Gusterson's article, Nuclear Weapons and the Other in Western Imagination, did an effective job highlighting some of the contradicting themes within Western thinking. Gusterson does a good job providing counter arguments for the four main reasons why nuclear weapons should only be in the hands of "responsible" nations. Out of all the arguments that Gusterson discusses I think the one that is most relevant today and really highlights how Western countries (specifically the US) construct "the other" is the argument that focuses on fundamentalist groups. The Western idea is that if a fundamentalist group gets a hold of a nuclear weapon that they will then turn it around and destroy the world or at the very least will pose a threat to Western countries. I think that an example of why this wouldn't be true can be seen in Israel. While Israel isn't an enemy of Western countries, it can be seen as a fundamentalist group. They have had nuclear weapons for a good amount of time and even during the 1970s attacks they didn't resort to using nuclear weapons even in the defense of their own country. The notion that all fundamentalist groups would like to destroy those that oppose them helps to propagate the notion that only Western countries are responsible enough to use nuclear weapons. I believe that if individuals would replace those fundamentalist countries with any Western country the idea that those Western countries wouldn't be responsible would be preposterous. I think it isn't too far fetched to view the US and other Western countries as being fundamentalists in their own regards and yet the only country that has used nuclear/atomic weapons has been one of those "responsible" countries.
The continuing misrepresentation of non Western countries is a way for Western countries to build up a mindset of fear and to de-legitimize non Western countries. The threat of nuclear attack is this eras communist scare. The fear is built up and built up and in reality a lot of the reasons why non Western countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons are or have been violated by Western countries who control the worlds nuclear arsenal. For this reason it would seem that Western countries, through the fear of nuclear attack from irresponsible countries, is attempting to maintain the status quo of power through nuclear dominance.
Great point about Israel. They are certainly a state based around a singular religion and haven't used that fact to launch nukes at their numerous foes in the region with competing religious views.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Israel is obviously a state and I feel like the real threat of a nuclear attack comes from non-state actors (ISIS comes to mind at the moment). Non-state actors have less to lose on the international stage and wouldn't face the same repercussions a state would face if they let a nuke loose. I think Western fears about nuclear material getting into the hands of sophisticated and well equipped non-state actors are justified, but the article did a good job citing examples of how this logic shouldn't be used by the West to stop "others" from getting nukes. The West has shown numerous examples of improper handling of their own nuclear material.