Deterrence??? A fresh look at an archaic concept

Editor's Note:  Thanks to Lawrence Wittner for this refreshing challenge to the age old doctrine of deterrence.  This article originally published in History News, June 4, 2012, source URL: http://hnn.us/articles/do-nuclear-weapons-really-deter-aggression

*************

Do Nuclear Weapons Really Deter Aggression?  

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).

It’s often said that nuclear weapons have protected nations from military attack.

But is there any solid evidence to bolster this contention? Without such evidence, the argument that nuclear weapons prevented something that never occurred is simply a counter-factual abstraction that cannot be proved.

Ronald Reagan -- the hardest of military hard-liners -- was not at all impressed by airy claims that U.S. nuclear weapons prevented Soviet aggression. Kenneth Adelman, a hawkish official in the Reagan administration, recalled that when he “hammered home the risks of a nuclear-free world” to the president, Reagan retorted that “we couldn’t know that nuclear weapons had kept the peace in Europe for forty years, maybe other things had.” Adelman described another interchange with Reagan that went the same way. When Adelman argued that “eliminating all nuclear weapons was impossible,” as they had kept the peace in Europe, Reagan responded sharply that “it wasn’t clear that nuclear weapons had kept the peace. Maybe other things, like the Marshall Plan and NATO, had kept the peace.” (Kenneth Adelman, The Great Universal Embrace, pp. 69, 318.)

In short, without any solid evidence, we don’t know that nuclear weapons have prevented or will prevent military aggression.

We do know, of course, that since 1945, many nations not in possession of nuclear weapons and not part of the alliance systems of the nuclear powers have not experienced a military attack. Clearly, they survived just fine without nuclear deterrence.

And we also know that nuclear weapons in U.S. hands did not prevent non-nuclear North Korea from invading South Korea or non-nuclear China from sending its armies to attack U.S. military forces in the ensuing Korean War. Nor did massive U.S. nuclear might prevent the Soviet invasion of Hungary, the Warsaw Pact’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Also, the thousands of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal did nothing to deter the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on U.S. territory.

Similarly, nuclear weapons in Soviet (and later Russian) hands did not prevent U.S. military intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Nor did Soviet nuclear weapons prevent CIA-fomented military action to overthrow the governments of Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, and other nations.

Other nuclear powers have also discovered the irrelevance of their nuclear arsenals. British nuclear weapons did not stop non-nuclear Argentina’s invasion of Britain’s Falkland Islands. Moreover, Israel’s nuclear weapons did not prevent non-nuclear Egypt and non-nuclear Syria from attacking Israel’s armed forces in 1973 or non-nuclear Iraq from launching missile attacks on Israeli cities in 1991. Perhaps most chillingly, in 1999, when both India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons, the two nations -- long at odds -- sent their troops into battle against one another in what became known as the Kargil War.

Of course, the argument is often made that nuclear weapons have deterred a nuclear attack. But, again, as this attack never took place, how can we be sure about the cause of this non-occurrence?
Certainly, U.S. officials don’t appear to find their policy of nuclear deterrence very reassuring. Indeed, if they were as certain that nuclear weapons prevent nuclear attack as they claim to be, why are they so intent upon building “missile defense” systems to block such an attack -- despite the fact that, after squandering more than $150 billion on such defense systems, there is no indication that they work? Or, to put it more generally, if the thousands of U.S. nuclear weapons safeguard the United States from a nuclear attack by another nation, why is a defense against such an attack needed?

Another indication that nuclear weapons do not provide security against a nuclear attack is the determination of the U.S. and Israeli governments to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. After all, if nuclear deterrence works, there is no need to worry about Iran (or any other nation) acquiring nuclear weapons.

The fact is that, today, there is no safety from war to be found in nuclear weaponry, any more than there was safety in the past produced by fighter planes, battleships, bombers, poison gas, and other devastating weapons. Instead, by raising the ante in the ages-old game of armed conflict, nuclear weapons have merely increased the possibility that, however a war begins, it will end in mass destruction of terrifying dimensions.

Sensible people and wise government leaders have understood for some time now that a more promising route to national and international security is to work at curbing the practice of war while, at the same time, banning its most dangerous and destructive implements. This alternative route requires patient diplomacy, international treaties, citizen activism, the United Nations, and arms control and disarmament measures. It’s a less dramatic and less demagogic approach than brandishing nuclear weapons on the world scene. But, ultimately, it’s a lot safer.

Message from Youth on Nukes: "Remember your humanity, and forget the rest"

YOUTH SPEECH during the Civil society presentations to the First Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference

May 2, 2012, Vienna, Austria

Speech written by Mirko Montuori, Abolition 2000; Leonardo Scuto, Atlantic Treaty Association; Christian N. Ciobanu, Raphael Zaffran, and Charlie Sell, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; and Martin Hinrichs, Ban All Nukes Generation.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,

Two years ago in New York our predecessors asked ironically if, at the age of 65, nuclear weapons had reached the time for compulsory retirement. Today, on the verge of them turning 67, we ask you to declare them not only out of business, but also deprived of any retirement scheme.

We are young, but we are not naive.

We are young, but we are not unaware of the world around us.

We are here, representing the youth movement for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, urging you to comply with your commitments towards your citizens and to start immediate negotiations for a decisive nuclear weapons convention.

We all know the destructive power of nuclear weapons, as they have been used and tested too often in the past.

The presence of nuclear weapons in this world leaves us with two possible futures: in the best case scenario, states continue to own weapons that will never be used. In the worst case scenario, these weapons could be used at all times. We reject both futures, for nuclear weapons should simply not exist.

Mr. Chairman, the very first resolution of the UN General Assembly established the objective to prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons as a top priority of the international community. Then the Cold War broke out and the two superpowers developed the concept of nuclear deterrence. It is not surprising that the resulting military doctrine was called MAD. The Cold War is now over and deterrence is an outdated justification for the existence of such weapons.

Today, we feel the danger and risk of nuclear weapons more than ever. The source of our fears and frustrations lies in the same events that have recently challenged the goals of the NPT.

We, the youth, fear an arms race in several regions of the world and the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons.

We, the youth, sit frustrated as we continue to witness the lack of political will and trust needed to confront these obstacles.

It is crucial to build trust among states by prioritizing the elimination of rapidly deployable nuclear weapons. These weapons can destroy entire cities or countries in a few hours. Increasing trust would mean that states tempted to build new weapons would be universally accountable to the international community.

There is a man who has used nuclear weapons and is now engaging against them. His name is Robert Green, he is a former Commander of the Royal Navy and now one of the staunchest advocates of nuclear abolition. We can all learn from his experience. There are also those who have survived the use of these terrible weapons. They are the victims and witnesses of the only weapons that could destroy our planet. Hibakushas bring on their dignified fight against them, well aware of their risks. They are a living warning against the worst form of death conceived by humankind, and to ignore them is to ignore the worst risk that humanity could face.

We live in the world of the Third Industrial Revolution, with an increasing power of communication and online interaction. As a result, we are all linked to each other.

How do you justify the existence, development and maintenance of these weapons in a world where your children and grandchildren do not see the difference between an Asian and European boy, between an American and an African girl? And how do you justify them in a world hit by the worst economic crisis since 1929, where youth unemployment is increasingly designing our instable future? Representatives of the world's nations, how do you justify maintaining nuclear weapons in such a context? Is this the world that you want to hand down to younger generations?

We, as young people, care a lot about the future of this planet. We are aware that differences of cultures, religions, and political constraints persist. But we will not give up our fight against nuclear weapons.

Do not ignore our concern! Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.

Thank you very much for your attention.

###


(PDF of Youth Speech here: http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom12/statements/ngo-youth.pdf)

One half of 1%: a sobering perspective!

Today the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) wraps up the first of three meetings leading up to the 2015 NPT Conference. 

It is an appopriate time for a serious reminder that, even with the overarching (yet important) emphasis of many of the nuclear powers on terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or materials, the greatest probability of a disaster related to nuclear weapons is still an exchange of these horrific weapons between the existing nuclear powers.

The following article published today at CNN provides that reminder in clear terms.  Working to abolish the Trident weapons system (and all nuclear weapons for that matter) this quote from the article hits home:   

Each U.S. Trident submarine can destroy 100 cities and produce the global famine described in the study.

And that's just ONE submarine.  Here at the Bangor Trident submarine base we have 8 of the 14 ballistic missile submarines mentioned in the article.  Overkill by many orders of magnitude!!! 

******************

A nuclear clash could starve the world - CNN.com

By Jayantha Dhanapala and Ira Helfand, Special to CNN, Fri May 11,2012

Editor's note: Jayantha Dhanapala is a former ambassador to the United States from Sri Lanka, U.N. under-secretary general for disarmament and chairman of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. Ira Helfand is the past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and current North American vice president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

(CNN) -- Recent ballistic missile tests by India, Pakistan and North Korea -- which has ominously threatened to "reduce to ashes"the South Korean military "in minutes" -- are once again focusing the world's attention on the dangers of nuclear war.

This concern was dramatically underscored in a new report released at the Nobel Peace Laureates Summit in Chicago. Titled "Nuclear Famine: A Billion People at Risk"

http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-famine-report.pdf

The study shows that even a limited nuclear war, involving less than half of 1% of the world's nuclear arsenals, would cause climate disruption that could set off a global famine.

The study, prepared by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, used a scenario of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs exploded in a war between India and Pakistan. If there were such a war, the study estimated that 1 billion people, one-sixth of the human race, could starve over the following decade.

Along with recent events, these findings require a fundamental change in our thinking about nuclear weapons.

The study, in positing a war between India and Pakistan, shows the importance of understanding that smaller nuclear powers, not just the United States and Russia, pose a threat to the whole world.

But the greater lesson concerns the forces of the larger nuclear powers. Each U.S. Trident submarine can destroy 100 cities and produce the global famine described in the study. The United States has 14 ofthem, a fleet of land-based nuclear missiles, and an arsenal of nuclear weapons that can be delivered by bombers. The Russians possess the same grotesque overkill capacity.

Even the most ambitious arms reductions under discussion would leavethe United States and Russia with 300 warheads each, most of them 10 to 30 times larger than a Hiroshima sized bomb. This would be a massive arsenal capable of producing the global famine scenario many, many times over.

These arsenals are an archaic, but lethal, holdover from the Cold War. Their continued existence poses an ongoing threat to allhumanity.

Steps can and should be taken immediately to lessen this danger. Substantial numbers of these weapons remain on what The New York Timeshas described as "hair-trigger alert." They can be fired in 15 minutes or less and destroy cities a continent away 30 minutes later. This alert posture creates the needless danger of an accidental or unintended launch, and the United States and Russia have had many close calls, preparing to launch a nuclear strike at the other under the mistaken belief they were under attack.

The most recent of these near-misses that we know about took place in January 1995, well after the end of the Cold War. The United States and Russia should stand down their nuclear arsenals so that it takes longer to launch their missiles, lessening the danger of an accidental war. U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladamir Putin can take this step on their own without negotiating a formaltreaty.

Beyond this, it is time to begin urgent talks aimed at reducing the U.S. and Russian arsenals as the next essential step toward multilateral negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a binding, verifiable, enforceable treaty that eliminates nuclear weapons altogether.

As former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev observed on reviewing the new "Nuclear Famine" study: "I am convinced that nuclear weapons must be abolished. Their use in a military conflict is unthinkable; using them to achieve political objectives is immoral.

