MAD--Essay on Mutual Assured Destruction--MANUFACTURED CRISIS

30 November 2020

original title:

MAD--Essay on Mutual Assured Destruction--#IRAN & THE BOMB, eyeless on campus--

---

//..IMMEDREL//ATTN:JC@NYU//P-SHOP//UNCLSF//TTYP//..//

---

     Incline Village, Nev. (EoC)-- Published in Rhetoric and Public Affairs in 2011, Leah Ceccarelli's article "Manufactured Scientific Controversy" defines the title as;

     "A scientific controversy is 'manufactured' in the public sphere when an arguer announces that there is an ongoing scientific debate in the technical sphere about a matter for which there is actually an overwhelming scientific consensus." (Ceccarelli, 196)

     The footnote attached to the definition makes the case for the two so-called spheres of "public" and "technical" where Ceccarelli notes the "boundaries between the two are permeable." In a sense, it sets the stage for the non-experts to encroach on the terrain of the experts and call the findings into question. To what degree the evidence of the claim is "overwhelming" is irrelevant. The footnote explicitly points to political policy making as the ultimate goal of those with self-interest beyond the scientific sphere. 

Uncertainty plays a large part in the process of calling into question scientific fact;

     "most scientific findings are inherently probabilistic and ambiguous." (197) 

Again, in the climate warming section, even with overwhelming evidence, Ceccarelli notes;

     "It seems to corroborate the essayists claim of a dogmatic orthodoxy by indicating that
supporters of the dominant paradigm would prefer to silence dissent."  (208)

Translated, the scientists themselves are to blame for allowing the so called "mercenaries" to refute the facts since they (the scientists) are too busy digging up more facts to pay attention to the debate in politics and the press. That very orthodoxy invites criticism. The truth of the matter is that the era of positivism has long since passed, replaced by one of skepticism. 

Based on the above criteria, it might be debated that military superiority is not necessarily a winning strategy in the modern world. The slogan "Might makes right" is something out of the 19th century but didn't really become a reality until atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The debate over whether to develop even more powerful nuclear weapons, especially the hydrogen, or "super" bomb, forced a great deal of soul searching in its developers such as J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. (Halberstam, 151-174)

     Now, in the 21st century, with Russia's  annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, with the realignment of NATO forces in Europe, with the threat of development of the bomb by non-aligned nations as Iran and North Korea, it has become essential to question the doubters in the community that thermonuclear war is, as what might be defined from above "probabilistic and ambiguous,"  anything but "uncertain." The assassination of the top bomb expert in Iran last week is a barometer as to how serious the prospect has become.  (BBC) 

The policy was referred to "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) that has prevented nuclear war. Today that policy is being challenged from within and from without.

" 'The central thing was the public had no control,' says Dr Christopher Laucht, a lecturer in British history at Leeds University. 'You were at the mercy of political decision makers. Apart from the fear that one side would do something stupid, there was also the fear of technology and the question of 'what if an accident happened'. ' " (BBC)

---

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh: Iran buries assassinated nuclear scientist

Iran has held a funeral for its top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was assassinated on Friday in an attack that it has blamed on Israel. In a televised speech at the ceremony, Defence Minister General Amir Hatami vowed to avenge Fakhrizadeh's death and continue his path "vigorously".

---

Discussion reply:

     Paranoia is the bedfellow of conspiracy theory. Neville-Shepard cites Hofstadter's highlight of paranoid conspiracy: the vast network, transcends history, popular villains, the impending apocalypse, and the scapegoat. (Neville-Shepard) The author traces the "early style" to the post-Roosevelt era, in particular, President Truman. This fits well with the initial post regarding the advent of the Atomic Age and the role played by Truman and his cabinet, in particular the Secretary of State, Dean Acheson. 

    Following some rather high-profile spy trials and convictions, including Alger Hiss, who was a friend of Acheson, the Secretary went on the offensive;

     "The political pressure building around Truman to go ahead with the Super was relentless...Failure to do so, Acheson noted, 'would push the Administration into a political buzzsaw.' " (Halberstam, 61)

     Acheson created the specter of the apocalyptic villain in the form of the Soviet Union when at first, sharing nuclear technology appeared to be the preferred strategy considering the Kremlin had been an ally in World War Two. Acheson qualified for all of Hofstadter's categories of the paranoid style, accidentally or otherwise. 

     Today, the assassinated Iranian nuclear scientist became the latest casualty in this strategy of paranoid style, Instead of following up on the preceding regime's tireless efforts to bring Iran and North Korea into the nuclear community as constructive members, the current US administration deserted  arms agreements with those particular non-aligned nations. (Laub, Robinson)

     The paranoid nuclear holocaust environment has been given new life. Comparing Neville-Shepard to Ceccarelli is not as useful as comparing Neville-Shepard to himself, particularly with respect to the "subtextual" component of paranoid style. There is nothing subtextual about nuclear annihilation. There is every reason to believe certain non-aligned nations have atomic weapons capability, and the vehicles for delivery. We can only speculate on how the now long gone Secretary of State Dean Acheson  would characterize the immanent threat.

Cited:

Neville-Shepard, R., Paranoid Style, Full article: Paranoid Style and Subtextual Form in Modern Conspiracy Rhetoric (oclc.org) (Links to an external site.)

Laub, Z., Robinson, K., What Is the Status of the Iran Nuclear Agreement? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

---

Pakistan latest nuclear power to condemn killing of Iranian scientist as world remains on edge

Pakistan is the latest nuclear power to condemn the killing of a top Iranian atomic scientist, deeming the act a destabilizing event in a region already plagued by widespread unrest. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a former Revolutionary Guard officer who led the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research was shot dead last Friday east of the Iranian capital in a yet unclaimed assassination that has fueled suspicions of Israeli involvement.

---

References:

Ceccarelli, Leah. “Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 14, no. 2, 2011, pp. 195–228. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41940538. Accessed 1 Dec. 2020.

Halberstam, David, The Fifties, 1993 Random House, NY

Iran Scientist Assassination, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh: Iran scientist 'killed by remote-controlled weapon' - BBC News (Links to an external site.)

de Castella, T., MAD, How did we forget about mutually assured destruction? - BBC News

---

//..IMMEDREL//ATTN:JC@NYU//P-SHOP//UNCLSF//TTYP//..//

---