Cross-posted with the Huffington Post.
-----
Why do we sometimes ignore facts and stubbornly continue to believe in falsehoods?
A quick example: Not that I'd have a problem with it if he were, but President Obama is not a Muslim. Yet an unsettling percentage of Americans still believe he is. In March of this year, Harris found that overall, 32% of those polled believe President Obama is a Muslim. Five months later, the Pew Research Center released the results of its poll and found that a full 18% of respondents believe the same thing.
So, if sample and survey methodologies are intact, with a high degree of confidence, and if we can in fact make fair and accurate inferences about the American people based on these and other surveys, then we can conclude that at least a fifth of the American people believe in something that simply isn't true. Yet we persist in clinging to debunked myths.
Which brings me to my point: This Sunday, August 29, marks the first International Day Against Nuclear Tests, passed by the UN General Assembly in December 2009 to promote the total elimination of nuclear weapons testing, with a view to one day globally ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
And although President Obama has made the reduction of the global nuclear threat one of his top-priority foreign policy objectives, and despite the fact that the United States hasn't conducted a nuclear test of any sort since September 1992, Congress has yet to approve and ratify the CTBT, which was signed by the US in 1996.
Though the matter of ratifying the CTBT here at home and bringing it into force requires other nations to do the same in order to make it an internationally legally binding treaty, domestic politics of course have a tremendous hand in shaping the outcome of proposed Congressional bills. The CTBT, like many other proposals, is subject to the influence of the American people, who continue to believe that the United States needs nuclear weapons and therefore should retain its testing capabilities.
Earlier this month, Rasmussen released the results of a survey which revealed that a full 77% of those polled believe the US nuclear arsenal is important to national security, with more than half (57%) saying the US should not reduce the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Moreover, nearly half of all respondents (46%) feel the United States should actually continue developing new nuclear weapons.
Compare these statistics to a 2004 survey conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, in which it was found that 65% of respondents (including 54% of Republicans) felt it is NOT necessary for the US to develop new nuclear weapons.
So it seems public opinion is once again shifting away from advocacy for decreasing reliance on nuclear weapons in foreign policy and statesmanship, and back towards dependence on weapons development and testing to ensure a credible and sustained level of deterrence. Which is deplorable, since the threat against which we can effectively "deter" is no longer the nation-state as a political entity, but rather amorphous terrorist groups that operate across national boundaries and therefore are much harder to target, either in prevention or retaliation.
If anything, this change in the nature of the nuclear threat should give our legislators more reason to push for ratification of the CTBT, since bringing this treaty into force is a critical component of a long-term, forward-looking plan to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. And as the President continues working with Russian and other world leaders to mitigate the global nuclear threat, one thing all of us here at home can do is to make our voices heard by calling our Congressional representatives and telling them that ratification of the CTBT is a necessary step to prevent non-state actors from acquiring and using a nuclear weapon.
It is true that the CTBT in and of itself will not lessen the nuclear threat in any immediate or tangible way. But in looking at the big picture, we should understand that the only way to prevent nuclear terrorism from ever becoming a reality is to address this double-headed problem at its sources. And while the world's armed forces and intelligence agencies work every day to stop terrorism, the other half of the problem -- the actual nuclear weapons, materials, and delivery systems that terrorist groups covet -- must be addressed simultaneously.
Take away a nuke, and that's one less opportunity for the bad guys to get a hold of one and detonate it over a major city, American or otherwise, with nearly complete impunity.
Now, more than ever, and in anticipation of the upcoming International Day Against Nuclear Tests, let's again ask ourselves why CTBT ratification hasn't happened yet, and work to finally make it a reality. The polls show that most Americans still favor reliance on nuclear arsenals to guarantee our national security. Yet, sadly and ironically, this dependence actually weakens our security. Though it would be a small one, having the CTBT come into force would nonetheless be a significant step in the right direction once again.
And that's something we can all believe in.
8.12.2010
The Nuclear [Movie] Renaissance, or: Bad Idea, James Cameron
Cross-posted with the Huffington Post.
-----
I'm noticing what might be a curious trend lately in Hollywood: movies are being made about nuclear weapons again. Much like the so-called "nuclear renaissance," which captures the current renewed global interest in nuclear power to address energy needs, there seems to be a revitalization of interest in making movies about nuclear weapons.
Take, for example, the star-studded, Lucky Walker-directed Countdown to Zero, produced by Lawrence Bender of Inglourious Basterds and An Inconvenient Truth. Also, there's Nuclear Tipping Point, a much more sober, History Channel-style film released this year by former Senator Sam Nunn's Nuclear Threat Initiative organization. And then there are smaller films produced by activist groups and non-profit organizations, like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's U.S. Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World, which can be ordered for free.
But going back over 60 years, one of the earliest nuclear-themed films was the 1949 French movie, La Bataille de L'Eau Lourde, or The Battle For the Heavy Water. It's a fascinating story, based on actual events, about how a daring group of French physicists played a pivotal role in preventing Adolf Hitler from developing the world's first nuclear bomb. The real-life story is so incredible, I have to share it here:
Before the Manhattan Project in the United States ever took off, there was the German Uranverein, a group of brilliant nuclear physicists dedicated to exploring revolutionary concepts of fission in uranium atoms. Their wartime objective: to develop the German nuclear program, and to, at the very least, successfully sustain a nuclear chain reaction.
Quickly the Uranverein realized that they needed some way to moderate the chain reaction -- that is, to be able to slow down the speed at which already fast-moving neutrons hit other uranium atoms, since a neutron moving too quickly would pass right through a uranium atom without splitting it. The physicists decided on heavy water as a medium, which would slow down neutrons just enough to sustain a chain reaction. At the time, however, the only place in Europe creating heavy water was a fertilizer plant in Vemork, Norway that was producing it as a by-product.
By this time, French physicist and Nobel laureate Frédéric Joliot-Curie (son-in-law of Marie Curie) had identified the potential use of heavy water in uranium fission as well, and informed the French Ministry of Armaments of its importance in nuclear research. When approached by a representative of the French government, the managing director of the Vemork plant handed his entire supply of by-product heavy water over to France at no cost, saying: "Our company will accept not one centime for the product you are taking, if it will aid France's victory."
A total of 185 kilos of heavy water was smuggled eventually to Paris in the spring of 1940. But in May and June, as Nazi forces advanced on France and marched towards Paris, it became apparent that the heavy water, which still was crucial to the development of the German atomic program, could not be allowed to fall into enemy hands. So a group of French scientists, carrying the heavy water in jerrycans, embarked on a perilous journey to deliver the precious cargo into British hands.
Fortunately, they completed their mission, and the Allies were thus able to thwart, not for the first time, Germany's attempts to develop its nuclear program.
Nine years later, the French film La Bataille de L'Eau Lourde was produced, starring -- believe it or not -- many of the original physicists playing themselves. I've been trying to find a copy of this old black-and-white; if anyone has any leads, please contact me.
But back to the topic of movies. What prompted me to write this piece was yesterday's news that James Cameron is revisiting a script that he had optioned earlier this year, for a movie based on the Charles Pellegrino book Last Train From Hiroshima. It recounts the journey of the only person officially recognized to survive both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who passed away in January of this year at the age of 93.
Yamaguchi-san had become a vocal proponent for nuclear disarmament, and his story has been told by Japanese filmmaker Hideo Nakamura in Twice Bombed Twice Survived, as well as in Pellegrino's book. He was our generation's reminder of the horror nuclear weapons can unleash, and his death this year gave us reason both to remember his terrifying experience and to ask ourselves again why these weapons still play such a tremendous role in our and other nations' defense strategies.
I think this movie idea is going too far. Remember, Cameron is the guy who brought us Avatar, which, though it was entertaining, could hardly be called social commentary. And he's credited for creating the Terminator series, Aliens, and, of course, Titanic -- which no one remembers now as an historically accurate account of the tragic sinking of the cruise ship, but rather focuses on a romance that transcends social class divides and is most famous for Leo DiCaprio's famous line, "I'm king of the world!"
Aside from the 1949 French film, the recent spate of nuclear-themed movies is a serious look at the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. I have a feeling James Cameron would take the Pellegrino book, which already has an alarming number of falsifications, and will turn it into a mega-blockbuster with a romance-driven plot that either minimizes or completely ignores the real issue, which is the horror of the atomic bomb.
If Cameron seriously does Last Train, it had better be done well. I, for one, am not holding my breath.
