Kim mentioned the PM’s new nuclear disarmament commission yesterday. I figured some context might be in order.
The guts of the announcement, which must have brought deep warmth to the cockles of Peter Garrett’s heart, was the announcement of a new commission on non-proliferation and disarmament. The Commission will examine the rules relating to nuclear proliferation and disarmament, in the leadup to the negotiated renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2010. Back in 1995, at the fag end of the Keating Government, Gareth Evans organized the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The executive summary of its report can be read here. So it’s not surprising that Gareth Evans has been picked to run this new commission.
Unsurprisingly, this has brought anti-nuclear campaigners out of the woodwork, lauding this effort but suggesting that Rudd should join New Zealand in excluding ourselves from the American “nuclear umbrella”. Presumably this means shutting Pine Gap and preventing US warships from visiting our shores. The fact that this has Buckley’s chance of actually happening is indicative of the prospects for significant progress on complete nuclear disarmament any time soon. At the heart of the NPT was a deal between those within and those without the nuclear club. The non-nuclear states agreed not to get nuclear weapons. The nuclear states agreed to work towards disarmament over time. You might also add that the nuclear states implicitly agreed to not give non-nuclear states reasons to want nukes. The nuclear club, particularly, hasn’t really held up its side of the bargain.
The existing nuclear powers show no sign whatsoever of giving up, or even significantly reducing, their nuclear arsenals. The United Kingdom hasn’t been invaded since 1698 (the English acting up in Ireland every so often notwithstanding), and faces no conventional security threat whatsoever. And yet, a cabinet chock-full of former members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament voted to build a new generation of ballistic missile submarines. Meanwhile, the United States continues work on the Reliable Replacement Warhead and the current White House sought to fund work on (and may, quietly, still be funding) work on Nuclear bunker-busters. Meanwhile, one of the most pernicious effects of the US invasion of Iraq – compared to the way North Korea has been treated – has been the message sent out to small nations with disputes with larger ones. If you want nuclear-armed states to leave you alone, owning a nuclear weapon is a sure-fire way to do so. On the “avoiding proliferation” front India, Pakistan, and North Korea have tested nuclear weapons, Iran continues to work on enrichment (which gets them 99% of the way to a nuclear weapon), and others seem to be very keen on acquiring them.
So where to for this commission? It could do a lot worse than dust off what the Canberra Commission had to say, and see if any of the more modest proposals can actually make their way into the next revision of the NPT. Nuclear weapons will never be abolished – and I find it bizarre the number of senior former diplomats and politicians who’s studied the matter who seem to think that they can. But there are lots of things that could be done that would reduce the risk of the use of nuclear weapons, without requiring the complete abolition of geopolitical tensions for the rest of human history. It would also save a few billion dollars a year maintaining redundant and unnecessary weapons – not a large amount in the greater scheme of things, but a nice little bonus for the budget bottom lines of the nuclear powers.
Some of those proposals include the abolition of “sub-strategic” nuclear weapons, cuts in numbers and readiness (some of which, to be honest, has already happened), and, very importantly, the abandonment of missile defence, which in many people’s minds makes the world more unstable by making a first nuclear strike more tempting. There are undoubtedly a number of other ideas floating around.
But that, of course, will rely on the wisdom and inspiration of the leaders of the nuclear states, particularly the United States and Russia. We’re going to get a new US leader soon, with any luck one who appreciates the essential uselessness of the damn things. Maybe shoving a lightly-revised version of the Canberra Commission recommendations under his door isn’t such a bad idea.
Evan’s commission report does state the problems quite well however that is an easy thing to do, what is difficult is changing the situation:
Well there are nine nuclear weapon states, now. And there were more than 5 in ‘95. Would Mr Evans care to explain how he’s gonna convince India and Pakistan to drop their nukes when they can’t even sort out Kashmir? Explain to Israel why they should get rid of their nukes. Explain to Iran why they shouldn’t be developing their’s. Explain to Kim Jong-il why he should give up on the only thing that gets anyone to pay attention to him.
>
I’m sure heaps of people will agree to immediately implement practical steps and negotiations and whatever else to rid the world of nukes. And I’m equally certain that it will get bogged down in onesy-twosy and the simple fact that the nuke states are not going to do it – end of story.
>
It would probably be better if one worked on securing and controlling the creation of and deployment of nuclear weapons as they exist and get people to reduce. However the authority isn’t really there. States will only comply if they want to. Israel doesn’t want to because it can’t presently. The rest don’t want to ’cause, um, they don’t want to.
