Topic 002: Nuclear Weapons Disarmament

Transcription

1 Topic 002: Nuclear Weapons Disarmament "On October 25, 1962 (during the Cuban Missile Crisis) a security guard at an air base in Duluth, Minnesota, saw a shadowy figure scaling one of the fences enclosing the base. He shot at the intruder and activated an intruder alarm, automatically setting off intruder alarms at neighboring bases. However, at the Volk Field air base in Wisconsin, the Klaxon loudspeaker had been wired incorrectly, and instead sounded an alarm ordering F-106A interceptors armed with nuclear missiles to take off. The pilots assumed that a full-scale nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union had begun, and the planes were about to take off when a car from the air traffic control tower raced down the tarmac and signaled the planes to stop. The intruder in Duluth had finally been identified: it was a bear." Nuclear weapons are without a doubt the most dangerous weapons that humanity currently possesses. The damage that one single bomb can wreak is staggering; the death of millions of people, the devastation of entire cities, and the permanent alteration of the environment, among other things. It is surprising then, that we possess not only one of these bombs, but tens of thousands. It is even more surprising, however, that only two have been used during war time conditions. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are but dire warnings to the death and sorrow created from their use; lessons that these weapons must never be used again.

2 Even though extensive fail-safes have been built into the technology for fear of causing a nuclear war, the power and the scale of the weaponry is not something that can be taken lightly. Although we have not yet come as close to nuclear war as we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is the UN s express intent to prevent such circumstances. While the story itself might have been comical, the fear and uncertainty associated with nuclear war is not. It is for this reason that we must do everything in our power to prevent such an event from ever occurring, be it unintentional, as would have been the case above, or through malice and direct, planned action. Overview The first nuclear weapon, the atomic bomb, was developed by the U.S. in the Manhattan project for use during the Second World War. Heavy competition during the war between the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany to be the first to develop and to use the atom bomb was held under the belief that its possession would signal victory. Unfortunately, the belief was revealed to be true when the Japanese emperor capitulated to the U.S. after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were leveled through the use of nuclear weapons. It is this same belief that sparked a half century arms race between the two major powers of the world. At the peak of the arms race, both countries had stockpiled in excess of 60,000 warheads; their combined power would be enough to destroy the planet several times over. More than sixty years after the atomic bombs were used against Japan, nuclear weapons continue to be the basis for a number of states' national security policies. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) prohibits its parties from manufacturing nuclear weapons. The treaty, however, exempts five de jure nuclear weapon states (France, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) from this ban. These five states, also permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (not related to their nuclear weapons usage), had tested nuclear weapons before the treaty was

3 finally negotiated in This "exemption" is, however, countered with a legal obligation in Article VI of the treaty for these states to eventually disarm. Other nuclear armed states India, Israel, and Pakistan have not joined the NPT, but are commonly considered as de facto nuclear weapon states. When considering nuclear disarmament, it is important to note that it is not the five major nuclear powers that are most likely to cause nuclear warfare. Nuclear weapons are inherently disadvantageous to have. 1 They are highly expensive to develop, manufacture, and maintain. Cost estimates on the U.S. nuclear program places the total price at around 5.5 trillion dollars, a project eclipsed only by the national Social Security plan. 2 Nuclear weapons, as well, do little to inhibit international aggression. States that threaten other nations which possess these weapons face mutually assured destruction (MAD), as both nations are capable of destroying each other as a result of the strength of nuclear weapons. Next, should a state flaunt its nuclear capabilities towards non-nuclear nations, it would only serve to alienate them to the opposing camp, not to intimidate them into cessation. 3 It is for this reason that the main nuclear powers neither plan nor are willing to engage in nuclear warfare. These five states are not, however, exempt from disbanding their nuclear arsenals. Examining the stockpiles of the United States and Russia is indicative, however, that these nations are mostly reducing the level of warheads by themselves. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, the size of nuclear weapon arsenals, particularly in the United States and Soviet Union/Russia, has since the height of the Cold War been reduced from more than 70,000 to approximately 20,350 today. On December 18, 2007, the White House announced that the 2004 decision to reduce the size of the Department of Defense's nuclear weapons stockpile by nearly 50 1 Foreign Policy, Accessed November 7 th, Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A &source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupNa me=toro30181&version=1.0 2 ibid. 3 Foreign Policy, Accessed November 7 th, Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A &source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupNa me=toro30181&version=1.0

4 percent from the 2001 level was accomplished in December 2007, five years ahead of time. 4 Any resolution, therefore, should likely be targeted towards safe storage of current nuclear stockpiles, the prevention of proliferation of military technology, and the prevention of future use of these weapons by rogue paramilitary groups and nations at war. The major focus when looking at nations that openly possess these weapons, is, of course, on India and Pakistan. Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto; on May 28, 1998 Pakistan announced that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests. This was a direct response to India s nuclear program. Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). According to the U.S. Defense Department report of 2001, "Pakistan remains steadfast in its refusal to sign the NPT, stating that it would do so only after India joined the Treaty. 5 In light of Pakistan s shaky government, as well as its links to the Taliban (shown by the leak of U.S. documents on the site Wikileaks, among other sources), every nation should look to preventing any escalation in tensions between these two nations. Any war between these two states could have serious repercussions, globally, but especially among the already unstable Middle East. Although the U.S. was incorrect when it claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that distinction might dubiously fall upon Iran. The controversy over Iran's nuclear programs centers on Iran's failure to declare sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 6 Because uranium can be enriched both for civilian purposes as well as for nuclear weapons, the state of the Iranian nuclear program is difficult to asses. In response, 4 NTI, Progress towards Reducing the Threatand Numbers of Existing Nuclear Weapons 5 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Accessed November 7 th, "IAEA GOV/2003/40: Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran" Accessed November 7 th,

