Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear proliferation

India’s (Im)modest Nuclear Quest in 2018: The Measured ‘Normalization’ of a Nuclear State?

The passing year marked the 20^th year of the May 1998 nuclear tests in Pokhran, the 10^th year of the unprecedented exception from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) that the Indian government achieved in 2008, and the last effective year of the ultra-nationalist Modi government as it enters its lame-duck phase early next year. An overall look at the nuclear-related developments in India in 2018 reveals no remarkable development this year – neither have any exceptional acquisitions or advancements been made by the government, nor has any massive anti-nuclear people’s mobilization taken place at the grassroots compared to the immediate post-Fukushima years. On all these counts, the observable surface-reality appears less remarkable than what most observers would have expected.

The 20^th anniversary of the nuclear tests remained rather low-key, at least in comparison to the chest-thumping frenzy and hyperbole that the Modi government has come to be known for. The release of a commemorative Bollywood movie, insipidly titled Parmanu(atom), was announced to coincide with the occasion, but it was silently and inexplicably postponed by a few weeks and the film remained a non-starter despite its over-dramatic nationalist treatment of the subject. While in his pre-election rallies prior to 2014, Narendra Modi had promised a radical alteration of India’s nuclear posture and the shunning of the country’s long-standing policies of ‘no-first-use’ and ‘minimum credible deterrence’ with regard to nuclear weapons, his government did not go beyond heightened nuclear rhetoric against Pakistan.

On the nuclear energy front, progress has been tediously slow and prospects for even the revised short and medium-term projections look grim although the government remains committed to pursuing both, imported and locally-designed nuclear plants. This year, the government announced an ambiguous nuclear plan for the year 2030 and beyond, which was widely perceived as a scaling down of its nuclear ambitions. Despite the NSG opening the doors of international nuclear supplies for India in 2008, and in effect, rewarding the country for its 1998 nuclear tests, not a single foreign-imported reactor construction, sanctioned since 2008, has started in India.

However, it is precisely this deceptive calm and seeming indolence on the part of the Indian government that makes it easy to miss out the details and the deeply worrying patterns of an unmistakable push for a massive nuclear weaponization and energy expansion that we should all be concerned about.

Even as the international gaze is set firmly on the increased nuclear instability owing to the misadventures of the American President vis-à-vis Russia, North Korea, and Iran on the one hand, and desperate attempts by the global nuclear industry to stage a comeback from perhaps its deepest crisis so far, by painting itself as an ‘urgent’ and ‘imperative’ solution to climate change, India is engaged in a steady albeit understated consolidation of its capacities and postures in terms of both, its civilian and military nuclear programs.

The Unquestioned ‘Normalization’ of a Nuclear State?

The uncharacteristic and confounding absence of hyped official celebrations of the 20^th anniversary of India’s nuclear weapons tests were met with an equal silence on the part of the political opposition and civil society. Surprisingly, the 2018 Pokhran anniversary did not occasion any protests by either the major left-wing parties or civil society groups. This however, can also be explained by the fact that the political opposition, activists and civil society in India have found themselves unremittingly firefighting other, more immediate issues that have hogged the limelight during the BJP government’s tenure – its gross mishandling of the economy and public offices as well as the havoc unleashed by Hindutva groups on the streets almost every other week on ever newer issues ever since Modi’s ascendance. However, this is definitely a reflection on the fact that nuclear weapons have fallen off the radar of public concern in India. In effect, this has meant an almost unquestioned and matter-of-fact acceptance of nuclear weapons and the relentless pursuit of a maximization of India’s nuclear capacities.

India has consistently expanded its missile program, both qualitatively and quantitatively and has tested as many as eight nuclear-capable delivery vehicles this year itself. Besides, India launched an ‘Advanced Area Defense (AAD) missile this year, capable of intercepting incoming missiles, which the government has claimed as part of the country’s home-grown missile defense system. India also operationalized the nuclear-armed submarine Arihant’s patrolling in the Indian Ocean. Observers have raised concerns about the Indian nuclear triad – land, sea and air-based nuclear capabilities further provoking Pakistan, which is already engaged in miniaturizing its nuclear arsenal to make it more ‘usable’, thus, fueling an arms race in South Asia. India also figured as among the key reasons for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moving its famed ‘Doomsday Clock’ closest-ever to midnight since its inception. However, the international response has been far more muted than the outcry on Iran and South Korea. This has also allowed India to maintain its low-key posturing as well as the government’s strategy to perpetuate the image of “good nukes” and a “responsible nuclear state”, which the US and other big powers have willingly and actively permitted India to adopt and proclaim. The Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has highlighted the very real dangers of such nuclear hypocrisy. Resultantly, the nuclear escalation in South Asia continues unabated and perhaps enjoys far more political consensus than in 1998 when nuclear weapons were tested by India and Pakistan. Questioning the nuclear arms and military build-up has also become rather perilous, since in recent years, civil society activists and dissenters of all shades have been unrestrainedly labeled ‘anti-national’ by the ruling BJP government on the flimsiest pretexts.

Besides the military nuclear sector, the nuclear power industry is also being steadily expanded by India even as it lags behind in terms of the ambitious announcements made earlier. Even as the global nuclear industry faces bankruptcies and terminal economic crises, the Indian authorities have used the opportunity in the most perverse manner. Rather than occasioning a serious rethink about the viability and risks of nuclear power, the situation has led the Indian government to ask the imperiled nuclear corporations in the West for technology transfers with the outrageous claim that these nuclear projects can be constructed by engaging private domestic companies, with absolutely no experience in nuclear construction. The French nuclear industry, now snowed under a steep decline, has been more than willing to oblige, and, Prime Minister Modi has announced ‘maximum localisation’ of the EPR design that has been questioned across the world and has been a crucial reason for the meltdown of Areva in France. This year, America’s GE also entered the Jaitapur project and signed strategic cooperation agreements with EDF and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL). This patch-work approach to salvage the world’s largest nuclear project and promote Modi’s ‘Make in India’ pitch has understandably raised serious concerns. Even as the future of the Jaitapur project on India’s western coast remains uncertain, the Indian government in December this year announced the completion of its land acquisition which has meant the forced eviction of villagers on ground and suppression of the local communities’ agitation by stick-and-carrot tactics. Despite losing their lands, the villagers continue to protest the loss of livelihoods and safety risks that the nuclear project has and will bring to them. This year in August, hundreds of people in the Jaitapur region courted voluntary arrest – ‘jail bharo’ as a form of protest.

