There Is No Global SecurityWithout Nuclear Disarmament

Ivo Šlaus

Nuclear Weapons and War

◙ 1945 →1985 →2005 1985 2005USA 23,000 10,500

USSR/Russia 40,000 9,000world 70,000 30,000

◙ Accidents with NW: from 1950 about one or more per year

◙ Exposure to radiation in the USA and USSR◙ “To seek scientists to kill or cure masses” (Ben

Gurion)◙ 1948, 1974 Tito’s nuclear bomb – likely a total “bluff”

◙ 1981: Kenneth Waltz: The spread of nuclear weapons – the more the betterAnd physicists also: A.Sakharov “proposed” tsunami as weapon – soviet admiral disagreed (told by S. P. Kapitza)

∩ Precepts “Science is neutral” and “Science has nothing to do with politics” still prevail. Remnants of ivory tower mentality (J. Rotblat, Nobel Acceptance Speech)

◙ 2000: dirty bombs (rogue states or terrorists) + the USA pre-emptive doctrine

CONSEQUENCES

PROBABILITY

MAD

WMD

local war

DESTRUCTION OF CIVILIZATION

100 %

-

NATURAL

Many dangers and threats are recent (+ financial and demographic instabilities), and many new will appear. None of the foreseeable threats can be addressed by military means! How about terrorism and rogue and failed-states? How about totalitarian regimes?

Are military means useful in addressing natural and/or alien threats, e.g. approaching celestial object? Or in addressing earthquakes, tornados, pandemics??Are WMD useful means in such scenarios?

♣ Certain threats and dangers were with us for long time and various strategies and mechanisms were devised to deal with them, e.g. war, aggression, conquest and political instabilities were dealt with military power, economic strength, balance of power, assured destruction, blockades and economic sanctions, containment and treaties.

♣ Almost all these strategies and mechanisms are still prevalent, but some are now inadequate and even dangerous.

♣ “Si vis pacem para bellum” resulted in mutually assured destruction - MAD (nuclear arsenals 100 x > required for any deterrent purpose) invalid as shown by the recent Global peace index based on 24 different indicators and covering 140 states: states having nuclear weapons - and according to the old viewpoint they should be best prepared - are at the bottom of the list, particularly two major NW states: the USA and Russia.

War, preparation for war and deterrence, notably nuclear deterrence do not eliminate enemies, but create enemies and generate other threats and dangers.

♣ Terrorism and strategic crime (M. Glenny:McMafia) linked with rogue, failed and failing states – albeit present from Antiquity - now represent a much higher danger and threat than at any time in our history - innocent people are victims and nothing is achieved.

♣ Why? Just as an expression of frustration or utter stupidity? ♠ It does not seem we are winning the war against terror, nor war against crime.

◙ Increasing dissatisfaction of the public with governance

Opinion polls (Gallup Voice of the People, May-June 2005: 50,000 persons from 65 countries in 6 continents ≈ 1.4 billion persons):

(i) 7% - “world is going in the right direction”

23% - somewhat agree with above

(ii) 68% - “country not governed by the will of the people” vs 27% (governed by the will of the people)

While 41% of the people of the world are living in countries considered to be free (??)

The dissatisfaction of the public increased: - in 1990 77% of Americans believed government failed,- up from 23% in 1963.

♠ 2003: more than 3700 metric tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) in 60 states. Over the last decade IAEA reported 18 incidents involving plutonium and HEU.

♠ About 10,000 kilograms of HEU is unaccounted for –

more than 100 nuclear bombs. A terrorist group acquiring

HEU can easily manufacture a primitive nuclear explosive.

☼ HEU reduced to less than 20% of U-235 is not useful for terrorists, since requires major enrichment installation to acquire a weapon-grade HEU. In the early 1990’s Russia and the USA agreed todown-blend 500 tons of Russian HEU, but???

It is more difficult to build a plutonium bomb. But, plutonium can be used in other terrorists’ action.

Dirty bombs: easier to build, no need to transport it and it need not be very reliable.

☼ A new approach needed: technological measures + eliminating root causes of terrorism. ◊ Technical measures include protecting critical infrastructure, e.g chemical and nuclear plants, food and agriculture safety and the control of weapons. ◊ Strengthen and democratize international andregional bodies for effective global governanceimplying strengthening freedom and democracy at home and abroad.