"Over 25 years ago, President Ronald Reagan and I ended our summit meeting in Geneva with a joint statement that 'Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,' and this new study underscores in stunning and disturbing detail why this is the case."

# # #

(Source URL for this article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/opinion/dhanapala-helfand-nuclear-famine/index.html)

Blogger's Note: Steven Starr has done tremendous research on nuclear famine.  Learn more at http://www.nucleardarkness.org/

Occupy Vandenberg on May 16th! Stop the tests!

After months of planning an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is readied for test launch.  Air force aircraft and navy vessels work to clear the areas where the jettisoned stages of the missile will come down, as well as to keep a safety zone should the missile fail during one of its launch phases.  Countdown begins...

There has been no international outcry over the planned test launch of the missile that, under normal operational deployment would carry a thermonuclear warhead.  There is no discussion anywhere by the news media about the test and its implications regarding international efforts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and move the world towards disarmament.

What we see...

5... 4... 3... 2... 1... With a monstrous roar, and leaving a trail of smoke, the missile launches out of its silo using its first stage rocket motor. About 60 seconds after launch the first stage burns out and falls away, and the second stage motor ignites.  In another 60 seconds the third stage motor ignites and pulls away, sending the rocket out of the atmosphere.  In about another 60 seconds the Post Boost Vehicle separates from the third stage and maneuvers to get ready to deploy the reentry vehicle or RV.

Next the RV separates from the Post Boost Vehicle and re-enters the atmosphere, making its way to its target. The euphemistically named RVs are what contain the thermonuclear warheads that are capable of incinerating entire cities (and beyond) and instantly killing (at least) hundreds of thousands of people and causing untold suffering (both short and long term) to the survivors. 

Since this is a test the RV is loaded with a "dummy" warhead as it hurtles toward the test target.  In a matter of just minutes from launch the dummy warhead lands either on or near an isolated atoll 4200 miles from the launch site, right on target. 

And that's all folks.  No fanfare, no big news stories.  Just the usual news release from the U.S. government.  The launch just described occurred on February 27, 2012.  The Minuteman III ICBM was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and landed at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.  The Air Force regularly conducts such test launches, as does the Navy for its Trident II (D5) submarine launched ballistic missiles (135 successful Trident test launches since 1989).

What we'd like to see!

And now the Air Force just announced another test shot from Vandenberg scheduled for May 16th.  I suppose that besides making weapons manufacturers very rich - each Trident missile costs roughly $70 million,while the Minuteman III is $7 million - the government wants to ensure that if the President orders the launch of these missiles armed with thermonuclear warheads, they will work as designed.  Now that's a comforting thought.

One can imagine how long it will take North Korea to get to the point at which it can launch one of its own missiles and expect it to reach its target with any reliability at all.  The U.S., on the other hand, has been conducting test launches of ballistic missiles for decades.  Based on the percentage of successful tests of its currently deployed ballistic missiles, there should be little need for such regular testing.  When doomsday comes, I have no doubt that the missiles will launch when the buttons are pushed.

On the eve of Tax Day here in the U.S. perhaps this is a good time to ask where our hard-earned money would be better spent - testing weapons designed to kill millions of people or supporting programs that support life.  After spending trillions on nuclear weapons, isn't it time to say ENOUGH?

No more test launches.  No new uranium facilities.  No new plutonium pit facilities.  No new (Kansas City) bomb plant.  No new ballistic missile submarines.  No new nukes!!!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, there will be no future.

Occupy Vandenberg on May 16th!!!  No more nuclear weapon systems testing!!!

A Scene we'd like to see (in the U.S.)

Here is a scene (see photo below) we would be highly unlikely to see in the U.S.  Folks across the Big Pond have been engaging in a spirited debate on the (crazy) idea of a Trident replacement. 

Wouldn't it be great to get some serious money behind a campaign like this to stop the next generation of ballistic missile submarines right here at home??? 