Both the Kovvada and MithiVirdi project sites, allotted to the US corporations GE and Westinghouse since 2008 continue to figure in the government’s projections despite running into serious trouble. The ruling party’s own Chief Minister in the State of Gujarat has assured the people that the MithiVirdi project will never be started as the safety concerns and farmers’ protests are ‘legitimate’, and after GE’s exit from Kovvada, citing liability in 2015, the government has allotted the site to Westinghouse and the uncertainties of the ongoing negotiations have not stopped the Indian government from pushing ahead with land acquisition.

While the future of the US and French nuclear projects in India remains uncertain, Russia has come to India’s rescue. This year, the government signed design contracts with Russia for Units 5 and 6 of VVER reactors in Koodankulam and launched the construction of Units 3 and 4 despite glaring failures of Units 1 and 2. India has also signed a new nuclear deal with Russia for six more reactors at a new site that remains officially unannounced.

Given the complications of starting Western-imported nuclear projects, the Indian government seems to have shifted its focus to the domestically-built ‘indigenous’ Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs). Last year, the government repackaged the plans for 10 such reactors with 700 MW capacity each. This year, excavation work has started in Gorakhpur and the government has continued land acquisition and environmental clearance efforts for Mahi-Banswara and pre-project activities in Chutka. The localised nuclear expansion has also included construction of more PHWRs in existing plants like Kaiga where the government recently conducted a farcical public hearing on the Environmental Impact Assessment report, which has been criticized by independent experts. Despite the generally slow growth of the nuclear sector, India has steadily increased its import of uranium fuel from Canada, Kazakhstan and other countries.

India’s nuclear arsenal and missile capabilities continue to grow quietly, under an otherwise grandiloquent and ultra-nationalist regime. And even though the nuclear power sector’s growth appears to be painfully slow, the Indian government has firmly set the country on a course of a full-spectrum technology-ownership in the nuclear sector, and, is using every available opportunity, including the decline of international nuclear industry, towards this grandiose ambition.

One might ask then, if it is by design that the Indian government ignores the attendant problems of an unrelenting pursuit of nuclear projects like the EPR, even as the horror of Fukushima continues to unfold before us, and whether, the growth of its nuclear sector, no matter how snail-paced, ensures a ‘legitimate’ and comprehensive growth of nuclear technology, which in turn provides India not just military wherewithal, but also diplomatic stature and the leverage to enhance its long-term power projection, as well as withstand any sanctions in the future in the event that the country conducts nuclear tests? As nuclear power in the present situation does not make sense on either financial or safety grounds, it is only this super-power ambition which is plausibly guiding India’s overall nuclear strategy. India’s chequered nuclear past is reason enough to believe so.

December 31, 2018
Reader’s Response: The Risks Remain High

Nuclear strategist Paul Bracken is interviewed by Robert Kazel for the Nuclear Age Foundation on December 17 2012. Professor bracken has recently published his second book on the nuclear danger,The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics.

Professor Bracken seems to be mostly concerned with the risks associated with nuclear proliferation, and not with the danger arising from the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA. He does not see as real the risks of nuclear war started by mistake or intervention in the command systems. One reason is that he is convinced that the nuclear weapons are no longer on High Alert. He states that [protocols concerning] emergency authorization to use nuclear weapons have been revoked.

It would be very helpful if he provided us with the reason for that opinion. The information available to me gives no support for his statement. Thus, the report by the group lead by General James Cartwright,Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Force Structure and Posture, for Global Zero, and published last year, emphasizes that strategic nuclear weapons are still on High Alert. They stress that the time to evaluate whether the threat is real and a nuclear response is necessary is very short, counted in minutes. I quote: “The risks, while low, still exist for missiles to be fired by accident, miscalculation, mistake, false warning, bad judgment or unauthorized action. The results would be catastrophic.”

I do hope Professor Bracken in the future will be right in his assessment. Today he seems to be mistaken, unfortunately.

He also says, “I would be the first to give up U.S. nuclear weapons, all of them – every single one – if other countries would do so.” How does he know that other countries are not willing to give up their nuclear weapons if the USA does?

Without US leadership we will not reach a nuclear weapons free world.

Gunnar Westberg is former President (2004-2008) of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

February 26, 2013
Kenneth Waltz is not Crazy, but he is Dangerous: Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

It seems surprising that the ultra-establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, would go to the extreme of publishing a lead article by the noted political scientist, Kenneth Waltz, with the title “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb” in its current issue. It is more the reasoning of the article than the eye-catching title that flies in the face of the anti-proliferation ethos that has been the consensus lynchpin of nuclear weapons states, and especially the United States. At the same time, Waltz takes pain to avoid disavowing his mainstream political identity. He echoes without pausing to reflect upon the evidence undergirding the rather wobbly escalating assumption that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons at this time. Waltz does acknowledge that Iran might be only trying to have a ‘breakout’ capability of the sort long possessed by Japan and several other countries, that is, the technological capacity if facing a national emergency to assemble a few bombs in a matter of months. Nowhere does Waltz allude to the recently publicized agreement among the 14 American intelligence agencies that there is no evidence that Iran has decided to resume its military program that had been reportedly abandoned in 2003. In other ways, as well, Waltz signals his general support for the American approach to Israeli security other than in relation to nuclear weapons, and so, it should be clear, Waltz is not a political dissenter, a policy radical, nor even a critic of Israel’s role in the region.

