The main argument given against the idea of nuclear
abolition is that the “genie is out of the bottle,” and the only thing that
keeps more countries from getting nuclear weapons is threatening them with
nuclear weapons. However, Iran and North
Korea stand as stark evidence that this is simply not true. Nation-states will develop nuclear weapons in
response to being threatened by nuclear weapons. In an age where the nuclear armed states can
invade any non-nuclear country without drastic consequences, threatened states
see that in this mindset, it only makes sense to arm oneself. The US was able to invade Vietnam, Iraq, and
Afghanistan. I would argue the only
reason why the US hasn’t invaded Iran is because Russia and China have
threatened retaliation. Russia invaded
Afghanistan in the 80s. China took over
Tibet. The message the nuclear powers
have been sending the rest of the world over the last 50 years is that if you
do something we don’t like, and you don’t have a nuclear arsenal, then we can
invade you. Therefore, the logical
conclusion is that in reality deterrence leads to proliferation because it
creates a mindset in which nuclear weapons are the source of power and
therefore necessary. This is disastrous
in an age where terrorists are no longer bound by national barriers. It is dangerous in a world that is currently
fraught with instability and popular unrest.
Currently, President Obama and President Putin have agreed
to lower their arsenals by a third more.
While this looks like a step in the right direction, it is not really
progress. Let me tell you why. Both Russia and the US are modernizing their
nuclear arsenals. They are spending
billions of dollars on making the nuclear weapons more deadly (as if blowing up
an entire city-sized area isn’t deadly enough), more difficult to shoot down
with missiles, and faster (missiles that can hit a target in 4 minutes rather
than ten). So really while they lower
the number of overall warheads, all they are really doing is retiring the old
warheads and actually creating a new stockpile of deadlier ones. I must ask why the US needs to spend billions
of dollars on making the deadliest weapons in human history deadlier. It is almost laughable. I mean how accurate does a nuclear missile
need to be? If you get within a mile of
your target you will still vaporize it.
For example, the old
WWII nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 80 times weaker than
our smallest nuclear warhead now. Our
smallest nuclear warhead completely annihilates a 1.7 mile radius around the
detonation spot. Most buildings and all
living things in this area are wiped out instantly. They get off lucky. Then within a 2.7 mile radius from the blast
(or 1 mile outside of the instant death area) all buildings except for steel
structure are gone, fifty percent of living things are instantly killed, the
other fifty percent is mortally burned
or wounded and will die within the coming minutes, hours, or days after the
blast. At a 4.7 mile radius from the
blast center (or 2 miles outside of the last damage radius), all houses are
destroyed by the blast wave, an estimated five percent of the population is
instantly killed, forty-five percent are injured, all have been exposed to
toxic levels of radiation. They will
most likely die slowly and painfully of radiation poisoning. At a 7.4 mile radius (or roughly 3 miles from
the last damage radius) there is still blast damage but only twenty-five
percent of the population is injured.
After this point there is less damage from the blast itself, however
every living thing within thirty miles from the blast center has been exposed
to lethal doses of radiation. They will
die within days, and that area will be uninhabitable for ten years. Within ninety miles, all living persons will
die of radiation poisoning, also within days.
Within 160 miles, people will show symptoms of radiation poisoning: hair
loss, white blood loss, nerve damage.
The elderly, the young, and the sick will die. Finally within 250 miles from the blast
center, radiation poisoning will occur, though most will live. Also, the land will be safe to inhabit within
three years. This is the effect of both
the US and Russia’s smallest nuclear warhead.
In another report, this time on a terrorist nuclear attack on New York
City estimates that there would be 800,000 people killed, and 900,000 people
injured. Those are the effects of the
smallest warheads. If anything bigger is
used the results are dramatically worse.
The fact remains if ever a nuclear attack were to occur on any city the
results would be horrifying. While
deterrence may have prevented a nuclear attack from another country, no amount
of nuclear weapons can prevent a terrorist from acquiring a nuclear
weapon.
How do you prevent a terrorist from getting a nuclear
warhead? Well one way is to keep nuclear
weapons in secure facilities. However,
countries like Pakistan and India have questionable security, and the US can’t
regulate their security. Also, in
Pakistan’s case, if government rule was to break down, nothing would stop
terrorist groups from gaining access to those weapons. However, if the nuclear powers come to an
agreement to set a date for virtual disarmament, boost the power of the IAEA to
regularly inspect and regulate nuclear programs in all countries, and agree to
support the enforcement of the agreement through UN military force and
sanctions then the disarmament could be permanent. This is quite a lot to ask
from most of the nuclear powers.
However, I believe that security from nuclear attack should trump
sovereignty in this instance. If there
is no enforcement, then there is no punishment for failing to make good on
disarmament. Once countries disarm, it
would be very easy to make sure no country starts arming again because creating
weapon’s grade plutonium is a lengthy, expensive, and fairly obvious
endeavor. Think about it; no terrorist
organization has been able to make one because doing so requires building huge
facilities and employing experts who are under surveillance. Even North Korea, the most secretive country
in the world, didn’t keep their nuclear weapons development a secret. As long as the IAEA and various intelligence
agencies do their jobs, no country could get away with making a nuclear
weapon.
So why is it likely that this idea won’t come to
fruition? First of all, the belief in
nuclear deterrence is accepted as fact by both parties in Washington and
Moscow. Second, there is still little
trust for the Russians in Washington DC.
The good news is that Russia is not our enemy anymore, and this
mentality could be changed through effort.
For some reason, many politicians in America and Europe still see Russia
as a country to fear instead of work with.
The truth is the moment America takes off its Cold War goggles and views
Russia in a new way is the moment in which nuclear disarmament talks will
actually bear fruit. If the two
countries with the largest nuclear arsenals and worst nuclear track records
start transparently and honestly disarming, is when the rest of the world will
see that a commitment to a nuclear-free world is actually possible. Current deterrence ideology has failed. However, I believe that if the world is
transparently disarmed and then honestly regulated, nuclear weapons development
can be deterred.
Sources:
Nuclear affects estimations come from: http://www.nationalterroralert.com/nuclear/
New York City scenario:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/Example1.shtml
Brooks Troiani is an intern at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment