Arms and Disarmament

The conventional logic underpinning normal practices of states – and of non-state forces resorting to use of force to achieve political aims Peace is not always good, war is not always bad “Just war” and “unjust peace” Weapons are neutral, what matters is who uses them

and for what purpose You can’t obtain and secure peace and justice without

resort to violence as the final argument Use of force in politics will always be with us The best we can do is limit it

The antimilitarist position:

The destructiveness of modern warfare Weapons of mass destruction In wars, most casualties are now civilian

Use of force – both by states and by non-state forces - is often politically counterproductive

If we address root causes of conflict and work for just solutions by political means, weapons may not have to be used

Peace works - if it is based on justice

To make the world more peaceful, it is necessary to change the existing social conditions which breed conflict and violence

How to change it? Various proposed solutions: Facilitate replacement of authoritarian regimes by

democracies Promote social and economic development to eliminate

poverty and suffering Strive for equality and social justice Replace capitalism with some form of socialism

While recognizing the need to address the root causes of conflict, antimilitarism focuses on the means of political struggle

Arms buildups themselves make war more likely Military budgets are a burden on the economy The incidence of warfare can be reduced if states cut their

armaments to a minimum

The idea of disarmament Traditional: compelling a defeated state to disarm In the 20th century: a new international practice - mutual

arms control and disarmament by international treaties Natural reaction to the Era of Global Conflict, which

threatens the very existence of humanity Limit the scale of wars Respond to public antiwar sentiment

Opposition to arms buildups dates back to late 19th century

Lord Welby, British Secretary of the Treasury, March 1914: “We are in the hands of an organization of crooks. They

are politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments and journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expenditure, and go on inventing scares to terrify the public.”

Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary: “Great armaments lead inevitably to war.”

Quotes from David Cortright. Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas. Cambridge University Press, 2008, p.98

After WWI Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 8:

“The maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety.”

1922: the Five Power Naval Limitation Treaty, extended and Conferences of 1922 and 1930

A historic precedent was set World Disarmament Conference of 1932 – no success,

buildup of international tensions, new wars

After WWII Demobilization everywhere; strong desire for peace Creation of the United Nations Organization But the Cold War generated a new arms race Its cutting edge were nuclear weapons And the conventional (non-nuclear) arms race continued

The First Nuclear Age: 1945-1991

Trinity, history’s first nuclear explosion, Alamogordo, NM, July 16, 1945

Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0&feature=related

World’s first nuclear weapon: The Little Boy, explosive yield 12-15 kilotons (1/100 of B83 bomb)

Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

Father of the Soviet bomb: Igor Kurchatov

Young Andrei Sakharov played a key role in the Soviet nuclear weapons program, later became a dissident

1961, Soviet Union: The biggest nuclear bomb ever built: “Tsar-bomba”, “Big Ivan”. Power – 57 megatons (40,000 more than Little Boy of 1945)

The US-Russian nuclear arms race

USAF Gen. Curtis B. LeMay, Chief of the Strategic Air Command, advocated all-out nuclear war to destroy the Soviet Union and Red China

Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong advocated waging nuclear war on the US “to free the world from imperialism”

Late 1950s: birth of the international movement for nuclear disarmament

First diplomatic moves toward arms limitation 1961: US and Russian diplomats design a joint proposal

for general and complete disarmament 1961: The Antarctic Treaty is signed banning the use of

Antarctica for military purposes. See the full text: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/treaties/antarctic/t

rty_antarctic_1961-06-23.htm

October 1962: the Cuban Missile Crisis, the turning point

The shock of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis compels 3 nuclear weapons states into joint measures to reduce the nuclear threat

1963: The first arms control treaty signed in Moscow. The Partial Test Ban Treaty banning nuclear tests on the ground, in atmosphere and in outer space. Underground tests remain legal. See the full text: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/treaties/partial-test-ban/trty_partial-test-ban_1963-10-10.htm

The paradox of the nuclear arms race Nuclear weapons are unfit for warfighting They can only serve as deterrents But once deterrence becomes mutual, a new situation

emerges A powerful interest in mutual survival and security

between the opposing sides That becomes a basis for joint actions for stability,

security, disarmament On that basis, a global system of arms control has been

erected

Means of delivery: Ballistic missiles (IC, I, SR) – ground-based, sea-based SLBMs Aerial bombs Cruise missiles (air-, sea-, ground-launched) A special category: human-delivered devices