Waltz’s Three Options

Waltz insists that aside from the breakout option, there are two other plausible scenarios worth considering: sanctions and coercive diplomacy to induce Iran “to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons,” which he deems unlikely to overcome a genuine appetite for the bomb, or Iran defies the pressures and acquires nuclear weapons, which he regards as the most desirable of the three options. It seems reasonable to wonder ‘why.’ In essence, Waltz is arguing that experience and logic demonstrate that the relations among states become more stable, less war-prone, when a balance is maintained, and that there is no reason to think that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons it would not behave in accordance with the deterrence regime that has discouraged all uses of nuclear weapons ever since 1945, and especially during the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. In this regard, Waltz is expressing what I regard to be a wildly exaggerated faith in the rationality and prudence of leaders who make decisions on matters of war and peace.

He does make a contextual argument that I mostly agree with, namely, that Israel alone possessing a regional nuclear monopoly is more dangerous and undesirable than Iran becoming a second nuclear weapons state in the region. In effect, a regional nuclear monopolist is worse than a regional system of balance that incorporates deterrence logic. For Israel to be deterred would contribute to peace and security in the region, and this seems likely to reduce somewhat, although at a level of risk far short of zero, the prospect of any use of nuclear weapons and other forms of aggression in the Middle East. But to say that A (Iran gets the bomb) is better than B (breakout capability but no bomb) and C (sanctions and coercive diplomacy induce Iran to forego bomb) is to forget about D, which is far better than A, B, and C in relation to sustainable stability, but also because it represents an implicit acknowledgement that the very idea of basing security upon the threat to annihilate hundreds of thousand, if not more, innocent persons is a moral abomination that has already implicated the nuclear weapons states in a security policy, which if ever tested by threat and use, would be genocidal, if not omnicidal, and certainly criminal. This anti-nuclear posture was substantially endorsed by a majority of judges in a groundbreaking Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on 8 July 1996, although these strong findings as to international law were, not surprisingly, cast aside and ignored by the nuclear weapons states, most defiantly by the United States.

The Case for Option D

What then is Option D? Option D would involve the negotiation and implementation of a nuclear weapons free zone throughout the Middle East (MENFZ), reinforced by non-aggression commitments, normalization of economic and political relations, and ideally accompanied by genuine progress toward a just and sustainable Palestine/Israel peace accord. Significantly, Waltz does not even pause to consider it as in all likelihood he regards such an approach as completely inconsistent with the hard power realities of global diplomacy, making it foolish and irrelevant to take the possibility of a MENFZ seriously. Needless to say, D is also not in the Netanyahu playbook, and quite likely no future Israeli leader will be prepared to give up the nuclear weapons arsenal that Israel has been consistently acquiring and developing over the last four decades. And it seems fair to conjecture that anyone who proposes a MENFZ would be at odds with the realist camp in international relations, and such a piece would almost certainly be rejected by the editors of Foreign Affairs, among the most ardent guardians of the realist status quo.

Waltz’s preference for A, favoring an Iranian bomb, is an extension of his long-standing belief that proliferation as actually desirable based on a view of global security that depends on sustaining power balances. In my judgment this carries confidence in the logic of deterrence (that is, the rationality of not using the bomb because of a fear of nuclear retaliation) to absurd degrees that go well beyond even the extreme rationality relied upon by the most influential war thinkers during the Cold War era. In this sense, Waltz is correct to equate the Middle East with the rest of the world, and not engage in the widespread practice of ethno-religious profiling: that is, Israel’s bomb is okay because it is a rational and ‘Western,’ while Iran’s bomb would be a world order disaster as it is irrational and governed by Islamic zealots that have declared their implacable hostility to Israel. If such distinctions are to be made, which is doubtful, it should be appreciated that Israel is the antagonist that has been threatening war and pushing for coercive diplomacy, while it is Iran that has so far peacefully tolerated a variety of severe provocations, acts of war, such as the assassination of several of its nuclear scientists, the infecting of its enrichment centrifuges with the Stuxnet virus, and verified violent covert acts designed to destabilize the Tehran regime. Had such incidents been reversed, it is more than 100% likely that Israel would have immediately gone to war against Iran, quite likely setting the entire region on fire.

Objections to Option A

My basic objection to the Waltz position is a disagreement with two of his guiding assumptions: first, with respect to the region, that other countries would not follow Iran across the nuclear threshold, an assessment he bases largely on their failure to acquire nuclear weapons in response to Israel’s acquisition of the capability. Surely Saudi Arabia and Turkey would not, for reasons of international status and perceived security, want to be non-nuclear states in a neighborhood in which both Israel and Iran had the bomb. Such an expansion of the regional nuclear club would become more prone to accident, miscalculation, and the sort of social and political pathology that makes nuclear weaponry generally unfit for human use in a conflict, whatever the region or occasion. In this respect, the more governments possess the bomb, the more likely it becomes that one of those horrible scenarios about a nuclear war will become history.

And secondly, Waltz does not single out nuclear weapons for condemnation on either ethical or prudential grounds. In fact, he seems to hold the view that we can be thankful for the bomb as otherwise the Cold War would likely have resulted in a catastrophic World War III. In my view to have sought the bomb and then used it against the helpless Japanese at the end of World War II was certainly one of the worst instances of Promethean excess in human history, angering not only the gods but exhibiting a scary species death wish. Leaders have acknowledged this moral truth from time to time, most recently by Barack Obama in his 2009 Prague speech calling for a world without nuclear weapons, but politicians, including Obama, seem unable and unwilling to take the heat that following through would certainly entail. In the end, anti-nuclearism for leaders seems mainly an exercise in rhetoric, apparently persuasive in Norway where the Nobel Prize committee annually ponders the credentials of candidates, but without any behavioral consequences relating to the weaponry itself. To be sure nuclear policies are challenged from time to time by a surge of anti-nuclear populism. In this regard, to favor the acquisition of the bomb by any government or political organization is to embrace the nuclearist fallacy relating to security and the absurd hubris of presupposing an impeccable rationality over long stretches of time, which has never been the case in human affairs.