♥ “The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose - survival. If in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear---if we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable..that will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task.” (Rotblat 1995)

♥ ”Every gun made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies in the final sense a theft from the hungry. The world in arms is not only spending money. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists.”

(DDE, Aug 16, 1953)

♥ July 9,1955 Russell-Einstein Manifesto “Shall we put an end to human race, or shall mankind

renounce war...The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignity....We appeal as human beings to human beings Remember your humanity and forget the rest.”

♥ July 7-10, 1957 Thinkers’ Lodge, Pugwash, Nova Scotia

♥ 1972 Pugwash helped achieve Biological Weapon Convention

♥ and 1997 Chemical Weapon Convention

♥ 1989 The Sevilla Statement on Violence:- Animal make war, we are like animal = scientifically

incorrect- War part of our nature = scientifically incorrect- Violent people live better = scientifically incorrect- Our brain causes violence = scientifically incorrect- War caused by instinct = scientifically incorrect

♥ Antipersonnel landmines - Nobel peace prize: 1997 Jody Williams

♥ 1995 Nobel peace prize: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and Sir Joseph Rotblat

♥ “Pugwash always operated at the political level by its impeccable science and absolute integrity” (Rotblat, 2005)

♣ Entire system of nuclear arms - control =??♠ treaties renounced by one party (e.g. ABM Treaty)♠ treaties that have not entered into force (CTBT)♠ no progress (Fissile material cut-off treaty)♠ Art VI of NPT: mandates nuclear disarmament, but?

♥ Interventions, Sovereignity and International Security◙ 2005 May – failure of VII Review Conference on NPT

♣ H. Bethe, Nobel laureate, famous for his Manhattanproject role and a leading exponent of arms control, said atthe meeting of the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997at Cornell University “The atom bomb was the greatest gift we could have given

to Japanese.” His argument was based on the fact that Americansalready firebombed 66 Japanese cities killing close to onemillion civilians and if the war did not quickly endfirebombing would continue killing enormous number ofJapanese civilians. So, nuclear bomb was a lesser evil.

Was it? Is it?

♣ I. Kant concluded that three conditions are necessary to exclude the possibility of any war:

- dominant role of the international trade (spreading our interests – but also true in 1914),

- availability of extremely powerful weapons that anybody would refrain from using (Kant had in mind that animals refrain from certain mortal combats but he overlooked nuclear accidents and nuclear terrorism. Also, Kant believed that political decisions are done rationally, but A. Oxenstijerna, the famous Swedish chancellor in the17th century, warned his son that the politics is done in a very stupid way)

- that all states should become republics (removing from the decision-making conceited monarch and replacing them with elected officials representing the will of the people who certainly do not want to be killed). (Democracies do not fight?? Different fighting!!)

♠ K. Waltz et al argued that it is the nuclear weapons that saved us from the World Wars III and IV

♣ G. Prins argued that there is no evidence that MAD worked as a stabilizing force. He claims that the threat of using nuclear weapons worked in one case only: it forced the USA to provide Israel with spare parts during the war, when Israel threatened to use his nuclear force to prevent defeat.

☼All these arguments are rooted in old political concepts. Life under the WMD umbrella is not sustainable.

States have grossly abused their monopoly – in the 20th

century 400 million men, women and children have been

killed by their own governments, more than during wars,

(Rummel) so these are not so called collateral victims, and

the state does not seem to be capable of protecting their

own citizens, nor assuring them what they consider to be

their basic human needs, e.g. food, shelter and health.

"Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely“ (Rummel)

♣ Spending on nuclear weapons is enormous: the

USA spent more than 5.5 trillion dollars and

France 1.5 trillion dollars. The global yearly

military expenditures amount to ≈ $ 1,000 billion.

To put in perspective:

- for 20 billion dollars one could reduce hunger,

- for 20 billions it is possible to provide shelter,

- for 5 billions land mines could be removed,

- for 20 billions health care and AIDS could be controlled.

R.S. McNamara: “On any day the President is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons of the world. To declare war requires an act of Congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes’ deliberation by the President and his advisers.”

