COUNTERPLAN/NUCLEAR ABOLITION

ADVANTAGE: NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCREASE CONFLICTS IN MANY WAYS

NUCLEARIZATION DEMANDS CONVENTIONAL MILITARY SPENDING WHICH CREATES A DOUBLE MILITARY BURDEN AND INCREASED RISK OF CONVENTIONAL CONFLICTS

Kumkum Sangari, Neeraj Malik, Sheba Chhachhi, Tanika Sarkar , Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament, 2001, Why Women Must Reject Nuclearisation

The option of nuclear weaponisation means embarking on a self-destructive and never-ending race for more and more lethal and costly weapons. The argument that it is cheaper to make a bomb than invest in conventional weapons is not convincing. Nuclearisation will not eliminate the necessity for conventional weapons. On the contrary, by provoking neighbouring countries severely, it has made the prospect of conventional warfare far more imminent, and has stepped up military investment altogether. So, investment in non-nuclear weapons will increase, and on top of that the cost of the arms race will have to be met. All this will come out of the strained resources of a country where nearly half the people live below the poverty line. If militarism distorts the economy and polity so that no goals of social justice can be met, nuclearisation distorts it even more.

In sum, we will have to carry the double burden of conventional militarisation and nuclearisation. And this burden is both material and ideological. Nuclearisation, even more than militarisation, is breeding a new language of scientism.

NUCLEARIZATION CREATES NATIONALISM BASED ON REPRESSIVE CONFORMITY

Kumkum Sangari, Neeraj Malik, Sheba Chhachhi, Tanika Sarkar , Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament, 2001, Why Women Must Reject Nuclearisation

What is more, the type of nationalism that accompanies nuclearisation demands obedience and conformity. It is repressive, silences dissent, and dubs all humane and democratic protest as anti-national. In short, it makes it more difficult to imagine and work towards a better existence.

NUCLEARIZATION LEADS TO THE CREATION OF A VIOLENT NATIONAL IDENTITY WHICH RISKS FUTURE CONFLICT

Kumkum Sangari, Neeraj Malik, Sheba Chhachhi, Tanika Sarkar , Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament, 2001, Why Women Must Reject Nuclearisation

Nuclearisation, then, is not a matter of military and technological decision or activities alone. A nuclearised India will construct for itself a cultural and educational environment that promotes a preference for aggression, violence and revenge. There will be a systematic deployment of technologies and scientific training that are geared to this, at the cost of their peaceful, constructive or welfare deployment. In order to justify these priorities, people will be fed with more images of militaristic heroism, of brutality, of relentless pursuit of aggrandisement. On the other hand, images that grow out of peaceability, of tolerence and universal goodwill, will have to be systematically denigrated. Even the possibility of drawing upon human values and perceptions traditionally asssociated with women to develop life-affirming and -sustaining attitudes and methods for the entire social body will be reduced.

Such new cultural activity and new education will promote a mindset that enhances what are conventionally known as masculine values; to be a man is to be violent, eager to retaliate, to welcome brutality. The difference, of course, will be that now, such inclination towards violence will no longer be restricted to men alone. They will embrace the entire population. In fact women will have to be included in the new values since mothers conventionally are socialising agents and are the first to teach children about the world.

NUCLEARIZATION ERODES THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN MANY UNEXPECTED WAYS

Kumkum Sangari, Neeraj Malik, Sheba Chhachhi, Tanika Sarkar , Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament, 2001, Why Women Must Reject Nuclearisation

We need to reject nuclearization because of its social cost, new patriarchalism, danger of state authoritarianism, damage to the environment, and erosion of our rights as citizens. And we need to reject it from the standpoint of democratic and ethical principles, from a defence of citizen's rights.