US B83 nuclear bomb, explosive yield – 1.2 megatons

A MIRV

Launch of a Minuteman III ICBM (US)

Topol-M ICBM (Russia)

Tu-95 strategic bomber (Russia)

B-52 strategic bomber (US)

”The White Swan”:Tu-160 strategic bomber (Russia)

B-2A strategic bomber (US)

Ballistic missile defence system, space-based (design)

W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was produced in the United States until 1988. The W54 was a very small 0.01 or 0.02-1 kiloton suitcase nuke with the entire unit weighing in at under 163 pounds

A “suitcase bomb”

Destructive Effects Nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed

destructive effects. Immediate

Blast, thermal radiation, prompt ionizing radiation are produced and cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation. Delayed

radioactive fallout and other possible environmental effects, inflict damage over an extended period ranging from hours to years Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Aug. 1945: 0.25 million lives Total destructive power of existing NWs: 150,000 times the

bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2,000 times the firepower used in all of WWII including the nuclear

bombs dropped on Japan

Main existing arms control treaties

Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963

INF, signed in 1987

START-I, signed in 1991

SORT, signed in 2002

CTR agreements

The Outer Space Treaty

NPT, signed in 1968, went into effect in 1970

CTBT, signed in 1996, still not fully in effect

1967: The Outer Space Treaty limits the use of outer space for military purposes - http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/treaties/weapons-in-space/trty_weapons-in-space_1967-10-10.htm

1970: The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. States without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire them – in exchange for the commitment of nuclear-armed states to move towards full nuclear disarmament – http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/treaties/non-proliferation-treaty/index.htm

1972: The Seabed Treaty prohibiting the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction on the seabed - http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/treaties/seabed/trty_seabed_1972-05-18.htm

1972: US and USSR sign SALT-I agreements (the ABM Treaty and the Interim Agreement on Strategic Offensive Weapons). Ban on ballistic missile defenses and limitation of offensive nuclear arsenals – http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/text/abm2.htm

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/treaties/usa-ussr/trty_us-ussr_interim-agreement-icbms_1972-05-26.htm

1979: US and USSR sign the SALT-II Treaty to strengthen and finalize the provisions of SALT-I. But the US Senate refuses to ratify the document. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/salt2/index.html

1987: US and USSR sign the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty banning all all nuclear-armed ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (about 300 to 3400 miles) and their infrastructure. The INF Treaty was the first nuclear arms control agreement to actually reduce nuclear arms, rather than establish ceilings that could not be exceeded. Under its provisions, about 2,700 nuclear weapons were destroyed. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/index.html

1991: US and USSR sign the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START-I), which leads to the reduction of the two sides’ strategic arsenals by 30-40%. The Treaty expires in December 2009.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start1/index.html

1993: US and Russia sign the second Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START-II), providing for further reductions in strategic offensive arsenals – down to 3000-3500 warheads. The Russian Parliament ratified the Treaty with a condition that the ABM Treaty of 1972 banning ballistic missile defenses must remain in force. In 2002, after President George Bush declared that the US was pulling out of the ABM Treaty in order to clear the way for the deployment of US ballistic missile defense systems, Russia withdrew from START-II.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start1/index.html

2002: US and Russia sign the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), which will reduce the numbers of operationally deployed strategic offensive weapons of the two sides to 1700-2200 by the year 2012. The Treaty is currently in force. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/sort/fs-sort.html

April 2009: Presidents Obama and Medvedev declared that the US and Russia will move toward complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Negotiations on a new US-Russian treaty to further reduce their strategic nuclear arms are in progress. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=24254

The Nuclear Weapons Archive: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Results of international efforts to tame the nuclear threat No nuclear weapon used since 1945 Almost no testing (with a few exceptions) The arsenals have been reduced by 2/3 Most treaties work, compliance assured Proliferation has been minimal The Cold War is over – one of the causes being the

nuclear arms race and the emergence of a sense of common interest in preventing it

In the 21st century, the Second Nuclear Age began…

The four threats 1. Nuclear terrorism 2. Nuclear proliferation 3. Existing nuclear arsenals

Their size and posture The NPT linkage Policies of US and Russia in the past decade

4. Climate change linkages New interest in nuclear power generation and trade in

nuclear fuels Climate change will undermine international security

and raise the risks of nuclear power disasters Environmental impact of the use of nuclear weapons

