DOCUMENT RESUME r.D7-233__950 S0,014 958'. WTHOR Deudney, Daniel rITLE Whole-Earth Security: A Geopolitics of Peace. Worldwafth-Paper'55. INSTITUTION Worldwatch Inst:',__Washington, D.C. IEPORT NO ISBN-0-910468-54-2------_ - ?UB DATE Jul 83 40TE 96p.; Financial supportefor this paper was provided by the Gund Foundation. AVAILABLE FROMWorldwatch Institute, 1776 Maksichusetts Av enue, N.W., Washingtob, DC 20036 ($2.00). ?UB TYPE . Viewpoints (120) MRS PRICE MF01 Pls Postage. PC MotAvail able from EDRS: ,ESCRIpTORS *Global Approach; Modern history; *Nuclear. Warfare; *Peace; Politidal Issues; *Security (Psychology); *Technological Advantemmnt; World Problems IDENTIFIERS *Interdependence ABSTRACT The current use and potential of technology for achieving security and peace are explored. Section 1 traces the use pf technology for warfare through the mastery of ocean-going sailing, the maturation of the airplane, and the development of nuclear weapons. This section suggests that these developments haveled to a Loss rather than an increase ,in security. Section 2 discusses the "transparency revolution," which/refers to the military reconnaissance, sensing, command', and communication systems literally wiring the earth with a web of electronic intelligence. Section_3 focutes on current military, strategies; mutually assured destruction (MAD), nuclear, utilization theories (Np), and, according to the alithor'S, personal projection,:' destruction- entrusted automatic devices (DEAD). The differences in ttiese strategies are explained: to start a war ip the MAD era would have required a. major politicalmisjudgmeht; in NUTS, a major human error; in DEAD, a major machinemalfunction. Section 4 outlines elements of planetarysecurity. It suggests that the same transparent technology now pushing superpower military competition to its most dangerous level can-be used to construct an alternativt security syatem. Section 5 promotes' good neighbor, politics. The final section concludes,with the notion that'while technology may have overwhelmed human ethical capabilities, it has not overwhelmed our passion for security.(RC) *****4********************************************?****i*************** Reproductions supplied- by EDRS are.the best that can be made from the original document. - *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been regroduced as received from the persdr; or organization , originating it. Minor changes haye been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this docu- ment do not necessarily represent official ME position or policy. Whole Earth'Security: A Geopolitics of Peace "PERMISSIOIYIP REPRODUCE THIS J MATERIAL 4.14 I MICROFICHE ONLY Daniel Deudney HAS BEEN GRANTED BY aegrjor TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES . INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC).".. Do tr) Worldwatch Pa 01,55 July 1983 2 -Financial *support for this paper was provided byfhe-Gund Foundation. Sections of the paper may be reproduced in maga- zirks and newspapers with acknowledgment toWorldwatch Institute. The views expressed are those of the author and do not nec- essarily represent those of Worldwatch Institute and itsdirec- tors, officers or staff, or of the Gund Foundation. .4) Copyright Worldwtch Institute 1983 Library o Congress Catalog Number83-50619 ISBN 0-916468-54-2 Printed on recycled paper 3 ible of Contents troduction anetary Geopolitics and National Insecurity 8 le Transparency Revolution 20 ilitary Strategy on the New Terrain 32 ements of Planetary Security 40 di( )ward Good Neighbor Politics 57 agments'of Whole-Earth Thinking 65 0. r" ;Introduction he first photograph of humanity's home, the earth floating in the void of.space, alone'and fragile, has changed forever how we think about our species' interaction with the natural .world and how we manage' our population, resources and environment. Curiously, this new- way of looking at ourselves has yet to significantly affect thinking about security. Security systems today are more. appropriate to the long but now departed past when socie- ties weretisotated and only occasionally inlcontact with one another, rather than rleighbors in a closed, crowded "lifeboat" earth. "Lifeboat ethics," a powerful rhditation on the meaning of the whole-earth picture, asks the profoundly practical question: What is minimally, acceptable behavior for group survival on,,a lifeboat? How long can "the war of all against all". continue in a lifeboat when antagonists use hand-grenades to secure themselves .against their similarly armed neighbors? The'choices available in a lifeboatand on the .planetare simple and stark: catastrophe, tyranny, a pre- carious stand -off or accommodation. The