The secrecy surrounding policy bearing on nuclear weapons, especially the occasions of their possible use, also injects an absolutist virus into the vital organs of a democratic body politic. There is no participation by the people or even their representatives in relation to this most ultimate of political decisions, vesting in a single person, and perhaps including his most intimate advisors, a demonic capability to unleash such a catastrophic capability. We now know that even beyond the devastation and radiation, the smoke released by the use of as few as 50 nuclear bombs would generate so much smoke as to block sunlight from the earth for as long as a decade, dooming much of the agriculture throughout the world, a dynamic that has been called ‘a nuclear famine.’ As disturbing as such a possibility should be to those responsible for the security of society, there is little evidence that such a realization of the secondary effects of nuclear explosions is even present in political consciousness. And certainly the citizenry is largely ignorant of such a dark eventuality bound up with the retention of nuclear weapons.

It is for these reasons that I would call Kenneth Waltz dangerous, not crazy. Indeed, it is his extreme kind of instrumental rationality that is dominant in many influential venues, and helps explain the development, possession, and apparent readiness to use nuclear weapons under certain conditions despite the risks and the immorality of the undertaking. If human society is ever to be again relatively safe, secure, and morally coherent, a first step is to renounce nuclear weapons unconditionally and proceed with urgency by way of an agreed, phased, monitored, and verified international agreement to ensure their elimination from the face of the earth. It is not only that deterrence depends on perfect rationality over time and across space, it is also that the doctrine and practices of deterrence amounts to a continuing crime against humanity of unprecedented magnitude and clarity!

July 6, 2012
North Korean Delusions

Reading the mainstream media, you’d be forgiven if you thought the only problems with North Korea’s nuclear weapons program were a direct result of that rogue nation’s “nut job” leaders. The most recent example is the coverage of a talk on nuclear proliferation given my friend and colleague, Dr. Siegfried Hecker. While he’s now a professor here at Stanford, in his former life, he was Director of Los Alamos from 1986 to 1997, so “when Sig talks, people listen.” The AP dispatch starts off as follows:

A U.S. scientist who visited a secret North Korean nuclear site last year says Pyongyang may seek to launch a third atomic test to enable it to develop a small fissile warhead that can be carried by a missile.

Nowhere in the article does it say what I’ve heard Hecker say many times before, and what is the essence of his advice on what to do about North Korea’s nuclear program: If we continue to make unilateral nuclear disarmament (by the North) a precondition to talks, they won’t talk. (Would we, if the tables were reversed?) If we don’t talk, they’ll build more bombs, better bombs, and export their nuclear technology.

On the other hand, if we will temporarily put denuclearization aside and address some of their legitimate security concerns – we’ve threatened to attack them repeatedly, and Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review leaves open the possibility of our using nuclear weapons against them – Hecker is convinced by his seven visits there that we can get what he calls “three NO’s for one YES:” no more bombs, no better bombs, and no export in return for our treating them with some respect and reducing the level of threat that they feel from us and South Korea.

When he gave a guest lecture in my seminar on “Nuclear Weapons, Risk and Hope,” Hecker told the class that many people in Washington agree with him, but tell him that his suggestions are impossible because of domestic politics. If the president were to treat North Korea with some respect and address their security concerns, he’d be accused of rewarding bad behavior. While there’s some truth in that perspective, isn’t that what nuclear deterrence is all about?

Returning to the impossibility of rationally approaching North Korea’s nuclear program, what Hecker hears in D.C. makes clear that the solution lies not with our supposed leaders, who must follow the crowd, but with individual citizens like you and me. Until enough of us start demanding rational nuclear policies, we’ll live in a world where it is just a matter of time before the unthinkable happens. If we can find the courage to say that the nuclear emperor needs some new clothes, we could move to a world that not only is safe from nuclear annihilation, but also much safer in general. Please help by sharing this message with your friends and reading at least the home page of my related web site.

September 19, 2011
How Many Nuclear Weapons Still Threaten Humanity?

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is one of the most authoritative institutes in the world on issues of war and peace. The recently-released 2011 SIPRI Yearbook provides estimates of the number of nuclear weapons in the world. It finds that only four countries have deployed nuclear warheads, by which it means warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces. Two of these countries are the US and Russia, which have 2,150 and 2,427 deployed nuclear weapons, respectively. Under the terms of the New Start agreement, ratified in 2010, each country is required to reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by the year 2017. The other two countries with deployed nuclear weapons, according to SIPRI, are the UK with 160 deployed weapons and France with 290 deployed weapons.

The total number of deployed nuclear weapons in the world stands at 5,027 in 2011. Of these, SIPRI estimates that some 2,000 are kept on high operational alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so.

In addition to its deployed nuclear weapons, the US has 6,350 additional weapons for a total of 8,500. Russia has 8,570 additional weapons for a total of 11,000. The UK has an additional 65 weapons for a total of 225. France has an additional 10, for a total of 300. Four other countries have only non-deployed nuclear weapons, according to SIPRI: China with 240; India with 80-100; Pakistan with 90-110; and Israel with 80.

SIPRI does not list North Korea among the countries having a stockpile of nuclear weapons, although relatively small nuclear devices have been tested by North Korea in 2006 and 2009. SIPRI acknowledges that there is a widespread belief that North Korea has separated enough plutonium for a small number of nuclear weapons, but indicates there is controversy over the amount of plutonium they have separated and the yield of their nuclear tests. They also point out that “doubts persist about whether North Korea has the design and engineering skills needed to manufacture a fully functional operational nuclear weapon.” It seems highly likely to me, however, that North Korea possesses a small number of nuclear weapons and is the ninth nuclear weapon state.

Between 2010 and 2011, the US reduced its nuclear stockpile from 9,600 to 8,500. During the same period, Russia reduced its stockpile from 12,000 to 11,000. While the US and Russia were reducing their arsenals, the UK, France, China and Israel were holding steady at lower levels. India and Pakistan, on the other hand, were increasing the sizes of their arsenals: India from 60-80 to 80-110, and Pakistan from 70-90 to 90-110. Overall, the total number of nuclear weapons in the world decreased from 22,600 to 20,530.

The trends are these: modest reductions by the US and Russia, indicating a continuing commitment to maintaining their nuclear arsenals at a relatively high level of overkill; no reductions by the UK, France, China and Israel, indicating a continuing commitment to retaining their arsenals at current levels, at least until more substantial progress in reductions is made by the US and Russia; and increases in the arsenals of India and Pakistan, indicating a continuing nuclear arms race in South Asia.

The modest reductions made by the US and Russia and the further reductions agreed to by the two countries in the New START agreement are offset by their commitments to modernizing their nuclear arsenals and improving their systems of delivery. A SIPRI media statement pointed out that “both countries currently are deploying new nuclear weapon delivery systems or have announced programs to do so, and appear determined to retain their nuclear arsenals into the indefinite future.”

Regarding India and Pakistan, the SIPRI statement pointed out that they “continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons” and that both countries “are also expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes.” Other experts have done simulations of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan with 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons and have estimated that it could lead to a blocking of sunlight and lowering of temperatures, causing widespread drought and crop failure, resulting in some one billion deaths around the world.

While there are some ten percent fewer nuclear weapons in the world from 2010 to 2011, it is not time to breathe a sigh of relief at what has been accomplished. The overall trend is toward fewer nuclear weapons, but weapons and delivery systems that are more highly modernized – what the US refers to for itself as a “safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile.” In reality, the only type of stockpile that will meet the criteria of being “safe, secure and effective” will be a global stockpile of zero nuclear weapons. Any number other than zero will continue to present unacceptable risks to humanity. What is needed now is a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the “safe, secure and effective” elimination of all nuclear weapons. The US and Russia, the countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, should be providing the leadership to achieve this goal.

June 9, 2011
NAPF Report on the 2010 NPT Review Conference and Related Events
The 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference comes at a key time for the future of nuclear disarmament. The 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in failure. The nuclear weapon states have yet to fulfill their Article VI obligations to negotiate in “good faith” for complete nuclear disarmament in the 40 years since the NPT entered into force in 1970.

Despite these failures, there are signs of hope. The New START agreement recently signed by the US and Russia represents the beginning of a new era of bilateral cooperation. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly stated his uncompromising dedication to achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons. Most important, support for a world without nuclear weapons is gaining momentum among the people of the world, as represented by polling data and by the 1,700 NGO delegates attending NPT proceedings at the United Nations this year.

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and Rick Wayman, NAPF Director of Programs, traveled to New York to take part in many events around the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Conference

On Friday, April 30, Rick Wayman attended the Second Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia. He attended as a NGO observer at the invitation of the Chilean UN Mission.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) cover all of Antarctica, Latin America, the South Pacific, Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Mongolia. A consistent theme throughout the conference was support for a Middle East NWFZ, which many believe will provide a needed measure of security in a volatile and dangerous region of the world.

Speakers, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte and Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba affirmed their strong support for the continued expansion of NWFZs around the world as a welcome step toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

International Conference for Peace and Disarmament

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, together with many organizations around the world, co-organized a weekend conference at historic Riverside Church in New York City. Over 1,000 people from 25 countries participated in workshops and plenary sessions designed to educate, inspire and build lasting partnerships among people dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The Foundation organized a workshop on May 1 together with the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy entitled Debunking Nuclear Deterrence. The workshop, moderated by Acronym’s Executive Director Rebecca Johnson, featured NAPF President David Krieger; Randy Rydell, Senior Political Affairs Officer at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs; and retired British Navy Commander Robert Green.

David Krieger argued that nuclear deterrence is a theory that cannot be proven. The assumptions on which nuclear deterrence are based, such as leaders acting rationally at all times, are themselves irrational and dangerous. Randy Rydell encouraged members of the audience to examine the logic and rationality of nuclear deterrence proponents and the motivations they have for using this flawed concept. Commander Robert Green discussed the indoctrination that he experienced as a nuclear weapons commander in the British Navy. He called nuclear deterrence “state-sponsored nuclear terrorism,” “unlawful,” and detrimental to national and global security.

In the afternoon, there was an emotional workshop featuring the testimony of survivors of nuclear weapon explosions. Junko Kayashige, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing who visited the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2008, recounted her experience of the atomic bombing and the great losses she suffered on August 6, 1945 and in subsequent years. Matashichi Oishi told the audience of over 300 people about his experience on a fishing boat in the Pacific Ocean on March 1, 1954. His boat was in the vicinity when the United States conducted its massive Bravo nuclear test. Fourteen of the 20 crew members on the boat died from radiation-related conditions. Abbacca Anjain Madison of the Marshall Islands told of the devastation brought to the islands by the hundreds of nuclear weapon tests the United States conducted in the area. Countless Marshallese have lost their livelihoods, land and lives at the hands of these nuclear tests. Claudia Peterson, a resident of southern Utah, told a heart wrenching story about the effects US nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site have had on her family. Parents, siblings and even her children have died due to the radiation that came from hundreds of nuclear tests in Nevada. To conclude her tearful speech, she said, “My story never changes; I just add more loved ones to it each time I tell it.”

Other workshops at the conference included “Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East,” “Youth Lobbying and Messaging,” “The Nuclear Cycle: The Negative Effects from Mining to Militarism,” “Modernization of the Nuclear Weapons Complex” and “Disarmament, Climate Change and Justice.”

The evening plenary session featured a keynote address by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Secretary-General opened his speech by thanking the grassroots activists and NGO representatives in the audience for their strong commitment and leadership for nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban reminded the audience that “from my first day in office as Secretary-General, I made clear that nuclear disarmament is my top priority.” He lamented that “the world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.” The Secretary-General concluded his speech with words of encouragement for those in attendance. He said, “What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons. What I see before me are the people who will help make it happen…We will rid the world of nuclear weapons. And when we do, it will be because of people like you. The world owes you its gratitude.” He was speaking to all of us committed to this goal.

