Disarming the Nuclear Argument E-Book

Timmon Milne Wallis

• Herausgeber: Luath Press
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 367

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

Nuclear weapons are too important to be left to politicians and generals. They need to be discussed in the pub, at the school gates and over the kitchen sink so that people are aware of the issues involved and have had the opportunity to think them through. TIMMON MILNE WALLIS How much do nuclear weapons actually cost? How safe are nuclear weapons, even if they are never used? Have nuclear weapons kept us safe since the end of World War II? Are nuclear weapons legal under International Law? The nine nuclear weapon states are extending their commitments to nuclear 'deterrence' well into the second half of this century, despite treaty obligations and an 'unequivocal undertaking' to disarm. The US alone is expecting to spend up to $1 trillion (ie. $1,000,000,000,000) upgrading its nuclear weapons over the next 30 years. With around 15,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled worldwide, the risk of one going off by accident or design is increasing every day. Timmon Milne Wallis explores the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons with a critical eye, cutting through the rhetoric and obfuscation to get to the real truth about these weapons.

Leseprobe

TIMMON MILNE WALLIS was born in Boston, Massachusetts and moved with his family to Moray Firth in Scotland. He did his ‘O’ grade and ‘Higher’ exams at Buckie High School and studied politics and international relations at the University of Aberdeen. He then discovered the peace studies course at Bradford University in West Yorkshire and ended up getting a PhD from there.

Timmon spent several years living at a peace camp and campaigning against the building of a nuclear cruise missile base at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, England. He then went on to be international secretary of Peace Brigades International (PBI), editor ofPeace Newsmagazine, director of the National Peace Council, founder and director of Peaceworkers UK, training manager for International Alert and executive director of Nonviolent Peaceforce. He also had a brief stint working for the Hollywood actor, Forest Whitaker, before returning to the UK in 2014 to work for Quaker Peace & Social Witness, where he is now job-sharing the position of Programme Manager for Peace and Disarmament.

Timmon has two grown daughters, who are both artists. When he is not writing or campaigning, he spends his time singing and performing his own peace and protest songs. He has written numerous articles on peace-related issues. His first book,Satyagraha, the Gandhian Approach to Nonviolent Social Change, was published by Pittenbruach Press in 1984.

Praise forThe Truth About Trident

I readThe Truth About Tridentrecently. It’s really excellent:well done! I’m about to plug it on Facebook. It’s so thorough(I learnt loads, despite knowing a fair bit already!), the structure is very helpful and accessible, and the writing is easy to follow despite some of the complex issues and points you explore.

OWEN EVERETT

I have foundThe Truth about Tridentto be excellent – a mixture of robust common sense and well-argued philosophical principles. I have recommended it to an anti-nuclear mailing list I am on in France.

MARC MORGAN

I feel that your book is an excellent piece of work and brilliant marshalling of all the facts. I am sure that had Theresa May read and absorbed it, she could not have given the debate the introduction she did.

DON SOUTHALL

The Truth About Tridentsets out a blow-by-blow detailed analysis… of Britain’s nuclear weapons’ system… Laid out in a reader-friendly way, the book steers us through key headings such as, What is Trident? What is Radiation? Have Nuclear Weapons kept the peace? Is Trident Affordable? But Wallis does sum up the conclusion of the book in the introduction. ‘What we are left with is a weapon system that is not powerful at all but is extremely dangerous.’

ELIZABETH INGRAMS,Peace News

With remarkable foresight, Timmon Wallis… had prepared comprehensive and powerful arguments against Trident – not just its replacement but against Trident as now – in his bookThe Truth About Trident: Disarming the Nuclear Argument…Twenty-one questions are addressed[on]topics such as deterrence, insurance, legality, independence, morality and so on… each question is, helpfully, stated early in the book and the issues addressed in more detail in specific chapters.

FRANK BOULTON,The Friend

Providing a comprehensive demolition of the case for Britain keeping nuclear weapons, this is a timely book from Timmon Milne Wallis. Methodically, he outlines the various arguments for and against and dismantles the claims of those who favour their renewal… Much of the detail provided by the author will surprise and alarm many… A must read.

