HOPES AND FEARS
(I wrote this sub-heading on November 10, 2014)
Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of demolition of the Berlin
wall and tomorrow is 96th anniversary of the end of the Great War. As much as
these anecdotes of brotherhood and peace restore the faith in humanity, digging
deeper into history brings those infamous incidents which make us realize that
these are nothing but mere symbols of cease-fires. Watching John F Kennedy's
speech over the Berlin wall creates hopes that those gruesome incidents of
history are lost in the past. That they might never repeat. But time after
time, we have seen that the inherent arrogance of humans to show others their
abilities and that they are someone important in the history of mankind provoke
their irrationality.
MAD-NESS
Take the example of Mutual assured destruction (MAD). It is a
doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons
of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete
annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. The acronym was coined by
von Neumann, a cold war strategist and the then ICBM Chairman. A man whose name I've heard in Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and Economics. Along the lines
of his and my understanding, the world peace as we know today is based on Deterrence theory instead of Retributive theory, a
more rational choice. We keep other from harming us by telling them we can harm
them more. This show off between countries that started from the Space race
(Who goes to the Moon first?) culminated in the development of MIRVs of which,
the most advanced weapon of mass destruction (WMD), LGM-118
"Peacekeeper" is the ultimate irony.
IS WAR JUSTIFIED ?
So, why we can't just all just one day give up nuclear weaponry
with mutual trust? A short answer is not all of us think the same way. But to
understand this from war perspective, we need to go way deeper into the
psychological thinking of people while at peace and while at war.
There has been a lot of fuss about Hiroshima and Nagasaki
incident. The complexity of people's stand on the question if it was
justifiable or not can't be addressed precisely here given the unfathomable
vastness of historical relations. We see that there are some who support it on
Utilitarian ethics basis. They consider it as the best option with least casualties (About 300K less casualties than
non-nuclear alternative.). And that it put a sudden end to mass dissatisfaction
and trauma. Even some defend it on the grounds of the horrific acts of Japanese
troops in Asia. Nanking massacre being the most extreme case.
On the other hand, people loath the decision on Deontological
(Moral Absolutism) Ethics basis. They debate over the morality of annihilation
of innocent civilians of Japan who had nothing to do with it. So, you see, the
ethical boundaries can vary from person to person and is still internationally
accepted (There nothing wrong if you follow Utilitarian or Deontological
Ethics!).
But most of us haven't been in that situation where these
decisions are made. The then emperor of Japan, Hirohito and Japanese World War
2 ace and post-war peace advocate, SaburÅ Sakai both admit that it was
justified since they would have done the same if they had the power. General
Curtis Lemay who planned the bombardment describes it as:
“Every soldier thinks something of
the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let
that bother you, you're not a good soldier.”
Most of the greatest commanders and generals of wars tell the same
story with more or less admittance.
War is a time when all the international rules and boundaries mean
nothing. If I try to describe the cause of war into a single most factor:
It is the result of our
incapability to contain, let alone accept, the imperfections of people and
life’s unfairness.
Of course, war is a result of many-many different reasons and
factors. But this factor is what provokes irrationality. And irrationality is
what makes the war gruesome and infectious. Infectious because most of the
people aren’t satisfied with their lives. Everybody loves a change. And war
provides that. The bitter truth is that the world was created unequal. Some
places do have more resources then others. Some people will enjoy more luxury
than other. This truth of life’s unfairness is what ties the world together
into our reality. But those who plan the initiation of war don’t understand
this. In old times, they were those rulers who believed in expanding their
territory. War was obvious. In 20th century, things were pretty
stable. After that, if you ask me, my inclination towards the question is: war
is not justified, with my understanding of war as (destructive) fighting to
attain an equilibrium of status or resolve those imperfections of world which
we are not strong enough to deal with. We can’t change the game but we can
change the way we play it. We can play it non-cooperative, which will lead to
war. Or, we can play it cooperatively with understanding.
STRATEGIES – WE ALL LOVE THEM
Consider this from a game theory point of view. Two players can
reach the best solution (win-win to them (rulers) as well as non-players
(civilians)) if they play cooperatively. That is peace by Retributive theory in
our case. But Human imperfection doesn't support that mutual collaboration. And
hence, we have the same game just that the players are non-cooperative. In this
case, the two players try to invent a strategy to take advantage by finding
loopholes in other’s strategy rather than collaboration. And hence, they end up
in a situation where both are unsatisfied with a zero-sum situation. This is
also why we see no hotels for miles and then suddenly all together at the same
place. If there are three towns of same demand and there is one shop in each
town, everybody is happy. But the shopkeeper see that if I go to the middle of
the three towns, I not only get people from my territory but also some from
others. This greedy solution culminates in a Nash equilibrium i.e. all three
come to the intersection of towns. Upsetting the people far away (majority).
The players/strategists see it as the best solution but is it?
The Nuclear peace we have today is
a Nash equilibrium. It satisfies everyone’s non-cooperative mindset equally.
But it is also important to note that, due to the existence of
imperfections, the equilibrium, no matter if Nash or cooperative, will be
disrupted. In such cases, our best move is to think it through together and
always avoid non-cooperative strategies. The reason I’m stressing on this is
because our fight is not among ourselves but with that irrationalities that
make us take such steps. Life is not fair because of our judgment and self-consciousness.
It is easy to get drifted into thinking of ourselves as an individual or a
group of individuals fighting for themselves in a perfect world instead of the
fact that we are all just biological puppets on this imperfect arena. We all do
mistakes that our imperfections makes us do which lead to annoyance to others
and ourselves. When we see mistakes by others, we judge instead of forgive. We
expect others to learn from their mistakes. We don’t have time for them who as
per our understanding don’t ‘get it’. This sometimes leads to distrust. A long
way down the road, this leads to war. You see, trust is our biggest weapon
against the attempts of our imperfections that lead to wars and annoyance. An
extreme example of one such win is Stanislav Petrov Incident. He literally saved a massive
nuclear war. All because of remaining calm while people around him were losing
their minds to tap on the launch button. Yes, you can’t trust a
schizophreniac with your errands. But cynicism and distrust doesn’t leave us
better off either.
I’m not proposing a strategy to a utopian world. The point I’m
putting forward is that we need to understand that imperfections of the people
doesn’t mean we fight among ourselves.
SO WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH OUR CURRENT SITUATION?
Our current solution as I described earlier is formed on the basis
of MAD. War lead to a fail-deadly spiral culminating in a fail-deadly system
(What better can you accept in a Nash equilibrium?) Dead Hand in Russia. Take a
deeper look to this situation, as most of us wonder why we still have the
bombs. The Second World War culminated into Cold War between the Eastern and
Western Blocs. The political and military tension were observed by the Berlin
Wall, Space Race (Sputnik Crisis), Project A119 & Soviet Project E-4 to
nuke the moon etc. This was followed by development of more and more
destructive war heads. The nuclear weaponry gives the holder benefit of
first-strike. That is, in a state of ‘peace’, the first side to attack will win
since other side will have not much if the attack is directly on the nuclear
forces. So, in early cold war period, realizing such situation, the two sides
(Blocs) met.
They had two options: (a) give up on the WMD or (b) keep them. But
how could they give up? It was their hard work and their nation’s intelligence
and ‘pride’. After all this Space race etc. just letting go of being arrogant
and all that heat wasn’t possible for them. And at top of all this heat, was
the distrust that the other side doesn’t tell the right no. of nukes they have.
So, none of them really gave the right estimate. So, it became clear that the
game will be played by non-cooperative strategy. Both of the sides developed
the capability of second strike. Russia’s Dead Hand and U.S.’s Peacekeeper.
Hence, the peace that we know of
today is by mutually assured destruction.
Yes, things are in balance.
A kind of peace exists in this equilibrium.
But you see…
… It’s a Nash equilibrium.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST ONE DAY DECIDE TO GIVE UP ALL THESE WEAPONS AND BUILD POWER PLANTS FROM THEM INSTEAD?
The war of Austria-Hungary and Serbia proliferated into a
world war because of a major factor: Mutual Defense Alliances. It might seem
that it was a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia but it clearly a world
war from day one. It didn’t just turn into one. If a war breaks out now, it’s
clear that it will be a World war. This is because a country won’t just give up
when its defeat is near without asking its allies to help. It seems to most of
us that such situations will be taken under control before they turn into a
dooms day. That’s true for most cases but then my question is why do we have a
24x7 operational ICBMs?
Well, if one day a conference is held at UN and it is decided that
all nuclear weaponry will be neutralized, that will be the day we will step
away from this Deter-Nash equilibrium. Now, note that it is not possible to
move from a Nash equilibrium to a Collaborative equilibrium without each
player’s full cooperation. But the more closely you study the situation, you
see it’s not that easy.
No matter how well we plan out the transition, there will be
people who will be hot as hell till the end. They will keep rejecting the proposal.
Keep distrusting other nations. Keep listening to themselves and their advisors.
They will give solid reasons to the Transitionalists (those who believe in Nash
to Cooperative transition) why their idea is crap and impractical. They will go
home and watch TV series most of which rant about how ‘everybody in this life
is for themselves’ and explain that to them e.g. The Arrow, Game of thrones
etc. They will plan for the elections, foreign visits etc. But when the
Transitionalists come to them, they will just reject the proposal by putting an
IMPRACTICAL stamp on it. The world will give Noble peace prizes to people for
their efforts towards humanity. But this proposition is always rejected. In
fear of those ’12 Angry Men’ among us who just aren’t ready to listen. Who have
got no time to waste and are ready to sentence a boy to death without
questioning the credibility of the evidences. The Transitionalists, one in
those 12, will always be a minority. The film (12 Angry Men) portrays all of
the situations, from question of practicality to that one man who just won’t
listen to anyone till the end. They will enjoy that 100 dollar turkey on thanks
giving after going through all this exhaustive disapproval they gave. They know
but don’t realize that it is there in front of you at the cost of those hard
working people who get underpaid? They enjoy it while people die due to hunger
in countries which were devastated in war by their country. We are not at war.
But war has shaped the world we live in. And its result is not over just
because we are not fighting. Research shows that it takes few minutes between
launch and ground-zero for today’s strategic MIRVs. Peacekeeper for example has
a 6.7 km/sec speed. These are kept at high-alert, quick to launch status. The
number of such missiles is increasing every year. With the amazing capabilities
of hackers and strategists, what if there is a breach in the system? If you
believe we live in peace, you’re just being ignorant to what is going on in background.
If I had to cause a war, the idea from my side would be a massive
EMP burst which in a minute will send you from 2014 to the 1860. Everything of
solid state electronics will go bye-bye. You can’t use your planes or missiles
(navigation system). No power, no communications, nothing. Cow and buggy time.
And it will be pretty easy to launch a nuclear missile from your end leading to
a war that can’t be stopped due to MAD agreements. Although I’m proposing a
straight fire-in-the-hole strategy, a more tactful person can come up with
something better. You keep them (the nukes) for terrorist? I say you’re making
their work easier. So do you really think we are living in peace with all those
missiles 24x7 armed?
OUR COMMON FUTURE
Deterrence strategy has led us to from this:
“…
Pursuing invariably the same Object (tyranny) evinces a design to reduce them (citizen)
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
- President Thomas Jefferson in 1776,
The Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence
To this:
“To
continue to deter in an era of strategic nuclear equivalence, it is necessary
to have nuclear (as well as conventional) forces such that in considering
aggression against our interests any adversary would recognize that no
plausible outcome would represent a victory or any plausible definition of
victory. To this end and so as to preserve the possibility of bargaining
effectively to terminate the war on acceptable terms that are as favorable as
practical, if deterrence fails initially, we must be capable of fighting
successfully so that the adversary would not achieve his war aims and would
suffer costs that are unacceptable, or in any event greater than his gains,
from having initiated an attack.”
- President Jimmy Carter in 1980,
Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy
Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy
When I listen to Thomas Jefferson’s
Declaration of Independence, or watch the Berlin wall speech, I am filled with
hope that one day people will realize their right, their duty, to abolish this
form of peace that is maintained by holding other countries civilians as
hostages by deterrence, a clear form of Despotism.
"Peace
cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding."
- Albert Einstein
It’s a sad thing that I have to quote such a great person to express
something so fundamental. And yet here
we are...
