Having the non-nuclear
states confront the nuclear States ends the onesided bargaining position held
by the nuclear states who only talked to each other without ever wanting to
give up their programs. It is blindingly
obvious that the rest of the world has the weight to enforce final compliance
even if necessary at the expense of severe economic sanctions.
Once properly
organized and empowered with a convincing mandate all that is left is a staging
plan that allows everyone to disengage in appropriate steps.
The global
nuclear industry then can be put under vigorous inspection guidelines and regulation
easily enough and can also be generally phased out with the use of thorium
reactors that consume uranium and spent isotopes.
This is the way
forward to a huge pullback on nuclear weapons once and for all.
In the meantime,
it is likely to sneak up on us. The end
result will be perhaps one or two rogue states always under severe pressure to
clean to their act. Better, the proven
difficulty in producing these weapons makes it progressively more unlikely that
one can be made in secrecy, let alone a viable delivery system. With a complete shutdown and a close ongoing
audit of materials, it will become impossible to do anything without maximum
public disclosure.
Nuclear Weapons
– Hope at Last
Wednesday, 05 March 2014 09:24
By Jim McCluskey,
The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China
and France are rebuilding or upgrading their arsenals of nuclear weapons. The
other four nuclear states too are "improving" their arsenals. As we
discuss the statistics and strategies of nuclear arsenals and nuclear
deterrence, it can be hard to keep in mind the reality underlying the abstract
discussions. The nine nuclear states have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons in their stockpiles. This
is enough to wipe out the entire population of the planet many times over
together with all other life forms. Is this sane? Has the human race lost its
senses? A single US thermonuclear warhead, designated W88,has an estimated
"yield" of 475 kilotons. The "yield" is the destructive
power expressed in tons of TNT equivalent. The W88 is more than 30 times more
destructive than the bomb that wiped out Hiroshima. A single W88 could
completely destroy London, Moscow or New York. Each bomb on a major city would kill
millions of people: women, children, babies, old people, everyone. The
suffering would be indescribable and for many would go on for months and years
before death. No emergency services could begin to cope. There would be no
relief. What sort of people would do such a thing? What kind of human would
threaten such an atrocity?
The US government has five nuclear submarines on
patrol at all times carrying 1,000 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima
bomb. Is it possible to imagine the degree of paranoia represented by such
a standing threat? The UK government has started to spend 100 billion pounds on
rebuilding its Trident fleet of nuclear submarines, each one with the capacity
to incinerate more than 40 million people. This is being done at a time when
many citizens are suffering from inadequate defenses against flooding and when
the social services are being radically cut back.
The situation is being rendered even more insanely
dangerous by the United States and Russia, which keep 1,800 weapons on high
alert atop long-range ballistic missiles that are ready to launch five to 15
minutes after receiving an order!
It is ironic that the worst offenders are the five
permanent members of the "Security" Council of the United Nations.
They have had 69 years to get rid of their nuclear weapons while all that the
citizens of the world hear from them are windy speeches around purported good
intentions, which never come to fruition.
Citizens of the world have become aware
simultaneously that the nuclear states do not intend to get rid of their
nuclear weapons and that their existence imposes a permanent and intolerable
threat to us all. The existence of nuclear weapons means they could be used by
accident, by misunderstanding or by malicious intent. How can we ever be sure
that some deranged psychopath will not gain power in one of the nuclear states
and deceive him/herself into believing that it is in their best interests to
make a first strike? How can we ever be sure that some terrorist organizations
will not hack into the electronic control systems and carry out the launching
themselves? And we now know that even a small nuclear exchange could be a
lethal threat to everyone on the planet. In a "limited" nuclear war
between India and Pakistan, 20 million people would die from the nuclear
blasts, fires and radioactive fallout. And the fallout would have global
consequences that would kill millions of people, disrupt climate patterns and threaten global agricultural collapse.
Furthermore decent people round the globe know that
the existence of nuclear weapons is a brooding evil that undermines the moral
integrity of humankind. As the great moral leader Desmond Tutu wrote, "Nuclear
weapons are an obscenity. They are the very antithesis of humanity. ... "
The only remedy is an enforced world ban on the
existence of nuclear weapons. The other weapons of mass destruction have been
banned. It is the turn of the last and most destructive of them all.
