President Barack Obama has called for a major change in world policy on nuclear weapons, leading to eventual elimination. His initiative is supported by a powerful group of conservative and military allies led by former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Democrats former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Sam Nunn, longtime Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design - the ultimate catastrophe.
These conservative leaders agree with the Democrats in the US Senate. Both argue for dramatic reforms in the US and world nuclear policy. The problem is political, how to persuade the Republican Senators to adopt these reforms. It won’t happen unless Kissinger et al do some serious lobbying. Obama can not do it alone and GOP support is essential.
While the public argument will advocate the ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons, immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals, guarding nukes and nuclear materials, enhanced verification and enforcement procedures, their private argument will point out that complete and verifiable elimination of all nukes will enhance world-wide US military hegemony.
During President Clinton’s administration, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats.
Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support the present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.
Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Some have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.
Jerome Grossman is the author of 'Relentless Liberal' and the retired president of the Massachussets Envelope Company. He is a former member of the Democratic National Committee and the Chairman Emeritus of Council for a Livable World.
Related Material on Atlantic Community:
- Memo 19: An End in Itself - Focus on First Steps!
- Greg Randolph Lawson: The Golden Age of Proliferation is Here to Stay
- Robert G. Gard: Zero Nuclear Weapons: A Feasable Goal?
- 1
January 22, 2010
Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)
Some comments from that piece:
"Nuclear weapons are here to stay. The genie is out and will not go back into the bottle. Knowledge cannot be unlearned and despite the best efforts of stigmatization, the truth is, nuclear weapons are a symbol of power as well as a useful negotiating chip for some nations. To pretend that the "Golden Age of Proliferation" is either not here or that we can stall it by paens to a "nuclear free" world doesn't seem wise.
It appears we need to examine how to deal with, and control, nuclear technology flowing to civilian programs while at the same time examining our deterrence posture. It is time to change from a Cold War, Superpower based model that is rigid, to a flexible model that allows numerous options to be examined before being summarily dismissed."
Further, here are several thoughts from the estimable Thomas Schelling of game theory and deterrence theory fame:
"If a world without nuclear weapons; means no mobilization bases, there can be no such world. Even starting in 1940 the mobilization base was built. And would minimizing mobilization potential serve the purpose ? To answer this requires working through various scenarios involving the expectation of war, the outbreak of war, and the conduct of war. That is the kind of analysis I haven't seen...
We are so used to thinking in terms of thousands, or at least hundreds, of nuclear warheads that a few dozen may offer a sense of relief. But if, at the outset of what appears to be a major war, or the imminent possibility of major war, every responsible government must consider that other responsible governments will mobilize their nuclear weapons base as soon as war erupts, or as soon as war appears likely, there will be at least covert frantic efforts, or perhaps purposely conspicuous efforts, to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons as rapidly as possible. And what then?...
In summary, a world without nuclear weapons would be a world in which the United States, Russia, Israel, China, and half a dozen or a dozen other countries would have hair-trigger mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize or commandeer delivery systems, and would have prepared targets to preempt other nationsnuclear facilities, all in a high-alert status, with practice drills and secure emergency communications. Every crisis would be a nuclear crisis, any war could become a nuclear war. The urge to preempt would dominate; whoever gets the first few weapons will coerce or preempt. It would be a nervous world."