Mount: LLNL6/4/2014

Consequences ofnuclear disarmament proposals

Adam Mount, Ph.D.

LLNL, 4 May, 2014

Mount: LLNL6/4/2014

1968: NPT

1977: Carter, UN

1986: Reagan, Reykjavik

2009: Obama, Prague

2009: S/RES/1887

2011: Nuclear Posture Review

Nuclear disarmament proposals

Apr-38 Jan-52 Sep-65 May-79 Jan-93 Oct-06 Jun-200

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Approval of nuclear disarmament (u.s.)

Year

% a

ppro

val

1945: Truman, November 1946: A/RES/11946: Baruch to UNAEC1961: Kennedy, AU1961: Kennedy, UN (GCD)1961: McCloy-Zorin accords1964: Johnson, State of the Union (GCD)

The U.S. has periodically issued commitments to disarm, sometimes in response to transnational activism or multilateral initiatives.

Less studied is the effects of different types of disarmament proposals.

1. Multilateral treaty

2. Nuclear weapons ban

3. Obsolescence

4. Unilateral disarmament

Mount: LLNL6/4/2014

Multilateral disarmament treaty

DEFINE:

A negotiated treaty containing provisions for verified dismantlement and continued inspections

PROCESS:

Voluntary bilateral U.S.-Russia reductions lead to P-5 participation for further reductions. Progress on related agreements (CTBT, FMCT, NPT) build confidence. Once at low numbers, disarmament is verified simultaneously in all nations.

SOURCES:Perkovich & Lewis (2009)

Fetter & Oelirch (2010)

Acton (2011), Holloway (2011)

• Modest steps could have major benefits for related agreements

• Exerts pressure on proliferants / pariahs

• Incentivizes interest in verification (UKNI), diplomatic sequencing

• Multilateral agreements are more popular

• Some types of stockpile funding could be supportive of disarmament commitments

UKNI (2007-12)

PREPCOM (5/14)

Mount: LLNL6/4/2014

Nuclear weapons ban

DEFINE:A legal prohibition proposed by a international group with moral authority

PROCESS: A transnational activist group or multilateral movement gathers sufficient support for its weapons ban to have bearing on international law or public opinion and nuclear countries accede to the statement. The text could directly mandate disarmament or apply it indirectly (through moral criticism of deterrence, for example).

SOURCES:HINW, Nayarit (2014)ICJ (1996)

• The U.S. is not part of the HINW initiative, or it might have prevented movement toward a ban

• Diplomatic/public opinion benefits from participation

• Movements interested in a ban can be productive on related issues

• Enthusiasm for a ban could affect the 2015 NPT REVCON or the discussions on a Middle-East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone– (and therefore on nonproliferation efforts in Iran,

Saudi Arabia, and others)

Mount: LLNL6/4/2014

Disarmament through obsolescence

DEFINE:Nuclear capability is eliminated when the U.S. can no longer certify its nuclear assets safe and reliable for deployment.

PROCESS: Intentionally or unintentionally, stockpile management decisions lead to decreased nuclear capability. A lack of knowledge or resources, brought on by a protracted test-ban or Congressional decisions, render the arsenal too unsafe or unreliable to deploy.

SOURCES:National Research Council (2012)

• Unless made explicit, unlikely to have significant diplomatic benefits for nonproliferation, reciprocity

• Complex doctrinal questions

• Could weaken nuclear security efforts

• New surety funding thought contrary to disarmament commitments

Mount: LLNL6/4/2014

Unilateral disarmament

DEFINE:

The U.S. voluntarily eliminates its nuclear arsenal without reciprocity or inspection requirements

PROCESS:

A Presidential decision abandons nuclear deterrence, demobilizes nuclear forces, and begins warhead dismantlement.

SOURCES:Podvig, BAS (2013)

Krauss, NYT (2013)

Gaffney, WT (2012-3)

• Never a significant part of the U.S. debate, though some recent stirrings

• Significant proposals will affect domestic politics more than diplomatic outlook

• England has shown more interest

• English disarmament could have major effects on disarmament diplomacy and strategic stability—or none at all

Mount: LLNL6/4/2014

• Disarmament proposals differ in their effects

• The United States must involve itself in disarmament debates or risk being backed into a corner– Politics can be path dependent. Proposals can:

• support institutional arrangements

• direct funding

• direct research

• Modest steps may yield substantial benefits1. Planning on diplomatic sequencing

2. Steps on stockpile management, weapons systems for credible commitment

3. (Implicitly) endorsing treaty could constrain discussion

• Historically, policy was more proactive

Conclusions