Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
There Is No Global Security Without Nuclear Disarmament. Ivo Šlaus. Nuclear Weapons and War. ◙ 1945 →1985 →2005 1985 2005 USA 23,000 10,500 USSR/Russia 40,000 9,000 world 70,000 30,000 ◙ Accidents with NW: from 1950 about one or more per year
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
◙ 1945 →1985 →2005 19852005
USA 23,000 10,500
USSR/Russia 40,000 9,000
◙ Accidents with NW: from 1950 about one or more per year
◙ Exposure to radiation in the USA and USSR
◙ “To seek scientists to kill or cure masses” (Ben Gurion)
◙ 1948, 1974 Tito’s nuclear bomb – likely a total “bluff”
◙ 1981: Kenneth Waltz: The spread of nuclear weapons – the more the better
And physicists also: A.Sakharov “proposed” tsunami as weapon – soviet admiral disagreed (told by S. P. Kapitza)
∩ Precepts “Science is neutral” and “Science has nothing to do with politics” still prevail. Remnants of ivory tower mentality (J. Rotblat, Nobel Acceptance Speech)
◙ 2000: dirty bombs (rogue states or terrorists) + the USA pre-emptive doctrine
Many dangers and threats are recent (+ financial and demographic instabilities), and many new will appear. None of the foreseeable threats can be addressed by military means! How about terrorism and rogue and failed-states? How about totalitarian regimes?Are military means useful in addressing natural and/or alien threats, e.g. approaching celestial object? Or in addressing earthquakes, tornados, pandemics??Are WMD useful means in such scenarios?
time and various strategies and mechanismswere
devised to deal with them, e.g. war, aggression,
conquest and political instabilitieswere dealt with
military power, economic strength, balance of
power, assured destruction, blockades and economicsanctions, containment and treaties.
♣Almost all these strategies and mechanisms are
still prevalent, but some are now inadequate and even dangerous.
assured destruction - MAD (nuclear arsenals 100 x > required for any deterrent purpose) invalid as
shown by the recent Global peace index based on 24 different indicators and covering 140 states: states having nuclear weapons - and according to the old viewpoint they should be best prepared - are at the bottom of the list, particularly two major NW states: the USA and Russia.
War, preparation for war and deterrence, notably nuclear deterrence do not eliminate enemies, but create enemies and generate other threats and dangers.
linked with rogue, failed and failing states –
albeit present from Antiquity - now represent
a much higher danger and threat than at any time in
our history - innocent people are victims and nothing
♣Why? Just as an expression of frustration or utter
♠It does not seem we are winning the war against terror, nor war against crime.
Opinion polls (Gallup Voice of the People, May-June 2005: 50,000 persons from 65 countries in 6 continents ≈ 1.4 billion persons):
(i) 7% - “world is going in the right direction”
23% - somewhat agree with above
(ii) 68% - “country not governed by the will of the people” vs 27% (governed by the will of the people)
While 41% of the people of the world are living in countries considered to be free (??)
The dissatisfaction of the public increased:
♠2003: more than 3700 metric tons of plutonium and highlyenriched uranium (HEU) in 60 states. Over the last decadeIAEA reported 18 incidents involving plutonium and HEU.
♠About 10,000 kilograms of HEU is unaccounted for –
more than100 nuclear bombs. A terrorist group acquiring
HEU can easilymanufacture a primitive nuclear explosive.
☼ HEU reduced to less than 20% of U-235 is not useful forterrorists, since requires major enrichment installation to acquire aweapon-grade HEU.
In the early 1990’s Russia and the USA agreed to
down-blend 500tons of Russian HEU, but???
It is more difficult to build a plutonium bomb. But, plutonium canbe used in other terrorists’ action.
Dirty bombs: easier to build, noneed to transport it and it need not be very reliable.
☼A new approach needed: technological measures + eliminating root causes of terrorism.
◊Technical measures include protecting critical
infrastructure, e.g chemical and nuclear plants, food
and agriculture safety and the control of weapons.
◊ Strengthen and democratize international and
regional bodies for effective global governance
implying strengthening freedom and democracy athome and abroad.
♥ “The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose - survival. If in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear---if we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable..that will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task.” (Rotblat 1995)
♥”Every gun made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies in the final sensea theft from the hungry. The world in arms is not only spending money. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists.”
(DDE, Aug 16, 1953)
“Shall we put an end to human race, or shall mankind renounce war...The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignity....We appeal as human beings to human beings Remember your humanity and forget the rest.”
♥ July 7-10, 1957 Thinkers’ Lodge, Pugwash, Nova Scotia
♥ 1972 Pugwash helped achieve Biological Weapon Convention
♥ and 1997 Chemical Weapon Convention
♥ Antipersonnel landmines
- Nobel peace prize: 1997 Jody Williams
♥ 1995 Nobel peace prize: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and Sir Joseph Rotblat
♥ “Pugwash always operated at the political level by its impeccable science and absolute integrity” (Rotblat, 2005)
♣ Entire system of nuclear arms - control =??
♠ treaties renounced by one party (e.g. ABM Treaty)
♠ treaties that have not entered into force (CTBT)
♠ no progress (Fissile material cut-off treaty)
♠ Art VI of NPT: mandates nuclear disarmament, but?
♥ Interventions, Sovereignity and International Security
◙ 2005 May – failure of VII Review Conference on NPT
project role and a leading exponent of armscontrol, said at
the meeting of the Union of ConcernedScientists in 1997
at Cornell University
“The atom bomb was the greatestgift we could have given to Japanese.”