5 multiple levels of sanctions have been levied on Iran, sanctions that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called "illegal" and imposed by "arrogant powers. 7 He argues that Iran should have every right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Because Iran has not submitted to investigations, however, there is no certainty that Iran is not using the technology to create nuclear weaponry. However, it also calls into question what rights a state has to its own internal affairs, a right that may be questioned when through its actions, it can affect other nations. This issue exists in North Korea as well. Although the reasons as to why it has nuclear weapons are wide and varied, it is evident that it does have both the capabilities of making them as well as the uranium/plutonium required to fuel the bombs. On October 9, 2006, it conducted its first test. It is the threat that North Korea could pose, uncontrolled by external parties as an independent state, to South Korea and China through nuclear weapons that has promoted neighboring nations to enter negotiations, in a conference called the Six Party talks. By bribing Korea with economic benefits, such as fuel and food rations, the other five members, China, South Korea, the U.S., Russian, Japan, and Russia have been able to coerce North Korea to cease its nuclear program. Recent events, however, have caused North Korea to pull out of these talks and to resume its nuclear program, as well as a nuclear Location of North Korean nuclear test commons/e/e8/2009_north_korean_nu clear_test.png 7 Accessed November 7 th, 2010 "''MSNBC'': "Ahmadinejad: Iran's nuclear issue is 'closed'" (09/25/2007)

6 weapons test on May 25, This only further reveals that delicacy with which North Korea must be approached and the real threats that rogue nations or nonstate actors can be. 8 Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea are all known threats, however. As state entities, they can be treated as such with predefined conventions. It is the threat of terrorist organizations, however, that is an unknown threat. It takes roughly 18 pounds of plutonium or 55 pounds of enriched uranium to create a bomb, an amount that, at least at first glance, seems relatively insignificant. 9 Although it is true that there exist extensive fail-safes to prevent such a disaster, it is not an impossibility. The proliferation of nuclear technology has meant that some of the states that currently possess weapons are not completely stable. Pakistan, as mentioned before, is an example. Any solution would have to address security issues of existing stock, so that no one warhead would magically slip out of stockpiles. Another issue to think about, which is often not mentioned, is the vulnerability of civilian nuclear power plants to terrorist attacks. Although much more difficult to achieve due to the difficulties of causing a reactor to meltdown, the results would be devastating if it did occur (Chernobyl is a real life example). Current Actions Nuclear proliferation is no joking matter and it has been addressed in the past, to great success. A number of multilateral treaties have since been established with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation and testing, while promoting progress in nuclear disarmament. These include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests In The Atmosphere, In Outer Space And Under Water, also known as the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which 8 Global Security Six Party Talks Accessed November 7 th, Nuclear Terrorism, Accessed November 7 th,

7 was signed in 1996 but has yet to enter into force. 10 Several nations have, as well, established Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZ), where the research and development of military nuclear technology is prohibited. Most of the Southern Hemisphere is bound by these nuclear free zones, as shown in the accompanying diagram. 11 Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones Nuclear weapons states Nuclear sharing Neither 10 Nuclear Weapons Accessed November 7 th, Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ) At a Glance Accessed November 7 th,

8 Conclusion The ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in war as a tool of destruction. They have no identifiable purpose in military conflicts other than to cause mass devastation. The methods to prevent their use are as diverse as the ways in which it can be used. From the turmoil in the Middle East to the situation in North Korea, it is clear that no solution can encompass the entire problem. Although attempts have been made in the past to deal with this issue, often with great success, as can be seen among the U.S. and Russian stockpiles, it is clear that such measures are not enough. The ultimate goal of nuclear weapons disarmament is the complete disarmament of all nuclear states and the utilization of nuclear technology toward peaceful ends. It is to that end that the U.N. strives to achieve. Recommended Links 1. (accessed November 7, 2010). An examination of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones 2. Current UN treaties on Nuclear Disarmament 3. An examination on the current progress of denuclearization of North Korea

9 Works Cited "Calming our nuclear jitters: An exaggerated fear of nuclear weapons has led to many wrongheaded policy decisions. A more sober assessment is needed.." GaleNet. Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A &source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=toro30181&version =1.0 (accessed November 7, 2010). Civiak, Robert L.. "Nuclear Terrorism." Plutonium on the Internet. (accessed November 7, 2010). Graham, Thomas. "Nuclear nonproliferation: time to make it permanent.." GaleNet. Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A &source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=toro30181&version= 1.0 (accessed November 7, 2010). Mueller, John. "Nuclear weapons: president Obama's pledge to rid the world of atomic bombs is a waste of breath. But not for the reasons you might imagine.." GaleNet. Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A &source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=toro30181&version =1.0 (accessed November 7, 2010). "NRDC: The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan." NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council - The Earth's Best Defense. (accessed November 7, 2010). "Nuclear Program in Iran." Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nuclear_program_of_iran (accessed November 7, 2010). UNODA. "Nuclear Weapons." UN Office of Disarmament. (accessed November 5, 2010). "Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ) At a Glance Arms Control Association." Arms Control Association The authoritative source on arms control since (accessed November 7, 2010).

10 "Six-Party Talks." GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information. (accessed November 7, 2010). UNOG. "The United Nations in the Heart of Europe News & Media SECRETARY-GENERAL WELCOMES AGREEMENT BETWEEN RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UNITED STATES TO REDUCE STRATEGIC WARHEADS, DELIVERY VEHICLES, AS FOLLOW-ON TO START." The United Nations in the Heart of Europe DCBD9E4C12575EE003AAA81?OpenDocument (accessed November 7, 2010). " - The Nuclear Control Institute, Washington DC." Plutonium on the Internet. (accessed November 7, 2010).