Just think!!! A new generation of U.S. Trident subs (that will cost nearly $100 billion just to build) sailing the seas until the year 2082 (we should all survive so long without a nuclear war breaking out). 

Just how does a whole new generation of ballistic missile submarines (each one bristling with nuclear armed missiles) reduce the risk of nuclear war?  Oh yeah - deterrence.  How does it serve the process of global disarmament under existing treaty obligations?  What message does it send to other nations, both nuclear and non-nuclear?  How might this money (and all the rest spent to maintain and operate Trident) be better spent???       

And just how much did our (the U.S.) government spend on nuclear weapons while you waited for your bus (or perhaps while waited at a stop light) today???

Don't Bank on the Bomb: It's a bad investment

Friends,

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) just launched a groundbreaking report on the global financing of the nuclear weapons industry.  This is a watershed moment for the movement to abolish nuclear weapons. 

The comprehensive study, entitled Don’t Bank on the Bomb, identifies more than 300 banks, pension funds, insurance companies and asset managers in 30 countries with substantial investments in nuclear arms producers. 

The 180-page report provides details of financial transactions with 20 companies that are heavily involved in the manufacture, maintenance and modernisation of US, British, French and Indian nuclear forces. 

Divesting from Nuclear Weapons

In his foreword to the report, Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has called on financial institutions to “do the right thing and assist, rather than impede, efforts to eliminate the threat of radioactive incineration”, noting that divestment was a vital part of the successful campaign to end apartheid in South Africa.

“Today, the same tactic can – and must – be employed to challenge man’s most evil creation: the nuclear bomb. No one should be profiting from this terrible industry of death, which threatens us all.”

US Heavily involved in both financing and manufacturing nuclear weapons

Half of the companies involved in nuclear weapons work (named in the report) are based in the United States.  These nuclear weapons producers include household words like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Bechtel and Honeywell.

Of the 322 global financial institutions identified in the report that invest in nuclear weapons companies, 170 of them are based in the United States.  Among them are financial giants like Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, insurance companies like Allstate ("You're in good hands..."), and the world's largest Roman Catholic fraternal organization The Knights of Columbus  (just who would Jesus bomb anyway???).

The vast U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure

As this report is being issued the U.S. government has been actively gearing up to modernize and expand both its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  Nuclear weapons infrastructure (including research and manufacturing facilities) are both in planning stages (Los Alamos Laboratories), in construction (Kansas City bomb plant), and completed (Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee), and that's just a partial listing.

The next generation ballistic missile submarine intended to replace the current Trident fleet (and is projected to operate through 2082 or later) is being planned, and would generate some serious investment I'm sure, considering a construction price tage of nearly $100 billion for 12 submarines.

Time to Occupy the Bombplex and its financiers

As the report Don't Bank on the Bomb makes clear, Wall Street is War Street.  It is time to call for accountability by all these financial institutions.  Nuclear weapons are not a sustainable investment strategy.  One day they WILL be used should we continue to rely upon them as tools of foreign policy, and when that time comes it will be a dark day.  The effects on the financial world will be unimaginable.

We the people must call for financial institutions to divest themselves of their investments in nuclear weapons.  It is the only moral, ethical and (from a long term perspective) financially sound choice.  Chapter 7 of the report tells us how we can challenge nuclear weapons investments. 

Take action individually and collectively
Check out the Don't Bank on the Bomb Website where you can download the full report.  Is your financial institution financing nuclear weapons?  Find out, and then challenge them to do the right thing - DIVEST!  Click here for ideas on what you can do. 

Besides individual actions like writing to your financial institution and asking it to divest, consider larger group actions like shareholder resolutions.  There is incredible power in numbers, and the Occupy movement continues to provide lessons for action.

It is criminal to profit from the production of the very weapons of our own destruction.  Let's invest our hard-earned money in life, not death! 

Peace,

Leonard

Don't Bank on the Bomb Website: http://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/
Don't Bank on the Bomb, full PDF Report: http://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DivestmentReport.pdf