Arms and Disarmament. How a nuclear war may start: .

Arms and Disarmament

How a nuclear war may start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eQbrOWrFjM

A visual history of the arms race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJe7fY-yowk

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

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

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

Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

The Weapons

US B83 nuclear bomb, explosive yield – 1.2 megatons

A single US nuclear submarine carries 192 nuclear warheads which can kill up to 50 mln. people

An ICBM in its silo

A MIRV

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)

Chain reaction

The destructive power of nuclear weapons Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Aug. 1945:

0.25 million lives Total destructive power of existing nuclear

weapons: 150,000 times the bombs which destroyed

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or 2,000 times the destructive power used in all of

World War II, including the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan

What are these weapons for? 2 schools of thought:

They can be used to fight and win wars They can only be used to prevent wars as a means of

deterrence Since 1945, they have never been used in a war Deterrence only In 1949, US lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, and

deterrence became mutual By 1960s, it became clear that a nuclear war would have

no winners It would be an act of omnicide (killing everyone and

everything)

The balance of terror The two sides – the Americans and the Russians –

have balanced each other out for the past 50 years MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction The weapons became unusable – nuclear deadlock No one can strike first without causing devastating

retaliation Second strike capability – ability to survive a strike and

strike back Can be as small as 100 warheads

The disappearance of the first strike capability severely limited possibilities of nuclear war

Those who believe in using nuclear weapons to win wars are unhappy about this

They seek ways to regain nuclear superiority (also known as strategic superiority)

Their argument: in order to deter the enemy, he must know you can fight and win nuclear war

So, you need to devise new weapons which would make it possible

So, deterrence requires ability to wage nuclear war with a purpose – MAD, indeed!

The US-Russian nuclear arms race

October 1962: the Cuban Missile Crisis, the turning point

Gorbachev and Reagan sign a treaty to ban all medium-range ballistic missiles (The INF Treaty)

24 nuclear arms control treaties since 1959

Main existing: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

And yet… The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2007: "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since

the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. “

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

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

nuclear fuels Climate change will undermine international security Environmental impact of the use of nuclear weapons

Operational status Dr. Bruce Blair, former Minuteman ICBM Launch

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

“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

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.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH6ImzZurtM&feature=player_embedded#!

The crisis in arms control “Taking the first real limitation on nuclear weapons, the

1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, as the starting point for the history of nuclear arms control, today marks the first time in a half century that there is a real prospect of losing the legal regime for managing the most horrific instrument of devastation ever created. Although arms control has faced difficulties in the past, never before have virtually all negotiating tracks been simultaneously stalled, existing treaties been eroded by political and technological developments, and the planning for next steps been so in doubt.”

Arbatov, Alexei. An Unnoticed Crisis: The End of History for Nuclear Arms Control? Carnegie Moscow Center, March 16, 2015 - http://carnegie.ru/2015/03/16/unnoticed-crisis-end-of-history-for-nuclear-arms-control/i4b5

10 arguments for abolition of nuclear weaponsbased on David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

1. Fulfill Existing Obligations. The nuclear weapons states have assumed legal obligations to negotiate

in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament. Article VI, Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in

good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.

The International Court of Justice, In an advisory opinion of July 8, 1996, concluded that principles of humanitarian law do apply to nuclear weapons.

The opposite conclusion "would be incompatible with the intrinsically humanitarian character of the legal principles in question which permeates the entire law of armed conflict and applies to all forms of warfare and to all kinds of weapons, those of the past, those of the present and those of the future" (www.icj-cij.org).

According to the Court's opinion, any weapon that has the potential to harm must be limited in usage, due to the established practices and treaties of international humanitarian law.

The world's highest court also highlighted the obligation to nuclear disarmament:

The Court’s opinion: “... The threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to

the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake..

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.

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.

In addition, nuclear weapons are not helpful in defending against or responding to terrorism because nuclear weapons cannot target a group that controls no fixed territory

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.

5. Nuclear weapons have not prevented wars, which is what they were supposed to do. Nuclear weapons states have

been involved in more wars than non-nuclear weapons states. Between 1945 and 1997, nuclear weapons states have fought in an

average of 5.2 wars, while non-nuclear weapons states averaged about 0.67 wars.

6. 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.

Father Richard McSorley has written, "Can we go along with the intent to use nuclear weapons? What it is wrong to do, it is wrong to intend to do. If it is wrong for me to kill you, it is wrong for me to plan to do it. If I get my gun and go into your house to retaliate for a wrong done me, then find there are police guarding your house, I have already committed murder in my heart. I have intended it. Likewise, if I intend to use nuclear weapons in massive retaliation, I have already committed massive murder in my heart."

7. Defend democracy 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.

Decisions about nuclear weapons have been made largely in secrecy with little involvement from the public. On this most important of all issues facing humanity, there is no informed consent of the people.

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. Precedents Some countries have already given up nuclear weapons, showing that it is

possible for a nation to be secure without them. South Africa Ukraine Belarus Kazakhstan

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?

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 become 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.