-----
I'm noticing what might be a curious trend lately in Hollywood: movies are being made about nuclear weapons again. Much like the so-called "nuclear renaissance," which captures the current renewed global interest in nuclear power to address energy needs, there seems to be a revitalization of interest in making movies about nuclear weapons.
Take, for example, the star-studded, Lucky Walker-directed Countdown to Zero, produced by Lawrence Bender of Inglourious Basterds and An Inconvenient Truth. Also, there's Nuclear Tipping Point, a much more sober, History Channel-style film released this year by former Senator Sam Nunn's Nuclear Threat Initiative organization. And then there are smaller films produced by activist groups and non-profit organizations, like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's U.S. Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World, which can be ordered for free.
But going back over 60 years, one of the earliest nuclear-themed films was the 1949 French movie, La Bataille de L'Eau Lourde, or The Battle For the Heavy Water. It's a fascinating story, based on actual events, about how a daring group of French physicists played a pivotal role in preventing Adolf Hitler from developing the world's first nuclear bomb. The real-life story is so incredible, I have to share it here:
Before the Manhattan Project in the United States ever took off, there was the German Uranverein, a group of brilliant nuclear physicists dedicated to exploring revolutionary concepts of fission in uranium atoms. Their wartime objective: to develop the German nuclear program, and to, at the very least, successfully sustain a nuclear chain reaction.
Quickly the Uranverein realized that they needed some way to moderate the chain reaction -- that is, to be able to slow down the speed at which already fast-moving neutrons hit other uranium atoms, since a neutron moving too quickly would pass right through a uranium atom without splitting it. The physicists decided on heavy water as a medium, which would slow down neutrons just enough to sustain a chain reaction. At the time, however, the only place in Europe creating heavy water was a fertilizer plant in Vemork, Norway that was producing it as a by-product.
By this time, French physicist and Nobel laureate Frédéric Joliot-Curie (son-in-law of Marie Curie) had identified the potential use of heavy water in uranium fission as well, and informed the French Ministry of Armaments of its importance in nuclear research. When approached by a representative of the French government, the managing director of the Vemork plant handed his entire supply of by-product heavy water over to France at no cost, saying: "Our company will accept not one centime for the product you are taking, if it will aid France's victory."
A total of 185 kilos of heavy water was smuggled eventually to Paris in the spring of 1940. But in May and June, as Nazi forces advanced on France and marched towards Paris, it became apparent that the heavy water, which still was crucial to the development of the German atomic program, could not be allowed to fall into enemy hands. So a group of French scientists, carrying the heavy water in jerrycans, embarked on a perilous journey to deliver the precious cargo into British hands.
Fortunately, they completed their mission, and the Allies were thus able to thwart, not for the first time, Germany's attempts to develop its nuclear program.
Nine years later, the French film La Bataille de L'Eau Lourde was produced, starring -- believe it or not -- many of the original physicists playing themselves. I've been trying to find a copy of this old black-and-white; if anyone has any leads, please contact me.
But back to the topic of movies. What prompted me to write this piece was yesterday's news that James Cameron is revisiting a script that he had optioned earlier this year, for a movie based on the Charles Pellegrino book Last Train From Hiroshima. It recounts the journey of the only person officially recognized to survive both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who passed away in January of this year at the age of 93.
Yamaguchi-san had become a vocal proponent for nuclear disarmament, and his story has been told by Japanese filmmaker Hideo Nakamura in Twice Bombed Twice Survived, as well as in Pellegrino's book. He was our generation's reminder of the horror nuclear weapons can unleash, and his death this year gave us reason both to remember his terrifying experience and to ask ourselves again why these weapons still play such a tremendous role in our and other nations' defense strategies.
I think this movie idea is going too far. Remember, Cameron is the guy who brought us Avatar, which, though it was entertaining, could hardly be called social commentary. And he's credited for creating the Terminator series, Aliens, and, of course, Titanic -- which no one remembers now as an historically accurate account of the tragic sinking of the cruise ship, but rather focuses on a romance that transcends social class divides and is most famous for Leo DiCaprio's famous line, "I'm king of the world!"