His argument wasbased on the fact that Americans
already firebombed 66Japanese cities killing close to one
million civilians and ifthe war did not quickly end
firebombing would continuekilling enormous number of
Japanese civilians. So,nuclear bomb was a lesser evil. Was it? Is it?
♣I. Kant concluded that three conditions are necessary to exclude the possibility of any war:
♠K. Waltz et al argued that it is the nuclear weapons that saved us from the World Wars III and IV
♣G. Prins argued that there is no evidence that MAD worked as a stabilizing force. He claims that the threat of using nuclear weapons worked in one case only: it forced the USA to provide Israel with spare parts during the war, when Israel threatened to use his nuclear force to prevent defeat.
☼All these arguments are rooted in old political concepts. Life under the WMD umbrella is not sustainable.
century 400 million men, women andchildren have been
killed by their own governments, morethan during wars,
(Rummel) so these are not so called collateralvictims, and
the state does not seem to be capable ofprotecting their
own citizens, nor assuring them what theyconsider to be
their basic human needs, e.g. food, shelterand health.
"Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely“ (Rummel)
USA spent more than 5.5 trillion dollars and
France 1.5 trillion dollars. The global yearly
military expenditures amount to ≈ $ 1,000 billion.
To put in perspective:
- for 20 billion dollars onecould reduce hunger,
R.S. McNamara: “On any day the President is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons of the world. To declare war requires an act of Congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes’ deliberation by the President and his advisers.”
♠Group of retired generals: K. Naumann, J. Shalikashvilli, Lord Inge, J. Lanxade and H. van den Breemen: “Towards a grand strategy for uncertain world - renewing transatlantic partnership” (late 2007) -argue that the current threats and challenges require NATO to keep open the prospect of the first use of NW.
☺ G. Schultz, S. Nunn, W. Perry and H. Kissinger (Wall Street
Journal January 15, 2008 and earlier in January 2007) argue that
NW-freeworld should be our goal, and that is particularly in the
interest of the USA.
☺Federation of American Scientists, Natural ResourcesDefence Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and independent analysts in “Toward True Security” argue as Pugwash does.
☺”Assurance of peace and security are essential for the stability and development of SEE and that is best asured through NATO membership of all SEE countries. At the same time, the extension of NATO should not bring the introduction of NW.... Therefore, countries of SEE should join together in declaring SEE region a NW-free zone similar to NWFZ in Central Asia, Latin America and South Pacific.” (SEED-WAAS declaration April 19, 2007
☺In June 2007 Canadian Pugwash calls for denuclearization of NATO.
☺D’Alema, G.F. Fini, G. La Malfa, A. Parisi and F. Calogero
“For a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”
«As long as nuclear weapons exist, they will be used one
day. Everyminute of every day, more than 26,000 nuclear
weapons - manyonhair-trigger alert - are poised to bring
monumental destruction. NW have spread tomore
countries, and the NPT isperilously close to collapse.
Poorly guarded stockpiles of HEU and plutonium around
the world could fall into the hands ofterrorists.Momentum
is growing in the internationalcommunity to declare
NW illegal andimmoral, and to reduce andeliminate thembefore it is too late....
What areyou doing to fulfil the basic obligation of every
government: theresponsibility to protect the lives and
human rights of its citizensthat would be obliterated by
☺Immediate de-alerting of NW, that could be launched by accident, miscalculation, or unauthorized computer hacking of command and control systems;
☺ Declarations by all nuclear weapons-states of a No First Use policy, and adoption of Negative Security Assurances that nuclear weapons will never be used against countries who have legally bound themselves not to acquire nuclear weapons;
☺ Immediate resumption of US-Russian nuclear negotiations to reduce their nuclear forces to 1,000 or fewer NW, and to jointly develop early warning systems to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons;
☺ NATO to withdraw all US NW from Europe, and to conclude a global agreement that NW of any country not be deployed on foreign territory;
☺ Implementation of the International Monitoring System of the CTBT to ensure the continued moratorium on nuclear testing, prior to the entry into force of the CTBT;
☺ Global Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and a complete prohibition on the deployment and use of space weapons;
☺Complete abolition and elimination of NW through a multilaterally-verified instrument – a NWeapons Convention.”
Is now war and in general any violence useless as an instrument of achieving any goal of sovereign-states?
☼ We argue: they are!!!
Consequently, are WMD also useless for any sovereign-state, and actually a potential danger?
☼ We argue: they are!!!
☼Edmund Burke wrote more than 200 years ago “Thereason the
world is suffering is not so much because of theevil deeds of the
wicked people, but because of theinaction of the good people.”
♥Conference on holocaust in Stockholm (2000)
Ten Commandmentsshould be augmented by:
11) Thou shalt not be a victim! and
12) Thou shalt not be neutral!
(keynote speech at the 55th Pugwash conference in July 2005):
There are three conceivable nuclear futures. One is
status quo, or muddling through which is unstable
because of accidents, nuclear terrorism, and above
all because of nuclear posture which declares “the
right” of nuclear states to use nuclear weapons first and
even against non-nuclear states. The second is the nuclear
nightmare. The third is to eliminate nuclear weapons – a
trajectory toward a nuclear-weapons-free world.
Getting to zero is not an impossible mission – supported
by the final document of the Students/Young Pugwashites
entitled: Mission Possible
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in his Action Plan for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons on June 9, 1988 pointed out that nuclear deterrence is the ultimate expression of terrorism.
“Non-violence in international relations cannot be considered an Utopian goal. It is the only available basis for a civilised survival ...... for a new, just equitable and democratic world order.”