Nuclear terrorism The threat is real, the main source is Al Qaeda

A radiological attack with or without a conventional explosion (use of chemical or biological agents also possible)

A real nuclear weapon Steal or buy Pakistan as the key state of concern

Can a government knowingly provide terrorists with a nuclear weapon? Highly unlikely: governments protect their power, a state

caught doing this will be severely punished Rogue elements, organized crime networks

Solutions: Smart anti-terrorist policies Better security of storing nuclear weapons and materials Better security to forestall and prevent terrorist acts

Nuclear proliferation 3 pillars of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which

went into effect in 1970: 1. NON-PROLIFERATION

Commitment of non-nuclear weapons states not to acquire NWs

2. DISARMAMENT Commitment of nuclear weapons states to give up their

nuclear weapons 3. RIGHT TO PEACEFUL USE

Every state has a right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes

How effective is the Treaty? 189 of the world’s 193 countries are parties to NPT Only 3 states acquired nuclear weapons after the treaty

was signed: India, Pakistan, North Korea Neither India nor Pakistan have signed the Treaty Israel developed nuclear weapons secretly before the

Treaty and never signed North Korea did sign, but violated and withdrew in 2003 Libya did sign, violated, but then came clean South Africa canceled its program and signed Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan became de facto nuclear

weapons states by default after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but they gave up the Soviet weapons – and signed

The problems 1. How effective is the monitoring?

Fairly effective, but can be made better 2. How to prevent weapons programs evolving from

peaceful programs? International nuclear fuel bank Fissile materials ban

3. How to remove rationales for nuclearization? Responsibility of the main nuclear powers A renewed serious push for disarmament Reform of the international order to reduce potential for

conflict No nation should have this kind of power

Threats from existing nuclear arsenals

The numbers – over 23,000? The US: the requirement for this many weapons

arises from the Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy, signed by then–defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2004, which states in part:

“U.S. nuclear forces must be capable of, and be seen to be capable of, destroying those critical war-making and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a post-war world.”

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2009, p. 60

Arguments against reductions – the US The US needs a large arsenal to defend itself and its

interests around the globe “Extended deterrence” Dreams of first-strike capability

Main targets: Russia and China For 2,000 deployed warheads, US needs to have several

times more in reserve

Russian arguments Russia cannot defend itself without nuclear weapons Its defence spending is 1/10 of the US level, while its

security challenges are much greater than those faced by US

Operational status Dr. Bruce Blair, former Minuteman ICBM Launch Control

Officer and now President of the World Security Institute (Washington, DC):

U.S. standard operating procedures still envisage massive retaliation to a presumed strike in timeframes that allow only for rote, lightning-fast, checklist- based decision- making. Such decisions could starkly affect the survival of civilization.

“Both the United States and Russia today maintain about one-third of their total strategic arsenals on launch-ready alert. Hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads-the equivalent of about 100,000 Hiroshima bombs-can be launched within a very few minutes.”

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom08/ngostatements/OpStatus.pdf

Modernization of weapons Impact on strategic stability New types Small is usable? Development of missile defence systems High-accuracy conventional weapons Space weapons

Ecological impact The detonation of these weapons in conflict would likely

kill most humans from the environmental consequences of their use. Ice Age weather conditions, massive destruction of the ozone layer, huge reductions in average global precipitation, would all combine to eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer . . . resulting in global nuclear famine. Even a "regional" nuclear conflict, which detonates the equivalent of 1% of the explosive power in the operational US-Russian arsenals, could cause up to a billion people to die from famine (see http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf and www.nucleardarkness.org )

If India and Pakistan were to fight a nuclear war: http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/ZH6ImzZurtM-nuclear-war-between-india-pakistan.aspx

Solutions The main responsibility lies on the US and Russia Without their joint leadership, nothing can be done This is why the Obama initiative is so important

The new START treaty Reductions by 30% Verification Resumption of serious arms control based on equal

security

Nuclear Security Conference – Washington, April 2010

NPT Review Conference – New York, May 2010

Further steps

Deeper cuts to eliminate potential for first strike

De-alerting the weapons

Cooperative missile defence

Etc.

Can nuclear weapons be prohibited?

Yes, they can! Negotiations toward prohibition of nuclear weapons will by

necessity be protracted, but it should be remembered that the NPT was negotiated from 1959 to 1968.

Prohibition could either be negotiated through an analogous protracted international process, or it might alternatively be obtained by a covenant among the existing nuclear weapons states turning over their nuclear weapons to international management.

Obviously, this will be come possible only with fundamental changes in the international system – to reduce sources of conflict and promote peaceful ways of resolving differences

Nuclear disarmament and reform of the international system must go hand in hand

The proposal for an International Nuclear Weapons Convention, to be signed by 2020

The NWC would prohibit development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.

States possessing nuclear weapons will be required to destroy their arsenals according to a series of phases

The Convention would prohibit the production of weapons-usable fissile material and require delivery vehicles to be destroyed or converted to make them incapable of use with nuclear weapons.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

1. Fulfill Existing Obligations. The nuclear weapons states have made solemn promises to the international community to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China accepted this obligation when they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and extended their promises at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and again at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. India and Pakistan, which are not signatories of the NPT, have committed themselves to abolish their nuclear arsenals if the other nuclear weapons states agree to do so. The only nuclear weapons state that has not made this promise is Israel, and surely it could be convinced to do so if the other nuclear weapons states agreed to the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The International Court of Justice, the world's highest court, unanimously highlighted the obligation to nuclear disarmament in its 1996 Opinion: "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." This means an obligation to reduce the world's nuclear arsenals to zero.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

2. Stop Nuclear Weapons Proliferation. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to act to eliminate their nuclear arsenals will likely result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations. If the nuclear weapons states continue to maintain the position that nuclear weapons preserve their security, it is only reasonable that other nations with less powerful military forces, such as North Korea, will decide that their security should also be maintained by nuclear arsenals. Without substantial progress toward nuclear disarmament, the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be in jeopardy when the parties to the treaty meet for the NPT Review Conference in the year 2005.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

3. Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. The very existence of nuclear weapons and their production endanger our safety because they are susceptible to terrorist exploitation. Nuclear weapons and production sites all over the world are vulnerable to terrorist attack or to theft of weapons or weapons-grade materials. Russia, due to the breakup of the former Soviet Union, has a weakened command and control system, making their substantial arsenal especially vulnerable to terrorists. In addition, nuclear weapons are not helpful in defending against or responding to terrorism because nuclear weapons cannot target a group that is unlocatable.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

4. Avoid Nuclear Accidents. The risk of accidental war through miscommunication, miscalculation or malfunction is especially dangerous given the thousands of nuclear warheads deployed and on high alert status. Given the short time periods available in which to make decisions about whether or not a state is under nuclear attack, and whether to launch a retaliatory response, the risk of miscalculation is high. In addition, the breakup of the former Soviet Union has weakened Russia's early warning system, since many parts of this system were located outside of Russia, and this increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident. Read more about nuclear accidents.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

5. Cease the Immorality of Threatening Mass Murder. It is highly immoral to base the security of a nation on the threat to destroy cities and potentially murder millions of people. This immoral policy is named nuclear deterrence, and it is relied upon by all nuclear weapons states. Nuclear deterrence is a dangerous policy. Its implementation places humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation.

6. Reverse Concentration of Power. Nuclear weapons undermine democracy by giving a few individuals the power to destroy the world as we know it. No one should have this much power. If these individuals make a mistake or misjudgment, everyone in the world will pay for it.

7. Promote Democratic Openness. Decisions about nuclear weapons have been made largely in secrecy with little involvement from the public. In the United States, for example, nuclear weapons policy is set forth in highly classified documents, which are not made available to the public and come to public attention only by leaks. On this most important of all issues facing humanity, there is no informed consent of the people.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

8. Halt the Drain on Resources. Nuclear weapons have drained resources, including scientific resources, from other more productive uses. A 1998 study by the Brookings Institution found that the United States alone had spent more than $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons programs between 1940 and 1996. The United States continues to spend some $25-$35 billion annually on research, development and maintenance of its nuclear arsenal. All of these misspent resources represent lost opportunities for improving the health, education and welfare of the people of the world.

9. Heed Warnings by Distinguished Leaders. Distinguished leaders throughout the world, including generals, admirals, heads of state and government, scientists and Nobel Peace Laureates, have warned of the dangers inherent in relying upon nuclear weapons for security. These warnings have gone unheeded by the leaders of nuclear weapons states. Read more about the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life.

10 reasons to ban nukes, by David Krieger

10. Meet Our Responsibility. We each have a responsibility to our children, grandchildren and future generations to end the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. This is a responsibility unique in human history. If we do not accept responsibility to speak out and act for a world free of nuclear weapons, who will?