PAUL DONOVAN,Morning Star

The author has done all of us who are working for a peaceful and nuclear weapons free world a great service with this book. I have not before come across such a comprehensive and easy to read critique of current nuclear weaponry and of the arguments usedby the nuclear weapon lobby… Anyone hesitant about writing letters to the press will find in this book all the information that they need about Trident and its planned replacement. I recommend it without hesitation.

BRUCE KENT,CNDCampaign magazine

Disarming theNuclear Argument

The Truth About Nuclear Weapons

DR TIMMON MILNE WALLIS

Luath Press Limited EDINBURGH www.luath.co.uk

First published 2017

(text revised and updated fromThe Truth About Trident:Disarming the Nuclear Argumentpublished by Luath Press in 2016)

in association with Quakers in Britain

ISBN: 978–1-912147-17-5 eISBN: 978-1-910324-97-4

The author’s right to be identified as author of this book under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has been asserted.

© Dr Timmon Milne Wallis 2017

Contents

List of Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author’s Preface

Introduction: Getting at the Truth

PART 1: THE BASICS

Chapter 1 What are Nuclear Weapons?

Chapter 2 What is Radiation?

Chapter 3 What is Deterrence?

Chapter 4 What is Mutually Assured Destruction?

PART 2: WE NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR OUR SECURITY

Chapter 5 Did Nuclear Weapons EndWWII?

Chapter 6 Have Nuclear Weapons ‘Kept the Peace’ Since 1945?

Chapter 7 Are Nuclear Weapons Keeping Us Safe Today?

Chapter 8 Do Nuclear Weapons Protect Us From Future Risks?

PART 3: WE NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD

Chapter 9 Do Nuclear Weapons Guarantee a Seat at the Top Table?

Chapter 10 Being a ‘Responsible’ Nuclear Weapons State

Chapter 11 The Special Case ofNATO

PART 4: NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE LEGAL, SAFE, AFFORDABLE

Chapter 12 Are Nuclear Weapons Legal?

Chapter 13 Are Nuclear Weapons Safe?

Chapter 14 Are Nuclear Weapons Affordable?

PART 5: WE ARE DOING ALL WE CAN TO DISARM

Chapter 15 Is There a Commitment to ‘Multilateral’ Disarmament?

Chapter 16 Haven’t We Already Disarmed to the Minimum?

Chapter 17 Would Disarmament Have Any Effect?

PART 6: THE BOMB IS HERE TO STAY

Chapter 18 ‘But You Can’t Uninvent the Bomb’

Chapter 19 Can Nuclear Weapons be Morally Acceptable?

Chapter 20 Do Nuclear Weapons Fit the World of Today?

PART 7: WRAPPING IT ALL UP

Chapter 21 The Truth About Nuclear Weapons

APPENDIX I

Treaty On The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

APPENDIX II

Summary of Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

APPENDIX III

Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

References

Quakers in Britain

This book is dedicated to all those nation-states taking part in UN negotiations to ban nuclear weapons worldwide. May your efforts help to move us towards a world free of all nuclear weapons…

List of Abbreviations

ABM:Anti-Ballistic Missiles

ABMT:Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

ACTS:Action of Churches Together in Scotland

AWE:Atomic Weapons Establishment

B61:Nuclear weapon dropped from planes and deployed in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Turkey

BAE: BAESystems, (formerly) British Aerospace

BAOR:British Army on the Rhine (Germany)

BBS:British Bombing Survey

CD:Conference on Disarmament

CND:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

CTBT:Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

D5:Trident missile used on vanguard and successor submarines

DFID:Department for International Development

DML:Devonport Management Ltd

DOD: USDepartment of Defence

FOI:Freedom of Information

FMCT:Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty

G8:Group of eight largest global economies –US, Canada,UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany

GDP:Gross Domestic Product

GPS:Global Positioning System

HMNB:Her Majesty’s Naval Base

IAEA:International Atomic Energy Agency

ICBM:Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

ICC:International Criminal Court

ICJ:International Court of Justice (World Court)

IISS:International Institute of Strategic Studies

IMF:International Monetary Fund

INF:Intermediate Nuclear Forces

ISIS:Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as Isil,IS, Daesh

KT:Kilotonne, or1,000tonnes ofTNTequivalent

MAD:Mutually Assured Destruction

MDA:Mutual Defence Agreement

MIRV:Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicle

MOD:Ministry of Defence

MORI:IpsosMORI, a market research organisation in theUK.

