Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons

Any nuclear weapon anywhere is a potential terrorist bomb. There have been cocnerned for over 15 years about the security fo nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Now, however, those concerns are more wide-spread. Unrest in Pakistan and uncertainties in China have raised the alarm about the security and instability in other countries. The recent news that 6 nuclear weapons took a joy ride on a B-52 without the knowlegde or permission of base commanders or proper authorities reminded people that security in the United States is also far from perfect.

We know terrorist groups have stated their desire to acquire nuclear weapons. If security over the weapons we have is imperfect, and we know sub-national groups are trying to acquire them, then to protect ourselves, the best way to proceed is to eliminate all nuclear weapons ro ensure they never fall into the wrong hands.

If the nukes have terrorist bomb potentiality, then the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the fact that nukes have heavy destruction at high blast overpressure and threanten the health and life of people. People there now are still exposed to the radiation, let alone the people then. The evarge leukemia rates and other radiation-ralated desease rates are much highter then those in other earas. The bombing in Ngasaki is in certan respects the fitter symbol of the nuclear danger that still hangs over us. Once nuke is used, nobody can ganrantee that no way it will be again. So, for the sake of the health and quality life of the people, we should eliminate all nuclear weapons.

The United States is the world’s conventional super power. The only thing that can truely threaten our existence and our military capabilities are nuclear weapons. Thus, the United States shoudl be leading international efforts to rid the world of all nuclear weapons under strict verification. Doing so would help ensure American military dominance and its ability to protect its allies and its security interests.

Moreover, the United States does not need nuclear weapons to protect itself. In al of the wars fought in recent memory, nuclear wepaons have not been useful. From Vietnam, to Iraq, to Somalia to Kosovo, nuclear weapopns have been useless. Why have them if you can’s use them, and why have them if they only serve to legitimize the nuclear arsenals of others.

The United States need to increase its moral authority if we are going to prevent countries like Iran from becoming nuclear powers. As the only country to ever use nuclear weapons (to end WWII) and as a country that has recently stated its willingness to use nuclear weapons to advance the regime change agenda, the UNited States has lost a lot of the moral authority it needs to convince other coutnries to join in efforts to convince Iran to end its nuclear program. We must make it easier for non-aligned states to side with us. Right now, it is politically harder for leaders in middle powers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and South Africa to side with the US.

Were Britain to thoroughly commit to the United Nations instead of merely paying it lip-service (as can be said of a huge number of Western nations – particularly America), then perhaps it could resemble an effective moral and military authority. Some of the biggest tragedies of the past two decades – Rwanda and Darfur spring to mind – have been perpetrated not with nuclear weapons but with machetes, yet the international community has not taken it upon itself to act.

Without support from its members, the UN cannot take action. Yet with a nuclear deterrant countries are able to believe that they can still defend themselves independently, at the expense of upholding commitments to defend others. It is time for the UK to accept that its years as an island are now over, replenish it’s nuclear arsenal knowing that were any other country to launch a nuclear attack on Great Britain the UN would step up to the task. (At the very least in theory. In practice downsizing our arsenal whilst stepping up our UN commitment could be the working solution.)

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate waste of money. They are a weapon that cannot feasibly be used. If the UK were to fire a missile at Russia then they will fire one back. Mutually Assured Destruction.

The oft-heard counter argument against this is that they are a bargaining chip. Does the UK need to be involved in this international game of “my dad is bigger than yours”?

Nuclear Weapons have been effective so long as they have a purpose and in this current age I would contend that the reasoning for having them. During the Cold War nuclear weapons acted as a terrifyingly effective way of detterring both the USA and USSR. But however you can’t just use nuclear weapons against terrorist or transnational forces. I mean what is Israel going to do if Hizbollah decides to detonate a nuclear bomb or threatens to . Nuke Lebanon or Syria? No that would be seen as an overreaction and the price of the collateral damage would be too high.

Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons, however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all around the world. These effects could never be morally acceptable, particularly as the basis of one’s national security strategy. They place ‘humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation’ (Krieger, 2003).

By maintaining a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Krieger, 2003). To be a part of the so-called ‘nuclear club’ is seen as a matter of great prestige; when India and Pakistan recently declared their nuclear capability, it was seen in both countries as increasing their international status. Also, nations opposed to a nuclear power feel that they need to develop their own capability in order to protect themselves. The declared nuclear powers must therefore take the lead in disarmament, as an example for the rest of the world.

While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands. This is particularly true in Russia, which now had control of all of the nuclear weapons which were distributed around the former Soviet Union. The military is disastrously underfunded; technicians and officers who were used to a high standard of living are now finding themselves without pay, sometimes for years. At the same time, other states and extremist groups are willing to pay substantial sums for their services, and to gain access to nuclear weapons. The danger of a weapon being stolen, or – in consideration of the current political instability in Russia – a nuclear base being taken over by disgruntled members of the military or other extremists, can only be ended by destroying the weapons (Allison, 1997).

