Tom Mludzinski: Nuclear disarmament is vital

Tom Mludzinski, a Warwick University student and Research Assistant for BASIC, wants more momentum towards a nuclear weapon free world.

Obama’s slogan is simple and effective… Yes we can. It can be applied to anything and yet it rarely is. His brilliant and inspiring speeches succeed in breeding hope and inspiration, but what can the change be? Try putting this question in front of Obama’s beloved answer: Nuclear disarmament? … Yes we can. 

The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) aim to see a nuclear weapon free world, although this sounds impossible and the inevitable first reaction is ‘it will never happen’ there are movements to suggest otherwise. Barack Obama and indeed David Cameron talk of real change, new agendas, making a difference, so why not. Nuclear disarmament? Yes we can.

January 4th 2007 saw a seismic shift in movement toward a nuclear weapon free world when a group of former Secretaries of State and Defense published an article in the Wall Street Journal calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. The politicians involved are not those you may expect. Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Sam Nunn and William Perry, hardly representatives of the liberal-left wing of American politics, but nevertheless concerned about the threat nuclear weapons pose to the world. Twelve months later they produced a follow up highlighting the urgency of the need to disarm.

If Obama wins the Presidency will he do anything about nuclear disarmament? He says he will, “I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” If he wants to prove that he is not just talk, and he really does want to make a difference, offer hope, surely moving towards nuclear disarmament is a great way of doing it. Not only would it show substance and sincerity but the alternative to not disarming is frightening. When addressing an audience including Douglas Hurd, Geoffrey Howe and other Tory ex-Cabinet members, Schultz outlined how he believed that the US and UK were rapidly becoming the most likely places where nuclear weapons would be used. He believes that these attacks would be carried out either by terrorists or states with a less than effective deterrent relationship with us. Obviously the argument of having nuclear weapons as a deterrent does not apply to terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up, while trusting the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad to act rationally is always a risk. 

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty provides the best hope towards disarmament, with 189 signatories. Those not signed up make for uncomfortable reading: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. The Treaty requires ‘Nuclear Weapon States’ to engage in negotiations for disarmament as well as agreeing not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons.

Having a nuclear weapon is becoming a badge of honour, a way of getting noticed, even establishing power and so is becoming extremely attractive to the likes of Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly increasingly to other second tier states such as Brazil, Egypt, Turkey and some Gulf States.  The more states with nuclear weapon capability, the more dangerous the global situation becomes, and the more likely that this capability will fall into the wrong hands. 

Can it be done? Reagan came close, Bush is reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons, Brown told the Chamber of Commerce in New Delhi that his government will be at the forefront of global efforts to abolish nuclear weapons. He and Sarkozy recently pledged to reinforce non-proliferation. The biggest challenge is to make disarming seem possible. Having the likes of Kissinger et al raise the issue brings credibility and moves talk of disarmament away from ‘airy-fairy, loony-lefty, ambition’ to political reality. Now is the time to build on that momentum. It’s not an easy or a short battle, but a worthwhile one. It may take years, possibly decades but the consequences could secure stability in some of the most dangerous regions. 

So, nuclear disarmament? Yes we must.

Comments

[Margaret Hemmings]

Nuclear disarmament... will never happen.. sorry... We went through all this in the Thatcher/Foot/Kinnock era.

Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose

As President sarkozy might say

[Alex]

There is a world of difference between global nuclear disarmament and unilateral nuclear disarmament. Kissinger et al were calling for the former, which is entirely sensible: better that no-one has nuclear weapons that both the West and unstable nations, where we rely on the rationality of the latter. But unilateral disarmament is a naive surrendering of a deterrent which has proven to be effective if not perfect. Which of these is Tom Mludzinksi calling for?

[Tom Mludzinski]

I agree with Alex, unilateral disarmament would be extremely naive and leave the UK in a vulnerable position, however, unilateral moves towards disarmament can be used as an example that the big nations are willing to disarm. However, disarmament must happen multilaterally, on a global scale. To ensure this a thorough and rigorous system of frequent checks must be devised.

