Is it time to ban the bomb?
Do you believe we could ever live in a world with no nuclear weapons? Do you think it would be a better place, or a more insecure place? Did nukes save us from a Third World War during the Cold War of 1945-1989, or did they take us to the brink of Armageddon?
The reason I ask is that there is a growing movement - with some very eminent supporters - arguing that now is the time for governments to start moving seriously towards the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Idealistic nonsense, you say? From the likes of George Shultz and Henry Kissinger? Mikhail Gorbachov? Robert McNamara? David Owen?
Something is stirring in the world of nuclear non-proliferation, which is why we devoted a large chunk of last night's programme to it. (If you missed it, you'll find it in the usual place: Listen Again on the website. And my apologies, by the way, for the technical problems earlier in the week, which prevented us from updating the site.)
George Shultz's line boils down to this: nuclear deterrence was all very well when it was about just America and the Soviet Union - but now that there are so many more nuclear powers (I make it eight at the last count: the US, Russia, China, France and Britain, plus India, Pakistan and Israel), deterrence becomes a hugely risky option.
The former chief of the UK Defence Staff, Lord Bramall, wrote in a letter to The Times recently: "Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face -- particularly international terrorism; and the more you analyse them the more unusable they appear."
Consider this: the attacks of September 11, 2001, the attacks in London in July 2005, in Mumbai in November - all took place in countries with a nuclear weapons capability. So who exactly was deterred by the fear of a retaliatory nuclear strike?
I put that argument to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Ah, he said, you're right, nuclear weapons don't deter terrorists, but they may well deter future potential enemies 20 or 30 years into the future. And until everyone gives up their nuclear weapons, Britain will retain its own capability.
As for the argument that Britain could set a good example by going it alone on nuclear disarmament: "fanciful," says Mr Miliband. Does anyone seriously think that Iran, for example, would give up its own nuclear programme (it denies, of course, that it is developing nuclear weapons) just because the UK decided not to renew Trident?
There is a serious debate to be had. A growing number of policy makers seem to be convinced that it should be possible to turn back the tide of nuclear proliferation if the existing nuclear powers do more to reduce, and eventually eliminate, their own arsenals.
Here's what the White House says about the Obama administration's policy objectives: "(We) will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global."
All of which sounds pretty ambitious. But can aspiration be converted into achievement? To be honest, I have no idea, but it's going to be interesting to watch over the coming months as Washington and Moscow size up each other's true intentions.
Just this week, the word from Moscow was that it may now suspend its plans to place a missile system in Kaliningrad, close to the border with Poland. Was it a goodwill gesture to President Obama, or an attempt to drive a wedge between him and Washington's allies in what used to be the Soviet backyard?
We do live in interesting times.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It is a nice idea but very naive to think that once a nation has achieved nuclear capabiltiy that it will simply give up the bomb without some sense of secured self-preservation.
Mutually assured destruction was something that existed during the Cold War and the nuclear deterrent does seem to have worked in that peace was maintained for all that time and thereafter.
However, in this day and age, one cannot see nations like North Korea giving up their nuclear weaponry and, so long as the North Koreans are a threat to South Korea or Japan (neither of which has nuclear capability) then the reality is that the USA must continue to present North Korea with a risk that, should they choose to use nuclear weaposn, they face a nuclear response.It is very naive to think that any nation would actually relinquish the ability to respond to nuclear attack.
I fully understand that idea of initiating a nuclear attack is abhorrent to most sensible, literate and right thinking people thus the idea of removing the deterrent becomes an attractive proposition. However, in a world that has a growing religious fervour and fundamentalist supremacy, the risk of a religous motivated nuclear first-strike attack is becoming a growing risk. Why else would the UN object to Iran achieving nuclear weapon grade material production capability?
In those circumstances, should a nation attack another nation for religous fundamentalism reasons then, if the attacked nation has the capability, then the attacked nation will respond with nuclear weaponry and, in my personal view, quite rightly so.
As I die a horrible irradiated death I want my enemy to die in extreme pain and anguish too!
That is the reality of human life - turning the other cheek is too late once you are dead.
Complain about this comment
The pessimists will want a comfort blanket of a MAD solution whilst the optimists will choose life and no nuclear bombs.
I believe in life with no bombs, but the damnable things cannot be un-invented - so multi-lateral rather than uni-lateral. They are a disease, much like small-pox - but that has been irradiated so I live in hope.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus,
You have completely missed the point about the reasons for North Korea developing nuclear weapons and Iran wanting to do so. The reason for both is not because those countries want to attack anybody, it is because they fear attack from others (particularly USA).
We know that USA will not use nuclear wepons first and will concentrate on conventional warfare. This requires a build-up of forces in close proximity to the targeted country, which will be vulnerable to a nuclear strike. Even though the use of nuclear weapons by North Korea or Iran will trigger an annihilating response by the USA, the Americans will not likely accept the possibility of some of their troops being blown-up first. North Korea developed nuclear bombs to emphasize the fact that any military build-up along its borders will be put under threat. That makes any US operations more difficult, less likely and thus N. Korea will feel safer.
This is exactly the purpose of the nuclear bombs- to serve as a deterrent to any attack. Even if the major nuclear powers reduce the number of warheads in their arsenals, they will keep a few houndred, the most sofisticated ones, that will be targeted at the major population centres of the potential enemy. This will keep any potential conflicts strictly conventional, due to the fact that no country would want to win in the end but have 50% of its population and and infrastructure decimated.
I believe that there will be a reduction in the numbers of nuclear warheads, but not a total elimination. The nuclear bombs are not really useful, at least as anything else than deterent, and the major armies are moving away from them.
Regarding Iran's wish to obtain nuclear bombs- has anybody thought that Pakistan is also a muslim country, with nuclear bombs? How is it different from Iran? Are we sure that the muslim ectremists in there will not use the bombs to fulfil their misquided beliefs? Since that has not happened by now, maybe we shoudl start with Pakistan first, to stop it ever happening? I am not supporting Iran's drive to get nuclear missiles, but I think the whole question is oversimplified.
Complain about this comment
I think we have to talk about the financial cost of these weapons as well.
With a potential Depression approaching and with the military main new roles in re-construction and 'policing' I can't see a justification for nuclear weapons. I find Miliband's comments more of an excuse then a rational argument. A potential new enemy will still take years to develop and make these weapons, so we are not exactly going to be caught with our pants down! And besides, what in 30 years time there is still not a valid argument for these weapons, are going to wait another 30?
I guess that the military top brass are not keen on these weapons either as it diverts scarce resources away from conventional weapons and personnel.
Complain about this comment
Nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated. Not until someone figures out how to convince Israel for example that it will not be overwhelmed by huge Islamic armies having conventional weapons. Or that an unacceptable realignment of its borders won't be imposed on it by a demented UN.
Nuclear weapons can and may well be used. If Iran continues to appear to be developing nuclear weapons and seems to near that goal, not only Israel but the US may launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on it. Nuclear weapons are the only effective deterrent and countermeasure protecting South Korea from an invasion by North Korea.
The US has never renounced first use of nuclear weapons that I'm aware of. That's one of the things the code phrase "nothing's been taken off the table" means. Had the USSR invaded Western Europe and appeared to overwhelm Nato ground forces, the war would have gone nuclear quickly, tactical nukes first, theater and strategic weapons shortly after. Fear of a massive nuclear strike against the USSR was the effective measure the US used to win the cold war.
It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle, it's been out for over 60 years. The best we can do now is to contain it and hope they are never used. BTW, a worldwide ban on them would not stop terrorists from acquiring the materials and technology to build them clandestinely.
Complain about this comment
"UK NEEDS ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!"
A UK WITHOUT THE ECONOMY-STIMULATING TECHNOLOGIES, STRUCTURES & COMPANIES BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT/DEPLOYMENT & MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD BE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY
The United Kingdom without nuclear weapons would relatively quickly be asked to remove itself from its current position- since 1945- occupying one of the U.N. Security Council's 5 permanent-member seats.
Other than the United States- which can not realistically be expected to ever give up its nuclear weapons- the removal of the UK would leave on the U.N.'s 5 permanent-member Security Council:
- China, which, as a coming super-power, will never give up its nuclear weapons;
- Russia which, seeing itself as the number 2 country in the world, will never give up its nuclear weapons;
and a country that is far less likely than the UK to give up its nuclear weapons:
- France...
Without the UK's continued presence and active, balancing, reasoned participation on this most important of the world's political/security structures... imagine the chaos of an affronted Russia or China, fed into by an egotistical France... and the USA without a like-minded, reliable ally such as the UK to assist in sorting out the mess/ de-escalating things...
Nuclear weapons on earth are a reality in the 21st century that won't go away...