March and Rally for Nuclear Abolition

On Sunday, May 2, over 15,000 people gathered in New York’s Times Square for a rally calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. They then marched to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, across the street from the United Nations, for a peace festival.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation distributed hundreds of briefing booklets and DVDs and talked to many Foundation members who made the trip to New York for this inspiring event.

Panel Discussion Inside the United Nations

On Monday, May 3, the Foundation organized a panel discussion entitled From Omnicide to Abolition: Shifting the Mindset. The panel, which took place on the first day of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, was designed to set a progressive and positive tone for the four-week conference. It stressed the omnicidal dangers of nuclear weapons as a motivating force to achieve progress toward a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

The event started out with a screening of the short video The Nuclear Family by Angela How. The video was the winner of the Foundation’s 2010 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. All of the winning videos from the 2010 contest can be viewed here.

Speakers on the Foundation’s panel included NAPF President David Krieger, NAPF Associate Steven Starr, NAPF Associate Alice Slater, NAPF Associate Commander Robert Green and Kate Dewes. A report on the panel can be found here.

Action Inside the NPT Review Conference

At the same time as our panel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the plenary session. Among the proposals he made are:
- Evolve the NPT to the “DNPT” – the Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Treaty;
- Establish an independent group to oversee the disarmament process outlined in Article VI of the NPT;
- Introduce legally-binding comprehensive security guarantees to non-nuclear weapon states;
- Terminate all research and production of nuclear weapons worldwide;
- Explicitly outlaw the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and
- Implement the Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone as agreed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.
Ahmadinejad was also critical of the United States and Israel during his speech, which resulted in many delegates walking out on his talk. The full text of his speech is available here.

On the afternoon of the first day of the Review Conference, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke. She was strong on non-proliferation initiatives such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, and promised further bilateral reductions with Russia. Clinton indicated that the US would seek to ratify the nuclear weapon-free zones in Africa and the South Pacific and was now ready to consult with other parties on the nuclear weapon-free zones in Central Asia and Southeast Asia. For the first time, the US revealed that the exact number of nuclear weapons in its deployed and reserve arsenal is 5,113 (plus “several thousand” more awaiting dismantlement). The full text of Secretary Clinton’s speech is available here. The document outlining the number of US nuclear weapons is available here.

The US delegation interacted much more with NGOs this year than in years past. They gave a major briefing on May 5 with Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher and other senior administration officials and answered questions after the briefing. David Krieger asked three questions:
1. How much plutonium and highly enriched uranium exists in the world, and how much remains “loose” after the accomplishments you described?
2. You describe the need for the US nuclear arsenal to be “safe, secure and effective.” I can understand the terms “safe” and “secure,” but what do you mean by the term “effective?”
3. Would you consider conducting an Environmental Impact Statement on the use of nuclear weapons to increase awareness among Americans of the potential damage that would be caused in order to increase support for the president’s goal of zero nuclear weapons?
Their answers were as follows, with Thomas D’Agostino responding to the first two questions and Assistant Secretary of State Tauscher responding to the third:
1. There is more nuclear material out there. That is why we need the rest of the world to join us in securing it.
2. “Effective” means that the weapon will work as designed.
3. We have no intention of doing this.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made himself available to various NGO events and was very strong in his commitment to nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban spoke at events by Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization and hibakusha (survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings). As mentioned earlier, he also delivered the keynote address at the conference that the Foundation co-sponsored on May 1.

The Foundation’s NPT briefing booklet was distributed to all UN country missions one month before the start of the Review Conference. We also distributed copies of the briefing booklet to delegates during events and plenary meetings inside the UN during the Review Conference.

Greenwich Forum on War & Peace

On Wednesday, May 5, David and Rick traveled to Greenwich, CT at the invitation of the Greenwich Forum on War & Peace. To begin the evening, David and Rick met at an informal dinner with Board members of the Greenwich Forum to get to know one another and talk about issues of mutual interest. After the dinner, approximately 45 people at the Greenwich Library came to hear a lecture by David entitled Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Changing Our Modes of Thinking.

The lecture was followed by a lively question and answer session, which focused in part on perspectives on the decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. David challenged the conventional way the atomic bombings are taught in American schools; he said that typically Americans are taught to think of the bombs from above – that is, as a technological innovation that resulted in ending World War II in the Pacific. The Japanese, on the other hand, view the bombings from below – that is, the massive death and severe physical, psychological and environmental effects wrought upon those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the US atomic bombings in August 1945. David also encouraged greater US leadership to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

Nearly everyone in attendance picked up copies of Foundation materials, including the NPT briefing booklet, the 2009 annual report and the DVD.

Other Notable Events

A key outcome of the trip to New York for the Foundation was strengthening the ties we have with other NGOs. We strengthened our existing ties with groups such as the Middle Powers Initiative, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000, INES, INESAP, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and the World Future Council. We created stronger ties with many key NGOs including Peace Action, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and the Disarmament & Security Centre.

On May 5, David served as moderator on a panel organized by INES on nuclear weapons in Europe. Panelists included Dave Webb (UK), Peter Becker (Germany) and Yves-Jean Gallas (France).

On May 6, David and Rick had lunch with Foundation representatives Vernon Nichols and Masako London. The lunch was sponsored by Foundation supporters and UN representatives Frank and Nancy Colton, who were unable to attend due to health reasons.

On May 6, David participated in a meeting of the International Steering Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative. Rick represented the Foundation at the Abolition 2000 Global Council dinner and the Abolition 2000 Annual General Meeting.

During the conference, David did a television interview with NPT-TV, which can be viewed here and here.

The Foundation strengthened its ties with Commander Robert Green, a retired member of the British Royal Navy who was in charge of nuclear weapons. Green was a panelist at the Foundation’s workshop during the May 1 conference and again at the Foundation’s panel discussion at the UN on May 3. His new book, Security Without Nuclear Deterrence, was released during the first week of the Review Conference. Commander Green accepted the invitation to become an Associate of the Foundation.

Foundation Associates Jonathan Granoff, Alice Slater and Steven Starr were also active participants in panels and other activities at the 2010 Review Conference.

Conclusion

The NPT Review Conference will continue through May 28. There is no strong sense yet of the outcome, but there is a general sense of hopefulness that the outcome will be more positive than the failed 2005 Review Conference, and that perhaps countries will return to the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

During the first week of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) Review Conference there was a much more positive tone than in previous
such conferences. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon participated in
many civil society events during the conference, continuing to shine a light on
the need for a concrete plan for nuclear disarmament. The United States was
also more forthcoming with information on its nuclear arsenal, specifically in
releasing details of the size of its nuclear arsenal (5,113 nuclear weapons
deployed and in reserve plus several thousand awaiting dismantlement).

The draft of the final document, to be released at the
conclusion of the conference on May 28, contains some highly promising
provisions. The draft document states, “The nuclear-weapon states shall convene
consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear
disarmament in a way that promotes international stability and is based on the
principle of undiminished security for all.”

The draft document continues, “Based on the outcome of these
consultations, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is invited to
convene an international conference in 2014 to consider ways and means to agree
on a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified
timeframe, including by means of a universal legal instrument.”

If these provisions make it into the final document of the
NPT conference, they could pave the way for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons
Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent
elimination of nuclear weapons – one of the goals long sought by the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation and other civil society organizations.
May 15, 2010
Statement by Iranian President to the NPT Review Conference

2010_05_03_iran_npt.pdf

May 3, 2010
A Global Push for Clean Energy: The International Renewable Energy Agency
This article was originally published by YES! Magazine.

Since 1995, when more than 170 nations voted to extend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, civil society has been calling for the establishment of an international agency to promote renewable energy sources to take the place of fossil fuels without resorting to nuclear power.

Recognizing the “inextricable link” between nuclear weapons and nuclear power, Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, drafted a model statute for the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and lobbied nations around the world to institute it. [1] Joining with other grassroots networks working to avoid catastrophic climate change through a transition to sustainable energy, activists spoke up at numerous international meetings and conferences and conferred with national environmental departments, seeking support for an energy agency focused solely on clean, safe, renewable energy.

In January 2009, one year ago, Germany, Denmark, and Spain launched the founding meeting for IRENA in Bonn, Germany. [2] A year later, 142 of the 192 member states of the United Nations, as well as the European Union, have signed the IRENA statute. The agency has opened headquarters in Abu Dhabi and branch offices in Bonn and Vienna, and its interim-director general, Helene Pelosse, a former French environmental minister who held positions in trade and finance as well, is determined to hire a staff comprised of at least 50 percent women.

IRENA is committed to becoming a principal driving force in promoting a rapid transition toward the sustainable use of a renewable energy on a global scale. It has a mandate to promote all forms of renewable energy produced in a sustainable manner, including solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, and appropriate bio energy. It will provide practical advice and support for both industrialized and developing countries, helping them to build capacity and improve their regulatory frameworks.

This year, “IRENA will focus on building a network of international renewable energy experts, starting to map the global potential of renewables, and build up a comprehensive database of policies to promote renewable energy,” said Pelosse. It “will become a one-stop-shop for up-to-date and relevant information on renewable energy.” [3] As a pilot project, IRENA will help develop renewable energy for a number of islands within the Kingdom of Tonga that lack basic electricity. [4]

Every 30 minutes, enough of the sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s surface to meet global energy demand for an entire year. Wind can satisfy the world’s electricity needs 40 times over, and meet all global energy demands five times over. The geothermal energy stored in the top six miles of the earth’s crust contains 50,000 times the energy of the world’s known oil and gas resources. Tidal, wave, and small hydropower can also provide vast stores of energy everywhere on earth, abundant and free for every person on our planet, rich and poor alike. [5]

While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been committed to promoting nuclear power and the International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in the 1970s to handle the crisis in fossil fuel distribution, only IRENA will be solely dedicated to promoting clean, safe, renewable energy from the abundant energy resources of our planet.

As a derivative of the Greek word eirene, meaning “peace,” IRENA is particularly well-named. The rapid development of renewable energy will enable us to forego our reliance on fossil and nuclear fuels, the continued misuse of which will lead inevitably to climate catastrophe, nuclear proliferation, and perpetual resource wars. Universal reliance on sustainable energy will instead create a promising path toward creating peace on earth.

Sources
January 25, 2010
What Should the President Say in Oslo?

President Obama will soon be traveling to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed upon an individual or organization. In Alfred Nobel’s will, he stated that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who “during the preceding year…shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction or standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

The president will be receiving the award while America remains engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to make drone incursions in a third country, Pakistan. While he seeks to disengage from the war in Iraq, he has recently announced his decision to expand the war in Afghanistan by sending an additional 30,000 American troops.

Against this background, what might the president say in Oslo? He will, of course, have his own ideas, but here are some thoughts.

First, acknowledge that militarism globally is making the world less secure for a majority of the inhabitants of the planet. The nearly $1.5 trillion spent for military purposes is taking food from the hungry, shelter from the homeless, healthcare from the impoverished, and education from hundreds of millions of the world’s children. He should pledge to reduce the military budget of the United States by half by the year 2015, and call upon other countries to do the same.

Second, recognize the role of inequality in generating conflicts throughout the globe and pledge to use the savings from military budgets in the US to help meet the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015, starting with dramatically reducing poverty and hunger and promoting education and health care.

Third, call for major reductions in arms transfers that fuel wars throughout the world and pledge that the US will reduce its arms transfers by half by the year 2015.

Fourth, reiterate his and America’s commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons, announcing new and urgent steps to reduce the reliance of the US on nuclear arms, including de-alerting the weapons currently on high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons, and convening the nine nuclear weapons states to begin negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

Fifth, recognize, as did Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, that the Nuclear Age demands not only the abolition of nuclear weapons, but the abolition of war. For too long, the US and other countries have sought to prevent war by preparing for it. Now, the time has come to prevent war by preparing for peace. Cultures of peace must be built upon foundations of justice and human dignity. This means that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the international law that supports these rights, must be respected and adhered to. It also means that human institutions must uphold these rights, and there must be accountability for leaders who violate international law.