>
Whaddya gonna do? Spank ‘em on the botty. It just ain’t that easy.
some practical suggestions from someone in the biz:
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2008/06/Rudd’s-arms-control-initiative.aspx
try again
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2008/06/Rudd’s-arms-control-initiative.aspx
It’s the Lowy institute’s fault for including an apostrophe in the url, jo!
Here’s the link.
And thanks for the post, Rob. Last night on the 7 30 report we had the spectacle of Greg Sheridan being interviewed for his “expert” opinion on the NPT. Journos interviewing journos. Another example of distributed knowledge beating press gallery solipsism.
Kim, re Greg Sheridan on the 7.30 Report, I sent off an email protest to the ABC. So far just an acknowledgement automatically generated. Not that it will do any good. So much for balance.
Kim,
Even though my estimation of professional journos is pretty low these days, I still wouldn’t call Sheridan a journo. He’s just an orifice through which those in power can pump their jism.
As for Robert’s post, some good points. I guess we must remain idealistic. Anything is possible.
Like Tom Tomorrow says, who would have believed just a few years ago that the next US President could be a black man whose middle name is Hussein and whose father was a Muslim?!
Still, I cannot help thinking that it might be easier, safer, faster, and a whole lot more fun if we all just work towards “the complete abolition of geopolitical tensions for the rest of human history.”
I reckon nuclear weapons primarily exist because of the massive profits for those that sell them. I dont know what effect the abolition of nukes would have on the genreral economy, not insignificant i suspect, but in terms of the profits of the corporations that either produce the weapons or have their assetts (e.g. middle east oil) protected by them they are very important and protected by way of corporate influence or direct involvement in governments. This must be weighed up to consider the effectiveness of any disarmament scheme.
In terms of global power plays, Nukes and techno-war are what makes the USA vulnerable to economic collapse. The nuclear arms race collapsed the Soviet Union, not for military reasons but economic, they were put in a situation that they had to keep up arms spending, catalysed by the odd war in Afghanistan and elsewhere but in the end it was their inability to afford the arms race which collapsed them.
There are structural reasons such as the greed of corporations to perpetuate U.S. military spending. If I was Iran or Nth Korea or Al Quaida or even an economic competitor such as China, I woud continue sabre rattling and announcing nuke programs to accellerate the US arms spending, especially at times like the present “slowdown” of the US economy. I suspect such thinking – exploit the inherent contradictions in your enemy – informs the present Iraqi resistance as well as the previous arrogant provocations of Sadam Hussein – and perhaps also recent “unauthorised” Chinese missile testing.
The Fed can print infinite money to pay for the arms race but sooner or later the chickens come home to roost in terms of national debt and inflation, a process that may take decades to collapse an economy as it did in the USSR, but it will happen. In terms of the accelerating underclass in the U.S. there is an argument that the collapse has been occuring for some time and cannot be reversed without a massive cut to military spending.
Interesting stuff I heard recently. U.S. income tax is currently about the same as the interest on the national debt – no net surplus. Corporate tax is about the same as the present military budget (user pays?) – no net surplus.
Robert,
Agreed that states can use small numbers of nukes to act as a deterrent – China is a classic example from the cold war (small numbers relative to the USA and USSR). Form the looks of it the USA will probably keep decreasing the numbers with the caveat that new designs will be introduced.
The biggest issue as I see it will be convincing the Russians to decrease their numbers. For both internal and external political reasons they seem to want to hold onto as many as possible. The PAL systems should prevent any from being used by anyone other than them but it is still a worry that such a large number of warheads are scattered over a country not known (recently) for its stability.
My other big concern is not just the warhead issue but the shear quantities of Pu still “hanging around”.
Perhaps if the nuclear club instead demonstrated that they are happy to reduce numbers then that would help? After all the anti-missile systems might just take out a single rogue, they are useless for any scale of multiple-launch scenario (not to mention “alternate” delivary methods).
Some excellent points, everyone.
John, nuclear weapons represent a tiny and shrinking fraction of the US military budget; ditto the UK, France, and China. Russia, probably a bit more. Missile defence, fighter planes, aircraft carriers, and the contracts to run MacDonalds at US military bases are all probably a bigger deal.