The International Court of Justice in 1996 declared unanimously that any use or threat of nuclear weapons had to be compatible with existing international law relating to armed conflict (International Court of Justice, 1996). Furthermore, a majority of the judges present felt that any such use or threat would ‘generally be contrary’ to those rules of international law and therefore, unanimously, ‘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’ (International Court of Justice, 1996).

As the example of Chernobyle revels, there is a high rate of risk involved in construction of nuclear weapons.The people working in such factories are prone to so many diseases and infections. Apart from that ,there are high risk of nuclear accidents which may lead to the death of thousands of innocent people as well as enviroment pollution.

The idea of a so-called ‘nuclear deterrent’ no longer applies. Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power – neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world. However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?

To the same extent that they are a hedge, they may also draw enemies into attacking the US. It is important to remember that Nuclear Weapons don’t protect against other Nuclear attacks, only anti-nuclear defenses do this. Nuclear Weapons are not a defence but a tool for future aggression and preemptive action. Anything could happen in the future, but it’s much more likely to in a nuclear world…

There is the knowledge in people’s heads for far worse weapons than nuclear ones (such as biological weapons). These can be created, but states consistently choose not to, and vindicate these decisions in articles such as the Geneva convention. If the heavily-armed states led the way in disarming, nuclear weapons could potentially gain this status.

This simply isn’t true. Since the end of the Cold War all the enemies of Western states have been located outside of American and Europe – such as in Asia and the Middle East. There have been no military operations whatsoever by these enemies into Western states throughout history (except a few skirmishes around Turkey in the 19th century). To argue that nuclear weapons have prevented conflict and thus saved money is to plagerise the story in which a child sits outside his front door (in a Western country) with stones, in order to keep away the tigers. There haven’t been any tigers, thus his method must be cost effective and beneficial. Just to add to this.

“missions now assigned to nuclear weapons.” Unless my head has been been in a bunker I must have missed all the nuclear attacks alluded to here.

Equally the cost effectiveness has been shown to be lacking in cases such as Korea in the 50s or any other conflict where nuclear weapons have been actiively considered where the US has paid for the weapon yet is still using large amounts of man power and conventional weapons instead of its apparenlty cheap and effective option.

Actually the cost of disarmament could be made fairly small, dismantling warheads is a fairly complex process, true, and good technical minds would need to be employed. Disposal of nuclear fuel is also, in real terms, fairly cheap, with the prices massively inflated simply because there is nowhere to dispose of it TO right now. For those who don’t know much about nuclear waste disposal, this would basically be a giant hole in the floor in a geologically stable area, covered in concrete. There are no suitable sites, at least to my knowledge, in the US, however, there are many in Canada, Europe and Oceania. Once built, the whole thing is really self explanatory.

What about ABMs (anti-ballistic misslies) and other missile defence systems? All that would be removed if the offensive threat of massive retaliation against the civillian population of the agressor not defence capabilities which have been underused in order to maintain the concept of MAD hence the agreements not to use ABMs, which would be void if there was a mass nuclear disarament.

The idea is unfortunately Utopian. Firstly, as all the UN’s permanent Security Council members are Nuclear powers, and all posses a Veto the UN would never be able to actually authorise a strike against one of the nuclear powers (the only people capable of starting an actual Nuclear war!), obviously removing any deterrent. The suggestion is to go to the court of justice. Not only is it practically difficult but would put the political decision as to whether to use the ultimate force into non-elected hands. Not only is that morally dubious, but how could we possibly ensure an impartial hearing on the issue of Nuclear war? Further, how is it proposed that the UN would be able to move to vote on whether to retaliate to a Nuclear attack during an attack. This is not to mention the practical limitations to the scheme. Just a few examples: how do you stop an American base in America manned by Swiss soldiers from being retaken by the Americans whenever they need to? How do you fire a Nuclear ICBM when the tracking system is linked up to GPS, run by the Americans? What do you do about tactical weapons stored on ships, subs and planes? How do you ensure that EVERY weapon worldwide is under UN control? How do you stop UN corruption or betrayal? Yet perhaps the most important question of all remains: why would the nations involved do it? There is no advantage to Russia, say, of doing this, and until that materialises it would never be done in the real world.

The idea of a so-called ‘nuclear deterrent’ no longer applies. Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power – neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world. However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?

In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty, which calls for an end to all nuclear testing, includes provisions for extensive and independent mechanisms for the monitoring of nuclear activities. Such mechanisms could easily be co-opted for use in implementing, monitoring and verifying any future nuclear disarmament process.

Kimbali

The de facto global nuclear test moratorium and CTBT’s entry into force are crucial barriers to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states and are essential to the future viability of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). They are the first two of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament that were unanimously adopted in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference