The situation surrounding the University of California’s
potential bid to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory is
complex. The UC never has had to bid to manage Los Alamos. It was
asked by the federal government to manage the labs and develop
nuclear weapons as a public service. Competing to continue the
research and development of weapons of mass destruction ““ a
relationship that always has been in contradiction with the core
mission of a university that promotes the principles of academic
openness ““ is ethically questionable. Competing against
defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Bechtel Corp. is even
more questionable.
It is true that the ethical dimensions of this managerial role
have changed greatly since the original Manhattan Project, when we
justified our pursuit of the original weapons of mass destruction
as necessary to counter Hitler’s program of atomic weapons
development.
Similarly, the ethical dimensions have changed since the end of
the Cold War, during which our justification was the vital
necessity to balance the threat posed by the Soviet Union.
Now, we use the “War on Terror” to justify the
development, planned production and threatened use of new nuclear
weapons. But the role of nuclear weapons has changed as well.
The current administration has implemented a major strategic
shift in U.S. foreign/defense policy, discarding the
“threat-based approach” of the Cold War and assuming an
“abilities-based approach” as outlined in the 2001
Nuclear Posture Review. This means that rather than producing
nuclear weapons for defensive purposes ““ deterrence ““
we are now researching and designing a new generation of
offensively designed nuclear weapons. Meet the euphemistically
termed “bunker buster” and “mini-nuke” that
UC employees are creating.
“Mini-nukes” are still designed to be immensely
powerful. Even worse, the planned bunker busters would most likely
create huge clouds of radioactive dirt after detonation. Studies
have shown that weapons detonated close to the ground or in shallow
pits actually create more fallout than weapons detonated as an
airburst. Supposedly, these weapons would be used against enemy
command posts and weapons stockpiles.
As nuclear strategies and policies change, so should our highly
prestigious and respected university. Furthermore, students should
have substantial say in these changes.
Whose university is this? Am I wrong in believing that
universities exist for students? Shouldn’t students be
welcomed (not to mention correctly informed) to enter this critical
debate? Isn’t it our right as an inseparable part of the UC
to be consulted on major decisions such as this, one that will
affect the course of the university and the world for decades to
come? I say yes. Is Los Alamos the real UCLA? I say no.
But this debate is bigger than who should manage the nuclear
weapons complex. Catastrophic terrorism ““ terrorism plus WMD
““ is now regarded as the most significant threat to global
security. The German foreign minister went so far as to call
catastrophic terror a new “totalitarian threat” because
it is not deterrable. So how do we meet this challenge? Preemptive
strikes and nation-building are both very limited and inefficient
strategies.
In the face of this new “totalitarian” threat, many
new questions must be posed and debated ““ by everyone. What
effect on the psyche and policy of other nations is produced
through the continued research, development and threat to use
weapons of mass destruction by the nation who spends more on the
military then the next nine nations combined? Can the United States
have weapons of mass destruction without everyone else having them?
If everyone has them, how can we stop terrorists from acquiring
these weapons? Is it possible to stop terrorists from acquiring
biological and nuclear weapons?
If we truly and objectively ask and answer these questions to
the best of our ability as rational human beings, I think the
debate about the U.S. nuclear weapons complex would quickly shift
from who should manage the nuclear weapons complex to whether there
should be a nuclear weapons complex to manage.
The UC, despite its deep contradictions, is the greatest
university system in the world. Why else would we have been trusted
to manage Armageddon for 60 years? Since the nuclear age began with
us, we are the most qualified institution to lead a much needed
international debate about the future of WMD, the future of
catastrophic terror and, ultimately, the future of Earth. It is not
only our privilege, it is our responsibility.
Michael Cox is the founder of the Nuclear Free
Community.