♠ Group of retired generals: K. Naumann, J. Shalikashvilli, Lord Inge, J. Lanxade and H. van den Breemen: “Towards a grand strategy for uncertain world - renewing transatlantic partnership” (late 2007) -argue that the current threats and challenges require NATO to keep open the prospect of the first use of NW.

☺ G. Schultz, S. Nunn, W. Perry and H. Kissinger (Wall Street

Journal January 15, 2008 and earlier in January 2007) argue that

NW-free world should be our goal, and that is particularly in the

interest of the USA.

☺Federation of American Scientists, Natural Resources Defence Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and independent analysts in “Toward True Security” argue as Pugwash does.

☺”Assurance of peace and security are essential for the stability and development of SEE and that is best asured through NATO membership of all SEE countries. At the same time, the extension of NATO should not bring the introduction of NW.... Therefore, countries of SEE should join together in declaring SEE region a NW-free zone similar to NWFZ in Central Asia, Latin America and South Pacific.” (SEED-WAAS declaration April 19, 2007

☺In June 2007 Canadian Pugwash calls for denuclearization of NATO.

☺D’Alema, G.F. Fini, G. La Malfa, A. Parisi and F. Calogero

“For a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”

50th Anniversary of Pugwash July 5-7, 2005 + MPI Declaration

«As long as nuclear weapons exist, they will be used one

day. Every minute of every day, more than 26,000 nuclear

weapons - many on hair-trigger alert - are poised to bring

monumental destruction. NW have spread to more

countries, and the NPT is perilously close to collapse.

Poorly guarded stockpiles of HEU and plutonium around

the world could fall into the hands of terrorists.Momentum

is growing in the international community to declare

NW illegal and immoral, and to reduce and eliminate them before it is too late....

We ask all governments, nuclear and non-nuclear alike:

What are you doing to fulfil the basic obligation of every

government: the responsibility to protect the lives and

human rights of its citizens that would be obliterated by

nuclear devastation?

☺Immediate de-alerting of NW, that could be launched by accident, miscalculation, or unauthorized computer hacking of command and control systems;

☺ Declarations by all nuclear weapons-states of a No First Use policy, and adoption of Negative Security Assurances that nuclear weapons will never be used against countries who have legally bound themselves not to acquire nuclear weapons;

☺ Immediate resumption of US-Russian nuclear negotiations to reduce their nuclear forces to 1,000 or fewer NW, and to jointly develop early warning systems to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons;

☺ NATO to withdraw all US NW from Europe, and to conclude a global agreement that NW of any country not be deployed on foreign territory;

☺ Implementation of the International Monitoring System of the CTBT to ensure the continued moratorium on nuclear testing, prior to the entry into force of the CTBT;

☺ Global Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and a complete prohibition on the deployment and use of space weapons;

☺ Complete abolition and elimination of NW through a multilaterally-verified instrument – a NWeapons Convention.”

Is now war and in general any violence useless as an instrument of achieving any goal of sovereign-states?

☼ We argue: they are!!! Consequently, are WMD also useless for any sovereign-state, and actually a potential danger?

☼ We argue: they are!!!☼ Edmund Burke wrote more than 200 years ago “The reason theworld is suffering is not so much because of the evil deeds of thewicked people, but because of the inaction of the good people.”

♥ Conference on holocaust in Stockholm (2000)

Ten Commandments should be augmented by:

11) Thou shalt not be a victim! and

12) Thou shalt not be neutral!

John Holdren (keynote speech at the 55th Pugwash conference in July 2005):

There are three conceivable nuclear futures. One isstatus quo, or muddling through which is unstablebecause of accidents, nuclear terrorism, and aboveall because of nuclear posture which declares “theright” of nuclear states to use nuclear weapons first andeven against non-nuclear states. The second is the nuclearnightmare. The third is to eliminate nuclear weapons – atrajectory toward a nuclear-weapons-free world. Getting to zero is not an impossible mission – supported by the final document of the Students/Young Pugwashites entitled: Mission Possible

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in his Action Plan for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons on June 9, 1988 pointed out that nuclear deterrence is the ultimate expression of terrorism.

“Non-violence in international relations cannot be considered an Utopian goal. It is the only available basis for a civilised survival ...... for a new, just equitable and democratic world order.”