Finally, introduce the concept of trusteeship of the earth and its resources as a vital element of building cultures of peace. All of us share in the responsibility to pass the earth on intact to the generations that will follow us on the planet. We are trustees for future generations. We cannot allow global warming to change the climate, the ozone layer to be further damaged, our soil to be depleted, or our atmosphere, rivers and oceans to be polluted beyond recovery.

President Obama might conclude his Nobel Lecture by noting that peace is a sacred right for children everywhere and that all countries, starting with his own, should end the barbaric practice of sacrificing their children at the altar of war. He might observe that if politicians cannot refrain from choosing war, they should themselves go off to fight and leave the young men and women at home to pursue their lives in peace. It would follow that if politicians were to fight their own wars, the institution of war would soon end, and peace would cease to be the intervals between wars. It would be celebrated in all seasons across the globe.

Of course, these ideas and commitments are unlikely to be in the president’s Nobel Lecture and have been made more so by his recent announcement of his intention to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. It is pleasant to dream, though, that this young president might make such a speech and carry out a commitment truly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council.

November 25, 2009
Kicking the Nuclear Habit

This article was originally published by the History News Network

With President Barack Obama and other world leaders now talking about building a nuclear-free world, it is time to consider whether that would be a good idea.

Six reasons for supporting nuclear abolition are particularly cogent.

The first is that nuclear weapons are morally abhorrent. After all, they are instruments of widespread, indiscriminate slaughter. They destroy entire cities and entire regions, massacring civilian and soldier, friend and foe, the innocent and the guilty, including large numbers of children. The only crime committed by the vast majority of victims of a nuclear attack is that they happened to live on the wrong side of a national boundary.

The second reason is that nuclear war is suicidal. A nuclear exchange between nations will kill millions of people on both sides of the conflict and leave the survivors living in a nuclear wasteland, in which—as has been suggested—the living might well envy the dead. Even if only one side in a conflict employed nuclear weapons, nuclear fallout would spread around the world, as would a lengthy nuclear winter, which would lower temperatures, destroy agriculture and the food supply, and wreck what little was left of civilization. As numerous observers have remarked, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. The third reason is that nuclear weapons do not guarantee a nation’s security. Despite their nuclear weapons, the great powers over the decades became entangled in bloody conventional wars. Millions died in Korea, in Algeria, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and numerous other lands—including large numbers of people from the nuclear nations. As the leaders of the nuclear powers learned, their nuclear arsenals did not help them a bit in these conflicts, for other peoples were simply not cowed by their nuclear might. Nuclear weapons simply weren’t useful. Nor has the vast nuclear arsenal of the United States protected it from terrorist assault. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men—armed only with box cutters—staged the largest terrorist raid on the United States in its history, in which some 3,000 people died. Of what value were U.S. nuclear weapons in deterring this attack? Of what value are they now in “the war on terror”? Given the fact that terrorists do not occupy territory, it is difficult to imagine how nuclear weapons can be used against them, either as a deterrent or in military conflict. The fourth reason is that nuclear weapons undermine national security. Of course, this contention defies the conventional wisdom that the Bomb is a “deterrent.” And yet, consider the case of the United States. It was the first nation to develop atomic bombs and, for some years, had a monopoly of them. But in response to the U.S. nuclear monopoly, the Soviet government built atomic bombs. And so the U.S. government built hydrogen bombs. Whereupon the Soviet government built hydrogen bombs. Then the two nations competed in building guided missiles, and missiles with multiple warheads, and on and on. Meanwhile, other nations built and deployed their nuclear weapons. And, each year, all these nations felt less and less secure. And they were less secure, because the more they threatened others, the more they were threatened in return! Moreover, as long as nuclear weapons exist there remains the possibility of accidental nuclear war. Over the course of the Cold War and in the years since then, there have been numerous false alarms about an enemy attack that have nearly led to the launching of a nuclear response with devastating potential consequences. Furthermore, nuclear weapons can end up being exploded in one’s own nation. For example, in the summer of 2008 the top officials of the U.S. Air Force were dismissed from their posts because, thoughtlessly, they had allowed U.S. flights with live nuclear weapons to take place over U.S. territory. The fifth reason is that, while nuclear weapons exist, there will be a temptation to use them in wars. Waging war has been an ingrained habit for thousands of years and, therefore, it is unlikely that this practice will soon be ended. And as long as wars exist, governments will be tempted to draw upon their stockpiles of nuclear weapons to win them. Admittedly, nuclear armed nations have not used nuclear weapons for war since 1945. But this reflects the development of massive popular resistance to nuclear conflict, which stigmatized the use of nuclear weapons and pushed reluctant government officials toward arms control and disarmament agreements. But we cannot assume that, in the context of bitter wars and threats to national survival, nuclear restraint will continue forever. Indeed, it seems likely that, the longer nuclear weapons exist, the greater the possibility that they will be used in a war. The sixth reason is that, while nuclear weapons remain in national arsenals, the dangers posed by terrorism are vastly enhanced. Terrorists cannot build nuclear weapons by themselves, as the creation of such weapons requires vast resources, substantial territory, and a good deal of scientific knowledge. The only way terrorists will attain a nuclear capability is by obtaining the weapons or the materials for them from the arsenals of the nuclear powers—either by donation, by purchase, or by theft. Therefore, as long as governments possess nuclear weapons, the potential exists for terrorists to secure access to them. What, then, is holding us back from nuclear abolition? Certainly it is not the public, which poll after poll shows in favor of building a nuclear-free world. Even many government leaders now agree that getting rid of nuclear weapons is desirable. The real obstacle is the long-term habit of drawing upon the most powerful weapons available to resolve conflicts among hostile nations. This habit, though, has proved a deeply counter-productive, irrational one—worse than smoking, worse than drugs, worse than almost anything imaginable, for it places civilization on the brink of destruction. It is time to kick it—and create a nuclear-free world.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).

June 22, 2009