Steve h raises the question of plutonium stockpiles. I agree, with the further point that HEU is even scarier because any twit with a machine shop can turn it into a usable weapon, whereas plutonium is much harder to fashion into a bomb. More than the absolute levels of stockpiles, the amount of places at which it is currently stored is a real worry.
The intercontinental ballistic missile is probably the first weapon in history to have prevented war.
Yes, Jacques, but we don’t need more than a few hundred of them for that purpose to be served. Furthermore, we don’t need “tactical” nukes, or “nuclear bunker-busters”, or any such other “low-cost” option, to tempt Presidents, Premiers, or Prime Ministers into actually using the things.
How quickly people forget…does every new generation of adults have to be reminded?…so what’s the excuse for the older ones?…loss of WISDOM I guess, in the madness of super speed PROSPERITY NATIONS…walking HOME after the CARNIVALE, LOST in the FOG of DIVIDE & CONQUER moments…keeping the weapons masters happy…we possibly near the end of the Iraq War (no thanks to President “upon reflection threatin’ cowboy words only really handy before 2006 congressional losses)…& already the chess players are building up the next COLD WAR…plenty of moolah to be had. Even books, movie making & BREAKING NEWS stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbwj5UFIQvg
(The Day After – Nuclear Strike)
And a brave, educated man, Dennis Kucinich, begins a journey that MUST be…walks a path to be joined by THE MANY…oneday…when they stop FORGETTING where they are, what they were thinkin’:
WASHINGTON — Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential contender, said Monday he wants the House to consider a resolution to impeach President Bush.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi consistently has said impeachment was “off the table.”
Kucinich, D-Ohio, read his proposed impeachment language in a floor speech. He contended Bush deceived the nation and violated his oath of office in leading the country into the Iraq war.
(Huffington Post)
————-
Was just reading about the My Lai Massacre. And Hiroshima. And Woomera. Plus ce change…
It’s time to end the madness. Well said Kim et al.
(Now playing: “Say goodbye to the fire” by Beautiful World – Aussie musician Ben from the band Swirl, I think)
This is perhaps the lamest stunt yet by Rudd. I’d hate to be a public servant pulling 36 hour shifts on crap like this.
Almost all of the nuclear era has seen rational actors in charge of the buttons. Rather than having fairy dreams about disappearing nuclear weapons, the challenge to today’s diplomats is to foster sanity in those countries about to become nuclear.
How you do that in crap-holes like North Korea and Iran isn’t going to be solved by paying Gareth to junket around the world as some The Other non-proliferation czar (not that I’m any El-Baradei fan either). Now if we need a campaign against champagne and hors-d’oeurvres or just someone to shag Andrew Bartlet, then by all means we should give him a call.
The FA-wonk double-speak these two could manage if they were left together for more than five minutes just boggles the imagination.
“rational actors”
Ronald Reagan anyone? And I concede that George W is acting (badly) in the role of a lifetime as US President, but rational??? I don’t think so…
Even Jimmy Carter qualified as a rational actor, so Reagan and W are well within the bounds. It’s very rare for a democratically elected leader not to be a rational actor. Hitler was sort-of elected, and Anthony Eden probably fit into the irrational actor category too.
“Some of those proposals include the abolition of “sub-strategic” nuclear weapons, cuts in numbers and readiness (some of which, to be honest, has already happened), and, very importantly, the abandonment of missile defence, which in many people’s minds makes the world more unstable by making a first nuclear strike more tempting”
I agree Robert.
Couldn’t disagree more w/ comments at 15.
(remember: Hiroshima mon Amour part2 二十四時間の情事)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3scFCXGM05s
Looking far back a strong case may be made that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perfectly justifiable and the lunar lefts theories on this subject are not just nuts on the face of it but they’re encouraging resurgent militarism in Japan.
( I’ll field objections at my Blurty blog btw! No responses here from me.)
Looking recently back MAD saved us all during the cold war.
Looking around – Kruddy is bad enough on his own. Do we really need Gareth on top of that? Sheesh.
Looking forward – getting the total device pool down below 300 would be good because anything over 400 creates a nuclear winter. Now I leave youse with nugget quote from Orwell.
‘…Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police state…’ – You and the Atom bomb essay.
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html
Imagine theres no countries – easy if you try.
The practical steps to nuclear disarmament are still not leading anywhere guys. Would like to see ‘em.