And finally there is hope. The huge burgeoning of
awareness in the citizens of the world is bearing fruit.
There are nine nuclear states, and there are 183
non-nuclear states. The security of the non-nuclear states is threatened by the
irresponsible and self-focused behavior of the nine others. But these nine are outnumbered by 20 to one. The non-nuclear majority, which does not
feel the need for a lethal "security" crutch, has decided to take the
initiative. And rather than focus on the numbers and "yields" of
the weapons, it was wisely decided to concentrate on the effects on humanity of
the use of nuclear weapons. The next logical development, as the nuclear
states continue to deny their obligations to shed their arsenals, is for the
non-nuclear states to proceed independently to enact a treaty outlawing these
weapons internationally. By focusing attention on the humanitarian
consequences of their use they are well on their way to doing so.
The first International Conference on the
Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons was held in 2013. Humanity owes a
great debt to Norway for this initiative.
This ground-breaking and historic conference was
attended by delegates from 127 countries and 70 nongovernmental
organizations. The nuclear states were invited but declined to attend. It is
not easy to face up to the implications of these arsenals, especially if you
bear the primary responsibility. India and Pakistan sent observers.
After hearing presentations from a wide range of
experts on the various effects of nuclear weapon detonations, the conference
concluded that "it is unlikely that any state or international body could
address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon
detonation in an adequate manner and provide sufficient assistance to those
affected." Conference members also agreed that the effects of a nuclear
weapon detonation will not be constrained by national borders but will produce significant negative regional and global effects.
Mexico offered to host a follow-up meeting to this
conference, and such is the vital importance of this approach that other states
declared their intention to organize additional events on this subject.
The Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of
Nuclear Weapons was held February 13-14, 2014, in Nayarit, Mexico. It
included delegations representing 146 states, the United Nations, the
International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Cross and Red Crescent
movement and civil society organizations.
The powerful summary statement of the conference
chair pointed out that the broad participation of states and civil society
reflected the burgeoning awareness that this issue is of the utmost importance
to all the peoples of the world. Because of "proliferation, the
vulnerability of nuclear command and control networks to cyber-attacks and to
human error and potential access to nuclear weapons by non-state actors, in
particularly terrorist groups' the risks are 'growing globally." The
risk of "accidental, mistaken, unauthorised or intentional use is
growing significantly due to more countries holding weapons on higher levels of
combat readiness." As awareness of the humanitarian impact grows, hearts
and minds are being changed worldwide. These weapons must be
outlawed; "in the past, weapons have been eliminated after they have
been outlawed. We believe this is the path to achieve a world without nuclear
weapons." The chair called for a "legally binding
instrument" and declared that the "time has come to initiate a
diplomatic process conducive to this goal. Our belief is that this process
should comprise a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate
fora, and a clear and substantive framework, making the humanitarian impact of
nuclear weapons the essence of disarmament efforts. It is time to take
action."
The Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of
Nuclear Weapons will be held this year in Austria. The movement for an
international ban is unstoppable.
The International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons
(ICAN) is a coalition of more than 350 organizations in 90 countries.
Ray Acheson, in her closing statement on behalf of ICAN to the Second
Conference, included the words, "The claim by some states that they
continue to need these weapons to deter their adversaries has been exposed by
the evidence presented at this conference and in Oslo as a reckless and
unsanctionable gamble with our future."
She went on to explain that the use against cities
of less than 1 percent of existing weapons would put billions of lives in
jeopardy and have a long-lasting detrimental effect on the planet's climate and
agriculture. She insisted that we must act to get rid of them or they will be
used by accident, misunderstanding or malicious intent. Getting rid of them
will take courageous leadership by states, but such leadership will have the
support of civil society. She concluded, "It is time to change the status
quo. It is time we ban nuclear weapons."
So with these and other major forces at work, there
is an unstoppable movement toward banning these Armageddon machines. The
nuclear states have become a sorry sight. Frozen in a realm of outdated
thinking that was always inhuman; their leaders frightened and paranoid and
prepared to put the survival of humanity in jeopardy simply to feel
important and powerful as they strut, uncomprehending, on the world stage.
Their brief and nightmarish ascendancy is over. The
world has moved on.
You can help by contacting the embassies of the
non-nuclear states. Make an appointment to visit them, or write. Let them know
that the people appreciate and support what they are doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment