Renowned linguist, philosopher and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky argued last night that countries possessing nuclear weapons must destroy their warheads if humans are to avoid annihilating each other.
"Humans have developed the capacity to destroy life on earth," he said at one point during his talk in Cabot Auditorium. "The question is 'Will they use it?' And the evidence isn't very comforting."
Chomsky began the speech with a quote from former General of the United States Strategic Command George Lee Butler. "By what authority do succeeding generations of leaders in the nuclear weapons states usurp the power to dictate the odds of continued life on our planet?" Chomsky said.
"Most urgently, why does such breathtaking audacity persist at a moment when we should stand trembling in the face of our folly and united in our commitment to abolish its most deadly manifestation?" Chomsky read.
He cited Butler as one of the many figures who have warned the world against continuing the trend of nuclear aggression.
"To our shame, his questions have taken on much more greater urgency than when he posed them," Chomsky said. "If there were an extraterrestrial observer attending events on Earth since that warning, they would marvel that this species has survived so long."
Chomsky first gained acclaim as a groundbreaking linguist, pioneering the theory of generative grammar, which proposes that people are born with innate knowledge of languages' syntaxes. His work played a role in sparking the rise of cognitive psychology.
During the Vietnam War, Chomsky became well known as a political activist. He has identified himself with anarchism, libertarianism and classical liberalism in the past.
In his talk last night, Chomsky compared what he sees as a looming nuclear catastrophe to climate change. He said that while world leaders are unsure of the solutions to issues like global warming, the threat of nuclear weapons can more easily be eradicated.
"The requirement in the non-proliferation treaty that powers take measures to eliminate nuclear weapons is a legal obligation," he said, citing the international treaty signed in 1968 that dedicated nations to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
"It's a criminal act not to undertake these good measures, and the current administration has said this is not applicable to the U.S.," he said. "Things can be changed, and they better be changed."
He cited the establishment of nuclear weapons-free zones as a step toward total elimination of nuclear weapons, and gave historical background on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.
Signed in 1985 as an agreement among South Pacific nations, the treaty prohibited the manufacturing, testing and stationing of explosive nuclear devices.
"It took 20 years before the U.S., Britain and France accepted the treaty, and the United States still hasn't ratified it," he said, explaining that the United States wanted to delay the treaty's implementation so that France could continue carrying out nuclear tests in the region.
"So the treaty is partially implemented, but not completely," Chomsky added. "This failure reveals the fundamental flaw in all treaty arrangements. Law only works for the powerful if they are forced to accept it, and that pressure can only come from within. So it's our responsibility."
He turned his attention to Iraq, Iran and the greater Middle East as he elaborated on the necessity of nuclear-free zones.
"The most important case of a nuclear-free weapon zone is still pending, and that's the Middle East," he said. "There it's really critical. That could be the flash point."
Chomsky highlighted the contested nature of Resolution 687, a United Nations Security Council resolution from 1991. One article in the resolution called for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and a ban on chemical weapons in the Middle East.
But Chomsky explained that while the American population is overwhelmingly in favor of the resolution, and Iran has adopted it as its official policy, the United States government has not given it support.
"The U.S. government opposes it; media and commentators oppose it; you can't find a word about it. You can't even say they oppose it because it's not even discussed. Article 14 of Resolution 687 is barely even mentioned," he said, explaining that this issue highlights the discrepancy between public opinion in public policy in America.
"The way the system works is that every four years you are permitted to vote for one of the representatives of the feuding interest groups looking out for themselves," he said. "You can vote for them, but then after that, what happens is none of your business."
Chomsky then gave a background to what he sees as today's dire nuclear situation. He cited former President Bill Clinton's rejection of a Russian proposal for a nuclear-free zone from the Arctic Sea to the Baltic Sea as one of the American government's many mistakes over the course of the history of nuclear policy.
"This would have significantly refused the threat of maybe even an accidental war," he said of the proposal.
He said that when President George Bush entered the White House with intense military proposals regarding Eastern Europe, the Russian government became aggravated. "When you threaten people with destruction, they react," he said. "That's a perfectly clear, familiar cycle."
He criticized the United States' National Missile Defense system, a strategy designed to protect the nation from nuclear-weapon attacks, as a particularly dangerous aspect of Bush's nuclear plan.
"It sounds nice, defense. But on all sides, people agree that it's not a defense weapon, it's a first-strike weapon," he said. "If missile defense ever worked technically, what it could do practically is prevent a retaliatory strike, not a first strike."
Giovanni Russonello contributed reporting to this article.