[Tony Makara]

The major problem we face is that getting rid of nuclear weaponry would be as difficult as trying to dis-invent the gun. We are now saddled with this destructive technology and the best we can do is work to halt its proliferation. I'm confident that no current nation state would use nuclear weapons in a theatre of war or to eradicate civillian centres. However there will always be the danger of nuclear capability being passed on to rogue elements who could use it in a monumental and spectacular act of terror. I admire greatly those that advocate nuclear disarmament and seek a peaceful world. However we have long since passed the stage when this murderous technology could be taken out of the hands of politicians. We now need to live with the consequences and be ever watchful that such technology does not fall into the wrong hands.

[John Leonard]

I agree with the other comments posted above whilst seeking Global Nuclear disarmament is a noble aspiration I believe it is a totally unrealistic one.

However, to further open up this debate, lets assume the Global Nuclear Disarmament is agreed one day.

What then? Is it naturally assumed that for the first time in the Earth's history people will live in peace and harmony or do we revert to the pre 1945 scenario of conventional military power?

Of course the world has never previously experienced super powers with todays technology or of the size of contemporary USA, China, Russia, India, Pakistan or Brazil.

These countries have vastly larger populations and superior resources than the former imperial powers. How would such a scenario change the world and in particular how would it effect smaller countries like the United Kingdom?

In a world of rapidly growing population and shrinking available natural resources how would smaller countries ensure that they were able to survive and ideally prosper?

Would we be forced to merge fully with our neighbours into a European Superstate to protect and supply ourselves?

Furthermore, what WMD's would replace Nuclear Weapons - Genetic, Biological, Chemical, Technological (Lasers, Magnetic)?

Would it lead to a new alternative arms race? Would it lead to a greater militarisation of national populations?

Perversely, it may be that the deterrent of weapons that threaten the very existence of life on this planet maybe in some ways better than ones which selectively can be targetted against human populations and economies?

The basic deterrent concept behind Nuclear Weapons is that they not only threaten your opposition's existence but also your own.

Is it better to have weapons that politicians know they cannot control rather than ones they can?

Perhaps, regretfully, this is a case of 'Better the devil you know', no matter how dreadful the potential consequences are?

Tom Mludzinski:

Can I suggest you avoid quoting Obama and Brown. If there were two Western Politicians who bring out the cynicism in me it is those two. I don't believe a word that Brown says and increasingly I do not believe the Obama Democratic Primary side-show.

Hope without credibility is not hope. It is wishful thinking and that is what Obama is playing too.

It's not the man who says 'Yes We Can' who impresses me it is the man who says 'Yes I Will' and then delivers.....

[Ash Faulkner]

I'm confused by the constant references to Obama here oO. Unilateral disarmament is of course nonsense, but global disarmament is an admirable goal; whether it's achievable or not is another question.

[David Sergeant]

It all seems rather silly to me. The general consensus is that nuclear weapons, or the fear of them, have made large wars impossible. Get rid of them and attacking someone becomes less of a risk. But even if that was not a problem what are we going to do about rogue states who are the only ones with the bomb?

[James M]

So long as we and a handful of other nations hold onto our nukes then we send the world the signal that they will never be able to sit at the big boys' table until they get nukes of their own. North Korea and Iran confirm the point.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament? Yes we can, and must. But it requires leadership. We need to be willing to go out on a limb. We need to be willing to make ourselves vulnerable in the conviction that this will inspire others to do the same (our moral credibility would go through the roof). [We would probably become less of a target if we did not have nukes.]

It is no good saying that it is irresponsible for a national leader to make their country 'vulnerable'. Just study the texture of everyday life, of all your relationships. The fact is that unless you are willing to take risks, even to keep putting yourself out on a limb, then no trust can grow, no bonding. This is how life works. Without it peace is not possible.

I don't expect anyone to be convinced by this who does not already see it. I think instead we will hang onto our nukes and mutter to each other that we are being prudent and mature and this is real politik

We will continue until there is a nuclear catastrophe. And once they have been used we will have to have the old disarmament debate again.

Thing is, why wait until afterwards?