superpowers, hedging against the fear of world tyranny with almost unlimited 'resources, \ have produced weapons of almost unlimited destructivenesS, The time has come to reduce superpower insecurity, rather than 'build ever smarter, more capable weapons as hedges against it. gie image of great nations becoming "Republics of Insects and rass," the ,grisly visage of 30 million burn victims slowly dying without medical treatment, and political leaders seriously discussing fighting and winning a nuclear war with tens of millions of casualties have made real to many people what .seemedquite'abstract before. To contemplate the rising threat of nuclear war is not to indulge in apocalyptic fantasizing but to keep in focus the.greatestand entirely man-made--threat td human survival. As nucleai war has ecome a. I would like to thank Jack .Cushman, Richard Falk, Richard. Garvin, Willis Harman, William McNeill, Jay Ogilvy, Peter Scbarfman, Paul.gtares and Tom Wilson for reviewing the manuscript, John Pike'an'd Wesley Warren for mans' hours of dialogue on'these issues, and John Foggle, SuSan Hill' and David Macgregor hir assistance in preparing this publication. ! ..* graphic possibility people have become alarmed, and, atleast for the moment, nuclear_armamept has assumed itsrightful place at the center of the political agenda. Anvappreciation of the problem at its true scale geopolitics,-can provide a "big picture" chart on which to plot our escape. Sincethe final days of World War II, an unheralded geopoliticalrevolution has transformed forever the relationship between weapons'andsecurity. It has rendered obsolete the foundations of presentsecurity strate- gies. With the atomic bomb, the ballistic missile, and nowwith earth- spanning sensing, communication and computingnetworks, thebil ity to destroy, transport and target has becomeplanetary in scale. With the advent of planetary warmaking, security strategy,hasbeen based on the militarization of the commonsthe oceandepths, the atmosphere and orbital space. With the enclosure of theplanet by warmaking systen*, security itself has becomeindivisible, a com- mons in its, own ,right. Common security has ceased. beingutopian and unnecessary and become both possible and necessary. The same technologies of planetary informationthat brought us an image of the whole earth are propelling the current arms race.But' these technologies could also form the core of analternative security sy,stem: Understandably preoccupied with weaponsof awesome der structiveness, we have overlooked the increasinglycentral role of nonweapon, sensory, communication and computing technology, in the strategic balance. Applied to the task of illuminatingthe planetary terrain, these technologies have created transparency revolution that is pacing progress in the whole-earth sciences andshaping the .deployment of weapons like the MX; the cruise missileand the missile-firing subinanne. Like scopes on a high powered -rifle,these information technologies have altered the threatof existing weapons making both sides less secureancl precipitated an en- tirely new arms race. At the same tithe', thesetechnologies create a uniqu'e but perhaps perishable opportunity tohave comprehensive, verifiable control of planetary-scale weapons. Ironically, the technologies that make possible analternative security system are bringing the presentweapon.s-heavy secunty system to its, 6 "The: arms race' Only appears intractable and,unScilvab,le becauie practical solufions have,been'tendered taboO by the preVailingbot obsolete-- 7 'ways of thinking." . ' nost unstable and perilOus state, . To preserve the traditiOnal basis of ieace-rdeterrence-- in the face of lightning fast, absolutely accurate, weapons of unlimited destructiveness, military strategies demand,. ;reOtly multiplied numbers of weapons. And the authority to launch. hem must be delegated to field commanders and,machines. In coin Anation these changes create a fatal loss of control. Attempting to !ompensate .for this loss by expanding the strategic warning ,:and !ommunication, system ,only creates the illusion, not the reality, of ;reater control: These technologies could help/restrain the planetary -'. cale warmakirig machines;' but they will,n,ot allow the military to ight controlled war. ( With these shifts inscale, the previOUS time - tested and time-honOred Ways of thinking and acting are dangerous'anadgronisms and blocks o improved security. In this rieNV world the preViously unthinkable nforination exchange, limits 6n technOogical innovation and scien-: ific ccioperation=enhance'rather than'jeopardizeSecunty. The new )1anetary information technologies must be expanded, sanctified and ,rotected agairist destruction to