Tuesday, September 30, 2014
ABOUT US CONTACT US ADVERTISE WITH US FOLLOW US ON    
 
Kashmir Times Logo www.kashmirtimes.com
Columnist
Nukes in the Cupboard
By Gwynne Dyer
The major powers have all had their nuclear weapons on permanent alert, ready to launch in minutes or hours, for the past forty years. Changes in the level of political risk, even the end of the Cold War, have had little or no effect on that. But wouldn’t it be safer and cheaper to “simply put (the nuclear deterrent) away in a cupboard and keep it as a contingency in case there were ever to be a deterioration in the global security picture”?

In terms of orthodox strategic thinking, that is heresy. But the man who made that heretical suggestion was Sir Nick Harvey, until last month the defence minister in charge of the British government’s nuclear capability review.

Replaced in the recent cabinet reshuffle, Harvey is now free to speak his mind. At last week’s Liberal Democratic Party conference, he did precisely that, saying that he “wanted his legacy to be bringing the United Kingdom down the nuclear ladder” – although, he admitted, “we might struggle to persuade the British public to get off the ladder altogether.”

It isn’t just the British public that loves its nukes. The American, Russian and French publics would be equally reluctant to give up their nuclear deterrent forces, even though they face no plausible threat of a nuclear war. (The Chinese public isn’t really paying attention yet.) But maybe you could at least persuade the great powers to put the damned things away, and Britain would be a good place to start.

The orthodoxy still says that every self-respecting great power must have its nuclear weapons on permanent alert, in order to deter a surprise attack by some other nuclear power. Nuclear “Pearl Harbours” allegedly lie in wait around every corner. But, as Harvey told The Guardian newspaper, “If you can just break yourself out of that frankly almost lunatic mindset for a second, all sorts of alternatives start to look possible, indeed credible.”

What drove Harvey into this bold assertion was the fact that Britain can no longer afford its nuclear deterrent. It will have to replace its current fleet of four Trident II ballistic-missile submarines by 2028, and the estimated cost is $20-$30 billion. That’s less than two weeks’ worth of American military spending, but for Britain it would mean cutting deeply into every other area of the defence budget.

The British army is “driving around in vehicles which are literally about to fall to pieces,” he said. The navy needs a new fleet of frigates, and the air force is committed to buying the joint strike fighter. They can’t have it all, and some senior officers are asking: “Is the opportunity cost of having a new generation of nuclear weapons too high, in terms of what it would prevent us doing on other fronts."

So what are the alternatives to eternal hair-trigger readiness for an attack nobody really expects to come? You could just get rid of all your nuclear weapons, of course, and you’d probably be just as safe as you are now. But if you can’t get your head around the idea of nuclear nakedness, you could at least store your magical cloak in the closet, safely out of the reach of foolish children.

What Harvey was actually proposing was that Britain should get rid of its missile-firing submarines when they get too old, and rely on a few cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to keep everybody else honest. Store them somewhere safe, and don’t even take them out unless the international situation has got dramatically worse.

In fact, why not do that right now? Those “boomers” – nuclear-powered submarines carrying long-range ballistic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads – were really designed for “retaliation from the grave” if all the owner’s cities, military bases, ports and hamburger stands were destroyed in a massive surprise nuclear attack. Does anybody expect such a thing in the current era? Well, then...

And the best thing about putting the nukes in the cupboard is that you eliminate the risk of ugly accidents. In 2009 two boomers, one British and the other French, actually collided underwater. Even at a time unprecedented in world history, when no great power fears attack by any other, it would have been a frightening event if those two submarines had been American and Chinese.

So put the toys away, boys. Don’t expect the Israelis, the Indians and the Pakistanis to follow suit, because they live in parts of the world where full-scale war with a powerful enemy is still a possibility. But together they have only about 500 nuclear weapons; the five nuclear-armed great powers have around 11,000.

Somebody has to start, and Britain is the likeliest candidate of the five. Sir Nick Harvey lost his job in the cabinet reshuffle, but the “nuclear capability review” is still underway.

Even Britain’s generals think that another generation of fully deployed missile-firing submarines would deprive them of most of the other new weapons they want, so the issue will stay on the table. Dumping the boomers and locking the remaining nuclear warheads in the cupboard would be a useful halfway house on the way to getting rid of them entirely.

Think, act, build… A rainbow coalition to end violence against women

By Kamla Bhasin

All unjust systems, whether based on caste, class, race, or gender, exploit oppressed people, their resources, their labour. Take the labour of women. In 1995, at the international conference on women in Beijing, China, it was estimated that the entire unpaid work of women is worth 11 trillion dollars per year. Who has benefited from this? Families, communities, society, capitalism – everybody is benefiting from women’s work.

Much of this oppression comes with violence. The dalit community, for instance, could not have been exploited for over 3,000 years without violence. Violence is integral to such oppression. I have never been violated, but I have also never been free of fear and because fear is so integrated with the oppression of women from time immemorial, it has been one of the most important issues for women across the world.

In India, the modern women’s movement began with the Mathura rape case and dowry killings. So we have been mobilising on the issue for a long, long time and we really had this dream that such violence would end. Yet, somehow, it has only increased over the years. It has become part of the paradigm of capitalism. Over the last 40 years, pornography, including child-based pornography, has become a multi-billion dollar industry. The cosmetics industry - which continues to tell women that nothing is as important as their faces and bodies - has become a multi-billion dollar industry. The film industry, whether Hollywood or Bollywood, is also a multi-billion dollar enterprise, which makes constant use of women’s bodies.

Within the women’s movement we have tried to fight violence in many ways. We have done theatre, we have sung songs, we have used the new media. You know I write songs. My songs are popular. But they may reach only a few thousand at best. ‘Munni badnaam hui’ (a poplar Hindi film song) reaches millions, with that one gyrating woman in the middle, surrounded by 20 men lusting after her. I see a direct link between this and what happens on the streets of Guwahati, Assam, or anywhere else where mass molestation and rape take place. It is perhaps scenes like those shown in film songs that are playing out in the minds of the young men who assault women. We, as the women’s movement, do not have the kind of power that would end this violence, because it involves big money, big networks, powerful people.

Interestingly, I understood the power of big media when Aamir Khan contacted me to come for his show, ‘Satyamev Jayate’. I mulled over taking part, and then agreed. It demonstrated to me the power of the media and the power of celebritydom. I have worked so hard for 40 years as a women’s activist but nowhere did I get the response I got after those eight to ten minutes on that show. I was stopped at coffee shops, at airports, on the streets, everywhere. Over 22 women wrote to me to say that they were in violent situations at home. There were literally hundreds of emails. I also got responses from men. The editor of a television channel said, “Kamladi, I was sitting for a brunch on Sunday with 11 men and we watched you and I was amazed that none of us was offended by anything you said.”

All I did was to explain patriarchy as a social system that considers men to be superior to women, and in which men have more control over resources and decision making. The men who control religion have laid down that the husband is ‘lord and master’. The word in English for husband translates as “controller”, “domesticator”, “manager”. In Hindi, Bangla and Tamil, the words ‘husband” and ‘god’ are synonymous – “pati-parmeshwar”, “swami”. Every day we repeat these words. The moment a woman gets married, according to Hindu rites, she has to touch her husband’s his feet and he puts signs on her forehead - of his domination over her. In the Christian marriage, the father “gives away” the bride.

Patriarchy is about hierarchy. If a man is upset with something his wife does, he will beat her, just as a parent thinks it is his or her right to beat their child. This is basically about the powerful lashing out against the powerless in an unequal relationship. It is important to state here that there is nothing biological about it. As soon as you say men can’t help beating women, you are insulting men, because many men don’t abuse their wives. Lately, as I have become a little more inward looking, I find that perhaps men are being harmed by patriarchy much more than women. Think of the man who decides to rape a woman. What is his relationship with his body? If a man can come home and beat his wife, what is his relationship to his life partner? These are men who are dehumanised.

Today, there are also millions of men all over the world who know what patriarchy is doing to them, how it is undermining them, how it is hollowing out the best that is in them. So I would say that the women’s movement, fortunately, is no longer a movement only of women. It is a movement of men, women and children.

We need to spread that idea; we need to stand up against violence, including patriarchal violence, using all the imaginative and cultural resources at our command. There are cultural activists like Mallika Sarabhai doing just this, through her one-woman dance drama, ‘Sita’s Daughters’. Globally, there is Eve Ensler, a US-based playwright. Based on her experiences she made the word ‘vagina’ speakable by writing the play, ‘Vagina Monologues’. It became so popular that it has been translated into over 140 languages. It has been translated into Urdu and staged in cities in Pakistan. It has been staged in Dhaka. It captured the imagination of the youth, and impacted their attitudes, so that they could then say, “It is our body, what is so dirty about it?”

Ensler has supported work in the most difficult and most patriarchal of societies – in places like Sudan – for years. Some months ago she came up with the idea of a global campaign called ‘One Billion Rising’. I thought this was a great idea, because global campaigns infuse a lot of energy into movements. Normally when I work, I feel like a drop of water. But once I am part of a global campaign, I suddenly feel like an ocean.

The ‘One Billion Rising’ campaign will see women and men in 140 countries rise up together against this civil war between men and women going on in their midst, the violence against women within families, communities and countries. We in South Asia will also join in. No matter what the issue is, honour killings in Pakistan, acid throwing in Bangladesh or domestic violence in India, we will take on and defeat the forces that make such assaults possible.

We see this as a rainbow coalition. Over the last three months, we have been visiting trade unions in Sri Lanka, talking to women’s groups in Bangladesh, encouraging organisations in every country to identify and bring on board political leaders - not parties – with a record of having stood against violence, or who hope to stand against violence in the future. I was so happy to see that in the UK, the organiser for the campaign is a British labour member of Parliament, Stella Creasy.

The time has come for large alliances of people to come together and say violence against women will not be tolerated any longer.

—(Women's Feature Service)


News Updated at : Friday, October 5, 2012
 
Comment on this Story 
 
 
Top Stories of the Day  
Rahul faces protests, slogans, walk out at Panchayat Conference
SRINAGAR, Oct 5: AICC general secretary Rahul Gandhi had to face protests, slogans and open resentment at a panchayat conference here after he refused to intervene and persuade the state government to make necessary amendments in the J&K Panchayati Raj Act. The panches and sarpanches walked out of the conference as a mark of protest. Later in his brief interaction with a few media persons, Rahul, admitted that panchayats are not getting the rights they are entitled to. The conference, held un
> Opposition corners govt in LC for sidelining it in DDB meetings
> Pathribal ‘fake’ encounter echoes in Assembly
> Geelani, Shabir arrested
> Strike continues at Nowhatta as police arrest uncle, cousin
> Kapur appointed chairperson SWRRA
 
 
Other Stories from Web  
 
 
 
Find us on
 
 
Weather Report
 
Katra Taxi
Jammu Katra Taxi service
 
Mata Vaishnodevi | Matavaishnodevi | Mata Vaishno Devi
 
 
 
 
 
Web Design Jammu, Web Design Company, Ideogram Jammu
 
 
Home | Contact Us | Kashmir Times | Kashmir Times E-Paper - Jammu | Kashmir Times E-Paper - Srinagar | Dainik Kashmir Times | Jammu Prabhat
Copyright 2013 Kashmir Times Group. All rights reserved. Powered by Ideogram Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.