James Acton, an academic who blogs at the altogether excellent Arms Control Wonk, co-wrote a lengthy article last year on how the world might completely rid itself of nuclear weapons. The beauty of it is that this article actually goes into the nitty-gritty of how this might be achieved (with the emphasis on “might”, the preconditions seem highly unlikely to actually occur any time soon), with serious doses of political realism along the way.
The article, and a collection of responses, have been collected into an e-book are now available to download.
Well worth the read if you’re at all interested in the issue.
hear hear! Without having read it yet, it seems to me that you wouldn’t have to be a much more than ordinarily courageous politician in the UK or France to make that commitment, while the US surely could move in the near future towards only having a few hundred smaller, more accurate, smarter ones, allowing them to destroy China’s or Russia’s military, and not the entire planet? Is this really too much to ask for?
wilful: I wouldn’t assume that. French support for retaining their nuclear capability is, in the author of the article’s opinion, very strong.
I’d further suggest that there’s no way that either France or the UK are going to give up their deterrent while the other retains one.
Thanks Robert – I’ll have a read of this.
but the Circular Error Probability is already measured in 10′s of metres which is more than accurate enough for anything above 10kT yield or so.
I’ve seen various proposals come and go (particularly at http://www.thebulletin.org) but it seems that most of the major powers aren’t that keen on immediate reduction. Despite the success of START and other reduction treaties.
Wilful – dunno how you make a smarter nuke
As for reduced forces – China’s arsenal has always been small in comparison but has still been regarded by other governments as proper deterrent, as such what you propose makes a lot of sense.
Thanks Robert
This is an important issue. Worying that it pops up whenever there’s a serious incident (e.g. a Pakistan/India incident) then subsides within at most 29 hours. Nations need to take it as seriously as James Acton, Paul Keating et al
steveh, smarter in terms of not being interceptable. MIRVs and all that. Of course we’d all like to see eventual complete disarmament, but have to accept that that’s not going to happen with anything like current political climates.
I know very little about french politics, but the logic of them having their own deterrent escapes me as much as it does the UK having four trident armed subs (of which only one would hopefully be at sea at a ‘convenient’ time).
Wilful wrote:
Pigheaded post-colonial pride, most likely. Having entered the nuclear club early, neither wants to be the first to leave since they’ve both given up every other sign of empire and point of international prestige.
It’s the same reason the UK won’t ditch the sterling.
Furthermore, I’m not sure I’d feel particularly enthused about the prospect of the USA being the only western nation with nuclear weapons either.
what difference would it make? The US aren’t going to use the bomb on another NATO member, yet they’re ultimately not going to ask permission of anyone were they ever to use it.
I’m not worried about the US, it’s Pakistan, Iran and Israel that are the untrustworthy ones. I’m very glad the breakup of the USSR didn’t leave the bomb with all the crapistans.
wilful
That’s a good point. Let’s look at those states who HAVE actually given up the Bomb. I understand the list includes South Africa under Mandela, and (if stationing on your soil counts) Ukraine….
others?
New Zealand infamously would not allow USN ships to dock as long as the US refused to declare Bombs On Board.
As noted on an earlier discussion on this topic, I’m worried what certain former Warsaw Pact countries would think of the situation.
South Africa gave up the bomb before the ANC took power.
You can draw your own conclusions as to the motives.
You’re right about South Africa, Robert.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/index.html
Apologies for my mistake.
No apology required. It’s just a very interesting case to look at, as the only example of a state developing an indigenous nuclear weapons capability and then completely abandoning it.
The South African nuclear capability is interesting in the context of Israels. I wish I could work out exactly what France was up to when they gifted the Israelis the technical know-how (or what the US was up to – they must have known what was going on).
A completely speculative conclusion is that both Israel and SA were surrounded by communist leaning countries and the US sort of passively encouraged the acquisition of nukes by right leaning countries, not necessarily using the French as a direct proxy but by their inaction giving tacit approval.
That SA gave up their weapons probably has more to do with a loss of access to technical resources rather than anything else. Clearly Israel either no longer needs assistance or continues to get it, like their weapons, from their great and powerful friend. Even Obama doesn’t want to talk about it.
Coincidentally I just picked up “The Report from Iron Mountain”. It basically puts forward the same arguments the French do for keeping their nukes (except it was a satire).
No. 8 Wilful
Wilful, we do not have to worry about the responsible nuclear powers with mutually validated nuclear release systems and shared isotope registers (India and Israel fall into this group along with the usual nuclear powers). The ones that do not are the concern, NK, Iran, Pakistan, as are the ones wanting nukes (Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc etc).
And the problem does not entirely lie with nukes. The traditional powers (partially including Russia and China these days) have been able to dispose of advanced chemical and biological weapons by rating them as WMD. So to China, Britain, France, China, India, Israel and Russia, use of chemical or bio weapons is by mutual agreement categorised as indistinguishable from nuclear attack.
Disposing entirely of nukes is therefore a really bad idea – it risks re-invigoration of advanced Chem and Bio weapon programs.
As for the nuclear arsenals of the ‘crapistans’, the collapse of the USSR left them with thousands of nuclear weapons. IIRC Kazakhstan had over 5,000. The USA funded and led the push to locate, purchase and disassemble all of these to keep them out of terrorist/criminal hands. Their plutonium has been reprocessed and is still fuelling nuclear power plants in France, Germany, China, USA (not many), Canada (not many) and Japan.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL: Good point with regards to nuclear and biological weapons.
If you ever wondered just how effective these mega-billion dollar nuclear deterrents are, wonder no more
(via slashdot)
Nobody can remember how they were made in the first place. I wonder if they ever even worked.
MarkL, I don’t share your confidence about Israel, they have a very poor political climate, and this is all subordinate to politics. But, does Israel really have a “mutually validated nuclear release systems and shared isotope registers”? I thought they provided no comment on their capacities.
I also fail to follow the logic about disposing of nukes automatically leading to biological and chemical warfare advances. Removing nukes is a philosophical and political issue, not a technological or legalistic problem. Anyone wanting to get rid of nukes would presumably have the good sense to not divert their murderous intent into other, similar programs.
While pissant nuclear powers such as France and the UK refuse to disarm, there is no moral point they can make to discourage others from gaining the bomb. Note that I accept the realpolitik of the US not losing the bomb any time soon.
And yes I know how and why the ‘stans lost the bomb. A very good thing too, thank you President Clinton.
I imagine that they’re probably a little bit more forthcoming with the American government as to their nuclear deterrent, than they are with the general public.
cometh the hour, cometh the President