Economically and politically 'up and coming' and aspiring-for-top-table-status countries will always want to possess nuclear weapons...
Nuclear weapons are far cheaper and easier to maintain than equivalent fire-power conventional military forces and are- objectively evaluated- the only real deterrent against a hostile nation from using their nuclear weapons...
Now- in this immensely and unprecedently troubled time- is not appropriate for the world's most central, influential and irreplaceable nations- such as the UK- to be proposing or discussing the abandonement of their nuclear weapons...
A stable and friendly-to-the-developed world middle east (all of its countries), N. korea and Iran; along with
- a 'disapearance-from-the earth' of radicalized Islam; and
- a reasonably-projected world-food sufficiency for the next century; including
- economic and rule-of-law political stability in Africa
are needed before a discussion by any of the UN's 5 permanent Security Council members re the possibility of giving up their nuclear weapons ought to occur....
The UK's continued top-table participation is needed on the world stage as a full-member of its most important, vital and influential political, economic and security-related structures...
The likelihood of the the UK continuing in these roles will only be increased if it is perceived internationally as a responsible actor that:
1) possesses a significant stockpile of potent, up-to-date & varied nuclear weapons;
2) has the means to accurately deliver its nuclear weapons world-wide & in various conflict-type situations; and
3) sheppards its nuclear weapons weapons & their technologies wisely...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Complain about this comment
The idea that we could simply dispense with the nuclear option and decommission everything rapidly is absurd and naive. On the other hand, the chances that any of the 'legitimate' nuclear powers would ever seriously contemplate exterminating millions of people at the press on a button is equally absurd.
There is, however, a middle way. There is no more hostile scowling between the defunct Warsaw Pact and a changed NATO so the doctrine of MAD no longer prevails. It served it's purpose but it's time has gone. If these powers where jointly to retarget these weapons towards the 'non-legitimate' powers and any targets which appear to be developing a capacity as a clear and unequivocal warning of the possible consequences, they may have pause for thought.
This would not require expensive technological upgrading and Britain, for example, could abandon the expensive Trident upgrade which looked like a waste of money when things were rosy but is utterly insane in today's global economy.
Complain about this comment
for once I agree with you threnodious. Britain should not be sold a Trident Missile submarine comparable to America's Ohio class vessels. This technology is far too advanced for Britain to have. We saw how easily a British warship was boarded and its crew captured in Iraqi waters by Iranians in speedboats in broad daylight. Imagine if they managed to get their hands on a Trident Nuclear submarine. What a frightful prospect for the world. It would have to be hunted down and destroyed at all cost before they could figure out how to target and fire the missiles. One such submarine could burn down Europe in one hour from deep beneath the ocean. Too much for the UK to handle.
Complain about this comment
MAII,
Do you mind checking your facts first, before heaping a load of sci-fi rubish? Iran did not capture a UK warship, it captured 15 marines who went on two boats to inspect a cargo ship.
By the way, how do you propose the Iranians capturing a UK nuclear submarine? 100 Iranians diving to it and politely knocking on the hatches, then expelling the crew, starting the engines and legging it in an undisclosed direction? After that just launching the missiles at a convenient country (USA), blowing the boat and going home?
That might look OK in a Hollywood action movie, however real life is far different, believe me.
Complain about this comment
#9, it's not a case of checking the facts, because as usual Marcus is fully aware of the truth He just likes to exaggerate and distort events to an extent that is not only unbelievable, but often deeply offensive.
If one felt sufficiently ignorant, you could make up a similar story about the USS Cole, tragically attacked by a tiny boat in Yemen back in 1999. But that would be stupid.
Selfishly, I can see some sense in the arguments in favour of keeping (and investing in future) nuclear options for the UK. No nation has a divine right to have these weapons, but as it's been pointed out, they already exist and if we choose to disarm, it doesn't mean others will (and more to the point does not guarantee even non-nation groups developing their own capability).
Do we need or benefit from our perceived power described in post #6? How have other similar but non-nuclear nations fared? Now there's a good debating point.
Complain about this comment
#9 - Isenhorn
He can't help it. Just leave him to rant until he gets his sensible head back.
Complain about this comment
What possible use could a nation which rolled over and played dead as Adolf Hitler built a military to take over all of Europe including Britain was allowed to proceed unimpeded? Britain doesn't have the guts to ever use such a weapon or the credibility for it to be a deterrent. They barely won in the Malvinas against a fifth rate power Argentina. It took weeks just for them to get there. So it would have no purpose for them to have a Trident Submarine. If a handful of Somali pirates capture dozens of ships hundreds of miles off shore carrying cargoes worth many millions of dollars holding the ships, the cargo, and the crew for ransom, the government of Iran will figure out a way to outsmart the British and steal their Trident submarine. But that is no great feat. George Soros beat the Bank of England out of one billion dollars in one night. Whatever the British are or aren't, cleverness is not among their assets. They should stick to their habit of ruining perfectly good food. They are dangerous enough as it is in an ordinary kitchen. They can't even keep intruders out of the Queen's bedroom. I hope they aren't allowed to play with sharp knives. Who knows what kind of mayhem in the streets that would lead to.
Complain about this comment
#12 - MarcusAureliusII
Rather less mayhem than guns, I would have thought. At least our aircraft carriers have engines.
Complain about this comment
threnodious, It's nice to know that the British Navy has finally advanced beyond the era of tall masted sailing ships. Ruler of the waves, hah. The worst looking seagoing vessel I ever saw in my life was a British light cruiser? docked in Fort Lauderdale Florida in 1986. The rust on the side of that hull made it look like it hadn't seen a coat of paint since the first day it set sail. British ships in the past have had a horrible reputation for poor maintenance. That one was an unmistakeable example.
Complain about this comment
#14, Reading your utterly pointless, benile comments kinda makes you wish that they were so poorly maintained that they never made it across the Atlantic to found the USA
Complain about this comment
#15 - paulcrossleyiii
Yes I agree. Apologies to Mr.Lustig and other posters. Time to grow up.
Complain about this comment
16 Royal marines kidnapped by Iraniacs in speedboats in Iraqi waters in broad daylight and not one shot was fired in their defense. Hail Britania, the terror of the seas. And wow did they look frightened after just a few days in Iraniac custody. I'm surprised the UK didn't just surrender to Iran then and there. Can't do that though, the UK is saving itself to surrender to Russia instead.
Complain about this comment
#12 Marcus Erronous
LOL
I can only say one word: Vietnam
Complain about this comment
The more bellicose parts of the 3rd World believe that they have the the right to develop and own nuclear wapons. Why shouldn't they be allowed to 'game' regional or global power politics with nuclear warfare capabilities?
The aftermath of 9/11 proved that West's superior conventional warfare capability could not and did not produce the desired peaceful outcome that the 'winners' so desired.
The USA, the only country who used nuclear weapons twice, knew and understood the efficacy of these nuclear weapons. Don't you think that the 3rd World also realise this?
The only reason that the Western bloc and the Communists did not use their nuclear weapons was because the each side could not handle the aftermath of the first strike and the expected response from the other side.
As long as the West's leadership used economics based cost-benefit analytics, there is no compelling reason to reduce or give up the nuclear option.
Complain about this comment
#19 - sizzlestick
You forget the changed circumstances. If you imagine for a moment that nuclear technology is a closely guarded secret, I suggest you Google 'How to build a nuclear bomb'. I also suggest the number of reported incidents of fissionable material being available on the black market, especially since the demise of the Warsaw Pact.
There are three saving graces. Firstly, building a stable working device requires precision engineering far more critical than the capabilities of most machine shops. Secondly, the device is only effective if you also have a reliable delivery system and thirdly, the price is astronomical. Even the logistics of 'the bomb in a suitcase' scenario, scary though it is, are daunting.
It is not beyond the ability of a reasonable team of scientists with a half decent lab to develop portable and cost effective WMDs in the form of biological and chemical weapons at a fraction of the price. By focusing on the nuclear possibility, I suggest we are neglecting this more sinister possibility.
Secondly, consider the targets. Can you imagine the collateral damage to China or Russia from bombing N. Korea - the effect on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq by bombing Iran? I suggest that the likelihood of any of the established powers using a device is virtually non existent.
As to the deterrent effect, do you imagine that terrorist organisations and rogue states which might try a crazy trick like this actually care about the consequences? No, the answer lies in containment and vigorous application of non-proliferation principles and that requires not big warheads but good intelligence and exceptional diplomacy.
Complain about this comment
threnodio (#20)
Googling "How to build a Nuclear Weapon" opens the door to be held under permanent surveillance.
Download the details and you may even become renditioned! LOL
Big Brother with his Nuclear Toys is definitely on the lookout for competitors. Especially amateur Mujahadeen! ;)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS