Getting A Message Out
By In the 1950s and again in the 1980s, the American public engaged with the issues of nuclear weapons. Demonstrations led to banning atmospheric tests in 1963 and bolstered both Ronald Reagan’s and Mikhail Gorbachev’s desire to eliminate nuclear weapons. Now important treaties have been abandoned, and a nuclear arms race may be starting. But the public seems to have tuned nuclear dangers out. Climate change has replaced nuclear war as the overwhelming existential danger.
The New York Times series on nuclear war and nuclear weapons is one attempt to highlight that danger, and William Langewiesche’s article is part of that. The article tries to present an engaging narrative of the type for which Langewiesche is known. I think it fails.
I am not fond of current literary fiction, and I am less fond of attempts to write nonfiction in the modes of literary fiction, which is what Langewiesche does. When I read an article like this, I stumble over its conventions. To me, nonfiction should be clearly stated, without ornament. They just don’t work for me, and I think they work particularly badly in this article. I’d be interested to hear of different reactions.
Langewiesche begins with a metaphor of nuclear exchange as communication. He doesn’t carry that metaphor past the first few paragraphs. It’s a poor metaphor in this case, because those who believe that escalation can be controlled like to claim that particular uses of nuclear weapons, or even particular nuclear weapons, communicate messages that limit escalation. Diplomacy, with words, is much better at conveying messages.
He tries to develop a sympathetic character, as reporters are encouraged to do. Paul Bracken was the chronicler of the 1983 game, with access to all information as the game proceeded, making him something of an omniscient narrator. But Langewiesche characterizes Bracken as a plain vanilla character who looks like an insurance salesaman. A more intense choice would have been a player who became angry as the game proceeded. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger would have been ideal, but he died in 2006. Looking into his papers might be interesting, but that would require Freedom of Information Act requests, which can take a long time. So Langewiesche did his best with what he had.
The last paragraph is overwrought, but remember, he’s trying to churn up strong feelings in his readers. In particular, he’s wrong about nonproliferation, which is holding despite many potential motivations. He tries to make it sound like nuclear war is “coming to the neighborhood.”
The piece as a whole is a warning that nuclear war may be becoming more likely, but there have been many such pieces. They haven’t stirred up public opinion since the 1980s. The civil organizations that have provided some of the impetus and brainpower for reducing nuclear weapons are on the ropes. The MacArthur Foundation stopped funding them a couple of years ago. This article lays out that decline.
Most of the treaties between the United States and Russia on limiting nuclear weapons have been abrogated by Republican US presidents. Russia has invaded neighboring Ukraine and volleyed nuclear threats at NATO. Donald Trump will become president in January. His past presidency was marked by nuclear threats.
I think we need new ways to look at this. I don’t have any answers, but I’ll continue to write as I try to find them.
Cross-posted to Nuclear Diner