Aside from the 1949 French film, the recent spate of nuclear-themed movies is a serious look at the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. I have a feeling James Cameron would take the Pellegrino book, which already has an alarming number of falsifications, and will turn it into a mega-blockbuster with a romance-driven plot that either minimizes or completely ignores the real issue, which is the horror of the atomic bomb.
If Cameron seriously does Last Train, it had better be done well. I, for one, am not holding my breath.
8.05.2010
Hiroshima, 9/11 and the Proposed NYC Mosque
Cross-posted with the Huffington Post.
-----
Tomorrow, August 6, marks the 65th anniversary of the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. On that day, and in the coming weeks and months as a result of the ensuing fire and radiation, 140,000 Japanese civilians died. An additional 80,000 would perish in Nagasaki, when three days later the US dropped another nuclear weapon there.
But body count and civilian status aside, these two events in 1945 sparked a terrifying arms race spanning over four decades, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today. And for the first time ever, the United States will send an official delegation, led by US Ambassador to Japan John Roos, to the memorial tomorrow.
Though Japan and the US have come a long way in bilateral relations since World War II, there are still some in Japan who feel they are owed, at the very least, an apology by the US government. Says one elderly Japanese woman, quoted in this article:
Of course, that's not a universal truth. And I see a clear parallel between this set of circumstances and that surrounding the current controversy in New York, as plans proceed to build a large mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero.
One warm September morning nearly a decade ago, our resolve as a nation was tested, and we rallied. Our commander-in-chief swore to "take the fight to the enemy." But he was also rational: President Bush stated, time and again, that "the enemy" was not Islam as a religion, nor the billions of Muslims worldwide who adhere to the faith in all its forms. No, the real enemy of America was the group of twisted militant radicals who had usurped Islam for their selfish, warped cause.
Indeed, for moderate Muslims worldwide and especially for American Muslims, the enemy of America also was and always has been the enemy of Islam.
Yet, nearly a decade later, more and more honest, well-intentioned Americans are forgetting President Bush's pleas: that moderate, accepting, pluralist interpretations of Islam -- as practiced by the millions of Muslims living in the US -- are America's biggest ally in the war on terror. And nowhere is this mindlessness more evident than in the protests over the Cordoba House proposal in New York City.
Never mind that the proposed mosque location is a full two blocks away from the World Trade Center site -- a site which, in this writer's opinion, should be preserved as an eternal, non-denominational memorial to the lives lost on that tragic day in 2001. Never mind that it is not just a mosque, but an interfaith, cultural and community center with a proposed fitness center, swimming pool and performing arts space.
No, the real issue I take with the entire matter is that the group of Muslims and supporters that plans on building this center represents precisely that flavor of Islam that is America's biggest ally: an Islam that is moderate, open, accepting, peaceful, outspoken against terrorism in the name of Islam, and American in the truest sense (see this Time Magazine article here).
And inflammatory personalities like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are only making matters worse. Of course, they have the right to freedom of speech, but liberty should never be equated to license. They're only serving to further stoke the anti-Muslim fire that, unfortunately, is growing and spreading more and more each day.
With all that said, these sorts of reactions are to be expected. After all, it hasn't been a full 10 years yet since 9/11, and we as a nation are still struggling with the demons that haunt us, as well as trying to find a better, more peaceful path forward. It has been 65 years since Hiroshima, and yet many Japanese believe that not only was the US in the wrong, but that all Americans to this day still believe we did the right thing by dropping two nuclear weapons on Japan. That simply is not true. Many in the US, and especially those most intimate with America's secret weapons program in the 1940s, have regretted President Truman's decision -- not only because the destructive power of the nuclear bomb was unleashed upon innocent civilians, but also because of the ensuing arms race it sparked.
We are still struggling with those demons as well. But what Americans need to do, now more than ever, is start thinking for themselves again. Listen to what someone like Sarah Palin says -- and then ask yourself if you would come to the same conclusion anyway. Is it really "against common moral sense," as she says, to build an open, moderate Islamic mosque two blocks from Ground Zero? Would we really be up in arms if a church were being proposed? Or a synagogue? Or, for that matter, a Hindu mandir or Buddhist temple? Most likely not.
Remember now, more than ever, that we are American in our values. We uphold freedom and liberty more than anything else. It is precisely our adherence to and defense of these values that have made us a strong, robust, diverse and resilient nation.
Let us not forget who we are.
-----
Tomorrow, August 6, marks the 65th anniversary of the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. On that day, and in the coming weeks and months as a result of the ensuing fire and radiation, 140,000 Japanese civilians died. An additional 80,000 would perish in Nagasaki, when three days later the US dropped another nuclear weapon there.
But body count and civilian status aside, these two events in 1945 sparked a terrifying arms race spanning over four decades, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today. And for the first time ever, the United States will send an official delegation, led by US Ambassador to Japan John Roos, to the memorial tomorrow.
Though Japan and the US have come a long way in bilateral relations since World War II, there are still some in Japan who feel they are owed, at the very least, an apology by the US government. Says one elderly Japanese woman, quoted in this article:
"Americans think that the bombing was reasonable because it speeded up the end of the war. They try to see it in a positive way," Naomi Sawa, a 69-year-old former teacher, said after paying her respects to the dead. "But we were devastated."Sixty-five years later, and despite the progress our two nations have made, there are still people in Japan who believe that the US was justified in the use of the bomb, and that all American citizens to this day still think President Truman made the right decision.
Of course, that's not a universal truth. And I see a clear parallel between this set of circumstances and that surrounding the current controversy in New York, as plans proceed to build a large mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero.
One warm September morning nearly a decade ago, our resolve as a nation was tested, and we rallied. Our commander-in-chief swore to "take the fight to the enemy." But he was also rational: President Bush stated, time and again, that "the enemy" was not Islam as a religion, nor the billions of Muslims worldwide who adhere to the faith in all its forms. No, the real enemy of America was the group of twisted militant radicals who had usurped Islam for their selfish, warped cause.
Indeed, for moderate Muslims worldwide and especially for American Muslims, the enemy of America also was and always has been the enemy of Islam.
Yet, nearly a decade later, more and more honest, well-intentioned Americans are forgetting President Bush's pleas: that moderate, accepting, pluralist interpretations of Islam -- as practiced by the millions of Muslims living in the US -- are America's biggest ally in the war on terror. And nowhere is this mindlessness more evident than in the protests over the Cordoba House proposal in New York City.
Never mind that the proposed mosque location is a full two blocks away from the World Trade Center site -- a site which, in this writer's opinion, should be preserved as an eternal, non-denominational memorial to the lives lost on that tragic day in 2001. Never mind that it is not just a mosque, but an interfaith, cultural and community center with a proposed fitness center, swimming pool and performing arts space.
No, the real issue I take with the entire matter is that the group of Muslims and supporters that plans on building this center represents precisely that flavor of Islam that is America's biggest ally: an Islam that is moderate, open, accepting, peaceful, outspoken against terrorism in the name of Islam, and American in the truest sense (see this Time Magazine article here).
And inflammatory personalities like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are only making matters worse. Of course, they have the right to freedom of speech, but liberty should never be equated to license. They're only serving to further stoke the anti-Muslim fire that, unfortunately, is growing and spreading more and more each day.
With all that said, these sorts of reactions are to be expected. After all, it hasn't been a full 10 years yet since 9/11, and we as a nation are still struggling with the demons that haunt us, as well as trying to find a better, more peaceful path forward. It has been 65 years since Hiroshima, and yet many Japanese believe that not only was the US in the wrong, but that all Americans to this day still believe we did the right thing by dropping two nuclear weapons on Japan. That simply is not true. Many in the US, and especially those most intimate with America's secret weapons program in the 1940s, have regretted President Truman's decision -- not only because the destructive power of the nuclear bomb was unleashed upon innocent civilians, but also because of the ensuing arms race it sparked.
We are still struggling with those demons as well. But what Americans need to do, now more than ever, is start thinking for themselves again. Listen to what someone like Sarah Palin says -- and then ask yourself if you would come to the same conclusion anyway. Is it really "against common moral sense," as she says, to build an open, moderate Islamic mosque two blocks from Ground Zero? Would we really be up in arms if a church were being proposed? Or a synagogue? Or, for that matter, a Hindu mandir or Buddhist temple? Most likely not.
Remember now, more than ever, that we are American in our values. We uphold freedom and liberty more than anything else. It is precisely our adherence to and defense of these values that have made us a strong, robust, diverse and resilient nation.
Let us not forget who we are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
