A Chance for Humanity to Survive: The Urgent Message of ‘An Ordinary Insanity’
by John Whitehead
Daniel Ellsberg was a consultant to the US Defense Department in the 1960s. His responsibilities included, as he described it, “the design of nuclear war plans.” The US nuclear war plan, which Ellsberg was involved in updating, called for the United States to initiate a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union and China, a strike that the US military estimated would kill roughly 600 million people. These deaths would occur both in the targeted countries and in neighboring countries affected by nuclear fallout.
When he learned of this estimate, Ellsberg thought it was “the most evil planning that had ever existed in the history of humanity.” His moral revulsion would ultimately lead him to become a passionate opponent of nuclear weapons.
Ellsberg (1931-2023) is best remembered for his role in the movement against America’s war in Vietnam. In 1971, he shared classified documents on US involvement in Vietnam, known as “the Pentagon Papers,” with the media in the hopes of encouraging opposition to the war.
What is less well known is Ellsberg’s anti-nuclear activism. Along with the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg illegally took classified documents related to US nuclear weapons. These documents were lost before they could be given to the press. Nevertheless, Ellsberg could still draw on his experiences and publicly available information to warn about the threat of nuclear war.
His warnings have been distilled into a new documentary, An Ordinary Insanity, directed by Judith Ehrlich. Based on interviews Ellsberg gave shortly before his death, which are available for free online, the documentary provides a brief (29-minute), extraordinarily powerful overview of the nuclear threat. An Ordinary Insanity is mandatory viewing for anyone concerned with humanity’s future.
Watch here:
The Most Extreme Dimensions of the Threat
The filmmakers examine different dimensions of the world’s nuclear arsenals and nuclear war planning that pose the most extreme risks today. These include the following:
ICBMs and Launch on Warning
One common vehicle for using nuclear weapons is a type of long-range missile known as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Because, unlike nuclear weapons loaded on planes or submarines, ICBMs are in fixed positions in missile silos, they conceivably could be destroyed if an enemy strikes them.
ICBMs’ vulnerability to attack encourages an approach called “launch on warning.” This means a country will use its nuclear weapons upon warning of a possible incoming nuclear attack from an enemy. Launching ICBMs immediately upon warning of an attack allows a country to use the missiles before they are potentially destroyed by the enemy attack. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the United States and Russia have hundreds of nuclear weapons ready for use at short notice, making launch on warning possible.
However, launch on warning also makes it much more likely that a decision to use nuclear-armed ICBMs will be made impulsively, without adequate information, in response to “warnings” that might turn out to be false alarms. Full-scale nuclear war could thus begin purely by accident.
This possibility is not merely hypothetical. Ellsberg recounts multiple real-life false alarms, such as the 1983 Stanislav Petrov incident, which could have led to accidental nuclear war.
Presidential Power
Closely linked to the dangers from ICBMs and launch on warning is the danger posed by a national leader having the unchecked power to order the use of nuclear weapons. The United States is one nuclear-armed nation that poses this danger: the American president can order a nuclear strike without anyone else in the government having the legal power to stop him.
The inherent instability of a situation in which one human has the power to launch a nuclear war was highlighted by an incident toward the end of the first Trump administration. Following the January 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol, General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supposedly assured then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that “the nuclear triggers are secure and…we’re not going to allow anything crazy, illegal, immoral or unethical to happen.” Milley also reportedly told senior military officers to report to him about any orders to use nuclear weapons, presumably to check such orders from President Trump.
However, whatever assurances Milley might have offered or whatever he might have said to other military officers, the fact is that he had no legal standing to obstruct nuclear orders from the president. As Ellsberg comments, if a president orders a nuclear strike, “there could be a refusal [by a top military commander]. But that person could be fired immediately and replaced. And if the next person refused, again, that process could go on.”
With Donald Trump as president once again, a presidential order to use nuclear weapons looms as an all-too-plausible possibility. Nevertheless, the problem of presidential nuclear authority is far bigger than the current erratic occupant of the White House. No human being, even one far more stable than Trump, can be trusted with this power.
Eliminating ICBMs and launch-on-warning policies and checking presidential power are a few of the constructive steps that An Ordinary Insanity points toward. These steps align well with the policy changes advocated by the Back from the Brink Campaign and resolutions (H.Res 317/S.Res 323) currently before the US Congress.
Taking Action
Ellsberg’s warnings about the nuclear threat must be heeded. As many people as possible should see An Ordinary Insanity. Activists, educators, faith groups, and others should organize screenings and encourage people to take just half an hour of their time to absorb the documentary’s message.
I hope that watching An Ordinary Insanity will motivate people to learn more about the nuclear threat and what they can do about it. A good first step American citizens can take is to contact their representatives and senators to urge them to support H.Res.317 and S.Res.323.
Above all, I hope people take to heart the lesson Ellsberg draws from the existential threat we all face today: “Can humanity survive the nuclear era? We don’t know. I choose to act as if we have a chance.” If many more of us act the same way, we might indeed have a chance of survival.
============================
For more or our posts on literature against war, see:
Apocalypse Imagined: The Urgent Message of Nuclear War: A Scenario
Catastrophe by Mistake: The Button and the Danger of Accidental Nuclear War
Documentary Review: The Movement and the Madman
The Darkest Hour: “Glorifying” War?
Leave a Reply