using the War on Terror and Pre-emptive War (more accurately, preventative war) as a model for their own political agendas. Russia is in a War on Terror with Chechnya. Israel continues its War on Terror with the Palestinians. India vs. Pakistan. Even North Korea has used the rhetoric. China considers Taiwain a rogue state, not to mention Tibet, and the members of Falun Gong are routinely labeled the equivalent of "terrorists." Ask any of these states its rationale, and you hear the same rhetoric that's coming out of the White House. "Security." Consider it a political corporate buzzword for the new millennium.

Now the Bush administration is renewing the nuclear arms race, under the guise of-what else?-security. They're convinced that smaller, low-yield nuclear weapons can address the problem of underground bunkers like the ones we found in Iraq hiding tons of chemical, biological, and nuclear � oh. Wait a minute. Never mind.

Our Intelligence tells us that countries have begun to hide their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons underground (another trend we started�). The assumption is that having weapons that can penetrate these bunkers will dissuade countries from using them-after all, what's the point in having them if they can be easily destroyed?

Of course, Our Intelligence is aware of exactly where these bunkers are, just like in Iraq. Oh. Sorry. Never mind. But they will know exactly where these bunkers might be, trust us, and where to strike without too much collateral damage (for those of you who prefer plain English: killing civilians and civilian infrastructure like schools and hospitals), just like in Iraq, where collateral damage was minimized. Oh. Sorry. Never mind again. Well, anyway, we don't really know how many civilians were injured or killed in Iraq (or Afghanistan), so we'll just have to follow our own faith-based initiative that the administration is telling the truth about it.

Where were we? Oh. Right. Yes, these pinpoint-precision accuracy weapons, like the ones used in Iraq that hit their targets most of the time would limit the destruction and nuclear fallout to the target area. Taking into account winds and groundwater, runoff, and other natural occurrences are apparently just fuzzy math and bad science.

Think about it. The consequences of missing your target 15%-25% of the time (estimates from the Afghanistan war) with a conventional "smart" weapon are tragic enough. (A far better accuracy rate than in the past, but still...) Imagine what kind of damage will follow a low-yield nuclear device missing its target. And no doubt, at least one will miss its target. Low yield nuclear devices, let's remember, are exponentially more powerful than the most deadly conventional bombs. Where a rogue bomb can now kill up to several hundred people, a misplaced low-yield nuclear weapon could kill thousands, or tens of thousands. Not including those who would die of radiation poisoning, cancer, and other side effects later on. (See: Iraq and depleted uranium shells from the first Gulf War.)

Ironically, small "dirty bomb" devices ("no-yield," but lots of radiation) are named as one of the greatest threats to national security, something that the administration has characterized as "very likely," with the reported potential of killing hundreds of thousands if used in an urban area. While there's a difference between scattering radioactive material far and wide for maximum radiologic damage and a focused nuclear blast to penetrate an armored bunker, are we to really believe that our "low yield" devices are so much less lethal to the general population in say, Tehran, than a suitcase-sized dirty bomb would be in San Francisco? Of course, a smart dictator, would hide bunkers under civilian areas. I would, wouldn't you? It's common practice for "the bad guys" to put weapons and command stations in things like hospitals, churches, and schools. Why wouldn't they do the same with bunkers? And that would make "hitting the target" far worse than "missing it."

The so-called "Bush Doctrine," which states that we will not allow anyone to reach a level of military dominance that could possibly compete with us, would require the U.S. to intimidate or attack any nation developing nuclear weapons. So far, it's been wholly ineffective with North Korea. And North Korea admitted they were developing nuclear weapons. How many countries haven't? North Korea apparently believes that its greatest chance for security involves having nuclear weapons-or negotiating their disposal.

But the biggest threat is clearly not that we will actually use these weapons-though we might-but that it's virtually guaranteed that other countries will follow our lead once again. If Pakistan is accused of having underground bunkers, you bet your life that India will develop these same low-yield tactical nukes to penetrate them. Russia and Chechnya. China and whomever. Japan and North Korea. North Korea and the U.S. Iran and God-knows-who. Israel and Syria. Syria and Israel. It goes on and on. The real danger is that the more devices that exist, the more likely they will get in "the wrong hands." And the more portable they are, the easier they would be to transport, sell, or steal.

It's a matter of supply, demand and market trends. You would think such an allegedly business-focused administration would get these simple facts, which operate exactly the same way for electronics, machinery, software, toys, drugs, food, conventional, and nuclear arms:

The more there are, the more available they are, and the cheaper they are.

The more there are, the more the demand for them is increased, until the point of market saturation-great for manufacturing cars, but not a situation you'd want with nuclear weapons.

The more there are, the more likely a competitor will come out with a similar product and sell it cheaper. Bombs or cars, it doesn't matter. Your neighbor may might not be able to match your BMW, but he can probably get a Corolla. Either one can run over your kids.

The way to reduce the likelihood of nuclear arms use (or any other arms, including the shoulder-mounted missile recently smuggled into the U.S.) is first and foremost, to reduce their numbers, and second, just as important in the long run, to reduce the demand for them. Just as the War on Drugs has failed because it attempts to control the supply and imprison the users without decreasing the actual demand for drugs, this U.S. policy will create a nuclear arms race because it fails to address the demand for Weapons of Mass Destruction, which will only increase when other countries see the United States expanding our own arsenals.

To reduce demand means altering the environments that encourage terrorism and militarism. It means a sea change in our foreign policy and actual (vs. stated) values. It is a matter of relieving poverty rather than ignoring it or exploiting it for cheap labor; providing education and support for functional societies rather than arms; and allowing true democracies to form rather than coddling and supporting dictatorships from Chile to Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, overthrowing governments from Iran to Central America, to Afghanistan, and training more operatives like Osama Bin Laden.

All little sisters like to try on big sisters' clothes. Big brothers and sisters, in the long run, want nothing more than their siblings to be strong, happy, responsible, productive, effective, and good people. America must acknowledge that it is a role model for the rest of the world, and act responsibly, so that what other countries mimic isn't militarism, conquest, domination, and war, but international cooperation & law, fair play, action for peace and prosperity, shared power and responsibility, and a commitment to the world community.

One of our critics said, "Those who think one can peacefully co-exist by petting the cobra or laying with the lion, wind up peacefully dead. You can't just 'act nice.'" We agree. But there smart ways to deal with cobras and lions other than killing them outright. Lions can be trained Cobra venom can be used for pharmaceuticals. Both can be contained if need be. Killing is a last resort. It's a matter of a society that uses imagination and vision to overcome fear and hatred. And what could be a better role model than that?

Send this article to a friend Printer-Friendly Version