Thermonuclear war between the USA and a comparable power (Rus Fed/PRC) if total would lead to collapse of world’s economy. But because of that it’s unlikely to happen for reasons the MAD doctrine makes plain. A terrorist attack on a city would hit the US of course but in that event it’s likely to be very linmited. And the resiliensce of the US economy partly due to measure taken to have the fiscal system running again quickly after a Nuke War shown after Sep 11/01 demonstrates that it’d unlikely be fatal.
>
The greatest threat to the US economy would be if their debtors called time on them and demanded payment in Euros (I think). Then they’d be fucked. But so would everyone else.
I should add that I’m not entirely poo-pooing Kevvie’s initiative. At least it’s something. I think one of the major things of the century. But it’s going to take a long, hard haul to accomplish these goals.
In a way N Korea and Iran et al are doing the world a favour by making them pay attention to the possibility of psychotic use of such weapons. There’s plenty of non-American Jack D. Rippers out there I’m sure.
Meaning global peace/security not Kevvie’s thing. Kevvie thing, we’ll just have to see.
“Looking far back a strong case may be made that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perfectly justifiable and the lunar lefts theories on this subject are not just nuts on the face of it but they’re encouraging resurgent militarism in Japan.”
“the lunar left” eh?:
In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff–and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff–minced few words:
[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .
[I]n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. [THE DECISION, p. 3.]
Again, William Buckley’s NATIONAL REVIEW–commenting on a statement by President Truman in 1958–observed:
… the question that must be at the back of the minds of the people of Hiroshima, and that ought to haunt Harry Truman: “Was it REALLY necessary? Might a mere demonstration of the bomb, followed by an ultimatum, have turned the trick?”
If there is a satisfactory answer to that question, the people of Hiroshima AND the people of the United States have a right to hear it. [THE DECISION, p. 566.]
see:
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) has a different meaning when countries are not protecting their stockpiles adequately…especially when brought to their knees by corporate mobsters…& weapons runners are used to transport material to the highest bidder…or to prepare for false flag events that benefit the OPPORTUNISTS & PROFITEERS. And American planes are loaded up w/ THE BOMB for mysterious purposes.
The all important person’s here who crap on the action of PM. Rudd going to Hiroshima,also crap on the good citizens of that city.If the Japanese are ready to rearm themselves,it will also be true that they are vitally aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! And to those brimming with the intelligence of knowing,apparently,this action of Rudd’s was completely phoney,why is it you cannot tell what the future is too!? Indeed! When your self-importance will kick in,competing with your own readings of Nostradamus!? How do you know for example,those holding the jobs in places like India and Pakistan do not feel any warmth to Rudd,a leader of a nation,basically saying.. we will not join this game,and we are still as friendly as we possibly can be under the circumstances!? Rudd could go to Pakistan,and wave to the military involved,and it would be a relief. He could go to India and do the same thing. Poke his nose in Afghanistan whilst the troops are leaving,and say, honestly,”I know the Taliban and others may not believe this,but,essentially we,Australians do not need them as the enemy,as much as we have felt right being here and being prepared.Hopefully,without a tragic human failure,the Taliban will recognise this.” Into Russia,and admiring their progress in all sorts of ways,and being seen laughing and cracking a joke with a Russian military official,who probably doesnt want to think he will need to press something into action.Who knows!? If we all could afford it- we would tour the nuke arsenal sites ,wherever they are,and crack a joke with a military person with a serious job! Not to undermine the job or human being,but just to say Hello.Or if it may mean something”G.day.Mate!?” And that person,may not take offence! Surely its better to try a few different attitudes,if you haven’t personally got anything against someone,doing a job!?
Unsurprisingly, this has brought anti-nuclear campaigners out of the woodwork, lauding this effort but suggesting that Rudd should join New Zealand in excluding ourselves from the American “nuclear umbrella”. Presumably this means shutting Pine Gap and preventing US warships from visiting our shores.
Not quite. It just means demanding that they tell you whether they’re carrying nukes or not. The problem with NZ was that the US didn’t want to be honest with us, and refused to either “confirm or deny”. Hopefully they’re more mature now.
As for Pine Gap, unless it actually has nuclear weapons at it (and AIUI, it’s a listening station, similar to Waihopai in NZ), then it wouldn’t be a problem. Unless of course the US decided to throw a big sulk again.
Craig @ 15
umm….. nice of you to think of me I guess, but I wouldn’t mind a say in the matter first. (although I’m still not quite sure why me as opposed to any of the other 7 billion people in the world)
I think it’s a rather laboured reference to Gareth Evans’ previous cross-party liaisons, Andrew!
“I think it’s a rather laboured reference to Gareth Evans’ previous cross-party liaisons, Andrew!”
Yes, an E.D Hill moment. An intentional accident. An oxyMORON.
And yet… didn’t. Not even after the first bomb was dropped.
As for Leahy: “The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives”. ’nuff said.
“Almost all of the nuclear era has seen rational actors in charge of the buttons.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos&eurl=http://www.videosift.com/video/Ronald-Regans-We-Bomb-Russia-in-5-Minutes-quote
(Reagan Bombing Joke)
Big slugger w/ smiley face painted on.
I’m heading off abroad again soon. In order to defray my expenses I’m taking up a collection to purchase nuclear weapons and bring them back to a safe neutral haven in Australia. Specifically the box room in my St Kilda flat.
So please chuck in a few billion each and I’ll soon rid the world of one of the powerful and dangerous geopolitical instruments ever nurtured and caressed by developed and some developing countries. Hell, I’ll even let you borrow one for the weekend to show off to your neighbours.
“So that’s the old W-188 they flogged off as surplus? With the impact fuse? Damien! Stop hitting it with the barbecue tongs! Daddy’s serious.”
On the other hand, you can always take a punt on Gareth Evans flying in to explain in eye-crossing detail why proud nuclear powers should publicly emasculate themselves.
Your choice…
So who needs my Paypal details?
Funny you should mention “the old W-188″ Nabakov.
Got me thinkin’ of:
the Mercedes-Benz Type 300 (chassis codes W186, W188, and W189), often called the Adenauer after Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany at the time. Adenauer used six of these cars during his time as Chancellor.
Adenauer reached an agreement with the USA in 1957 that gave West Germany possession of weapons capable of transporting nuclear warheads. Furthermore, Adenauer pursued nuclear cooperation with other countries with a goal of Germany being able to produce its own nuclear armament.
On March 27, 1952, a package addressed to Chancellor Adenauer exploded in the Munich Police Headquarters, killing one police officer. Two boys who had been paid to send this package by mail had brought it to the attention of the police. Investigations led to people closely related to the Herut Party and the former Irgun organization. The German government kept all proof under seal. Five Israeli suspects identified by French and German investigators were allowed to return to Israel.
Investigations led to people closely related to the Herut Party and the former Irgun organization. The German government kept all proof under seal. Five Israeli suspects identified by French and German investigators were allowed to return to Israel.
One of the participants, Eliezer Sudit, later indicated that the mastermind behind the attempt was Menachem Begin who would later become the Prime Minister of Israel. Begin had been the former commander of Irgun and at that time headed Herut and was a member of the Knesset. His goal was to undermine the attempts of the German government to seek friendly relations with Israel.
David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel, appreciated Adenauer’s response in playing down the affair and not pursuing it further, as it would have burdened the relationship between the two new states.
In June 2006 a slightly different version of this story appeared in Germany’s leading newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, quoted by The Guardian. Adenauer was targeted because he was sending Holocaust reparations to the Israeli government, whereas Begin felt passionately that the money should go to the individual victims. Sudit, the story’s source, explained that the “intent was not to hit Adenauer but to rouse the international media. It was clear to all of us there was no chance the package would reach Adenauer.”
Herut was founded by Menachem Begin in 1948 as the political successor to the Irgun, a paramilitary group in Mandate Palestine.
The party also drew criticism, most famously when the New York Times published a letter to the editor signed by over two dozen prominent Jewish intellectuals on 4 December, 1948. The letter condemned Menachem Begin and Herut on the occasion of Begin’s visit to New York City. Comparing Revisionist Zionism streams to “Nazi and fascist parties”, the letter was signed by individuals including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and Sidney Hook. The letter began:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party”, a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
And it continues:
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
Herut (Hebrew: חרות, Freedom) was the major right-wing political party in Israel from the 1940s until its formal merger into Likud in 1988, and an adherent to Revisionist Zionism. It is not to be confused with Herut – The National Movement, a party which broke away from Likud in 1998.
(all on Wiki pedia)
Plus ce change…eh?
Sure, I agree with that; though I note in passing that tactical nuclear weapons were a pretty obvious deterrence to a conventional invasion of Europe by the USSR. But they’ve passed their window of usefulness.