Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 Scholars Nuclear K’s

Link – Fanaticism/Terrorism

Their representations of dangerous fanaticism are arbitrary and racist

Gusterson ’99 (Gusterson, Hugh,”Nuclear Weapons and the Other in Western Imagination” Cultural Anthropology, 14.1 Feb 1999 http://www.jstor.org/stable/656531 Aug 17/2009, p.125-26)NAR

It is often also assumed in the discourse on proliferation that Third World nuclear weapons exist to serve the ends of despotic vanity or religious fanaticism and may be used without restraint. In the public discussion of India's nuclear tests in 1998, for example, it was a recurrent theme that India conducted its nuclear tests out of a narcissistic desire for self-aggrandizement rather than for legitimate national security reasons. This image persists in spite of the fact that India, with a declared nuclear power (China) on one border and an undeclared nuclear power (Pakistan) on the other, might be thought to have reasons every bit as compelling as those of the five official nuclear powers to test nuclear weapons. Strategic analyst Michael Krepon said on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, "These tests weren't done for security purposes .... They were done for reasons of domestic politics and national pride.... We have street demonstrations to protest nuclear weapons. They have them to celebrate them" (1998). Meanwhile, in an article entitled "Nuclear Fear and Narcissism Shake South Asia," a New York Times reporter, speaking of India as if it were a spoiled child, wrote that India, "tired of what it considers to be its own second-class status in world affairs ... has gotten the attention it wanted" (Weisman 1998:16). Similarly, Senator Richard Lugar (Republican, Indiana) said that India tested in part because "there was a lot of indifference, under appreciation of India. ... We were not spending quality time in the Administration or Congress on India" (Congressional Quarterly Weekly 1998:1367-1368). And when Edward Teller, the so-called father of the hydrogen bomb, was asked if India and Pakistan were following his motto that "knowledge is good," he replied, "These explosions have not been performed for knowledge. It may be to impress people. It may be a form of boasting" (Mayer 1998:B 1). The Western discourse on nuclear proliferation is also permeated by a recurrent anxiety that Third World nations will use nuclear weapons to pursue religious squabbles and crusades. Commentators particularly fear an "Islamic bomb" and a Muslim holy war. Said (1978:287) identified the fear of a Muslim holy war as one of the cornerstones of orientalist ideology. Senator Edward Kennedy worries about a scenario in which "Libya, determined to acquire nuclear weapons, receives a gift of the Bomb from Pakistan as an act of Islamic solidarity" (1982:ix). Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warns that "you could have an Islamic bomb in no time, and God have mercy on us" (Associated Press 1998). Mary McGrory fears that "nothing is more important than keeping the 'Islamic bomb' out of the hands of Iran. Let it be introduced into the Middle East and you can kiss the world we know goodbye" (1998a:A3). The San Francisco Examiner quotes an analyst who explained Saddam Hussein's willingness to forego $100 billion in oil revenues rather than end his nuclear weapons program by saying, "The single most important reason is Saddam's vision of his role in history as a saviour of the Arab world. He is comparing himself with Saladin" (Kempster 1998:A17). Finally, syndicated columnist Morton Kondracke speculates about a despot "like the Shah of Iran" who "secretly builds an arsenal to increase his prestige": Then he is overthrown by a religious fanatic resembling the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who then uses some of the Shah's bombs to intimidate or destroy neighboring countries .And other bomb she passes on to terrorists that will use them to wage holy wars. Be glad that it didn't happen in real life. But something like it could. [1983] The Western discourse on proliferation also stresses the supposedly ancient quality of feuds and hatreds in South Asia and the Middle East. As British journalist Nigel Calder puts it, "In that troubled part of the world, where modern technology serves ancient bitterness and nuclear explosions seem like a just expression of the wrath of God, imagining sequences of events that could lead to a regional nuclear conflict is not difficult" (1979:83). Explaining why Pakistan named its new missile the Ghauri, Senator Moynihan said, "Ghauri was a Muslim prince who invaded India in the twelfth century. These things don't go away" (1998). "Nuclear missiles named for ancient warriors will probably be deployed by two nations with a history of warfare, religious strife, and a simmering border dispute," said an ABC News reporter (Wouters 1998). In this vein it was widely reported in the U.S. media that the Indian Prithvi missile was named after an ancient warrior-king and that India's Agni missile was named for the god of fire (e.g., Marquand 1998). This widely circulated claim is particularly striking because, while it resonates with our stereotypes of Hindus enslaved to religion and tradition, it is quite untrue. The word Prithvi means "world" or "earth," and Agni means fire itself and does not refer to a god. The Indians are naming their missiles after elements, not after warriors or gods (Ghosh 1998). Of course, if Western commentators were looking for a country that names its nuclear weapons after ancient gods and dead warriors, they need have looked no further than the United States, with its Jupiter, Thor, Poseidon, Atlas, Polaris, Minuteman, and Pershing missiles.