MP:Member of Parliament

MSP:Member of Scottish Parliament

MT:Megatonne, or one million tonnes,1,000KT, ofTNTequivalent

NATO:North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

NDA:Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

NFZ:Nuclear Free Zone

NGO:Non-Governmental Organisation

NNWS:Non-Nuclear Weapon State

NPG:Nuclear Planning Group

NPT:Non-Proliferation Treaty

NSS/SDSR:National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review

NWS:Nuclear Weapons State

OECD:Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

OEWG:Open-Ended Working Group of theUNGeneral Assembly

OSCE:Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe

P5:Permanent five members of theUNSecurity Council

PRIO:Peace Research Institute Oslo

PSA:Polaris Sales Agreement

PSI:Pounds Per Square Inch

PTBT:Partial Test Ban Treaty

RAF:Royal Air Force

RN:Royal Navy

RNAD:Royal Navy Arms Depot

RV:Re-entry vehicle on a nuclear missile

SDP:Social Democratic Party, later merged with Liberal Party to become Liberal Democrats

SNP:Scottish National Party

SIPRI:Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

SSBN:Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarine

START:Strategic Arms Reduction Talks

STUC:Scottish Trades Union Congress

TNT:Trinitrotoluene, a standard explosive

UNESCO: UNEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNGA: UNGeneral Assembly

UNSC: UNSecurity Council

USSR:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

USSBS: USStrategic Bombing Survey

VSE:Vickers Submarine Engineering Ltd.

W177: UK-made nuclear weapon

W76: US-made nuclear warhead used on Trident Missile

WMD:Weapons of Mass Destruction

WTO:World Trade Organisation

WWI:World WarI

WWII:World WarII

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the following experts and advisors, without whom this book could not have been written: John Ainslie, Martin Birdseye, Frank Boulton, Elizabeth Chappell, Janet Fenton, Steve Hucklesby, Paul Ingram, Bruce Kent, David Lowry, Steven Schofield, Rae Street, Jane Tallent and Phil Webber. As author, I of course take full responsibility for any remaining errors or omissions in the text. Thanks also go to Nora Catlin, Haifa Rashed and Holly Wallis for typing up drafts, and to Ellis Brooks, Izzy Cartwright, Stephen Clement, Roslyn Cook, Helen Drewery, Naomi Engelkamp, James Grant, Claire Poyner, Andrew Rigby, Chris Venables, Emily Wallis and colleagues at the Norges Fredsrad for reading and commenting on earlier drafts, and to Gavin MacDougall, Marigold Bentley, Juliette King, Teddy Milne, Louise Dickie and Lotte Mitchell Reford for getting the book into final shape for publishing.

Author’s Preface

YOU HAVEin your hands the ‘international edition’ of a book published originally for aUKaudience under the title,The Truth About Trident: Disarming the Nuclear Argument. Trident is theUK’s (only) nuclear weapon system, and it was of great concern to me that the arguments in favour of retaining, and then upgrading, theUK’s Trident system were rarely challenged, or even questioned, by Members of Parliament, the mass media or the general public.

The Truth About Tridentwas an attempt to look in detail at each and every argument in favour of maintaining theUK’s Trident system in order to understand a) what these arguments are really saying; b) on what basis these arguments are made and why people believe them; c) how well they stand up to the historical evidence and the tests of logic; and finally d) whether we are able to reach anything remotely resembling the ‘truth’ of the matter.

I was prepared for the likelihood that most of these arguments would be found wanting, but that at least some of them would stand their ground as sensible, rational reasons for having nuclear weapons. I thought that, on balance, I would be able to make the case that the arguments against Trident slightly outweighed the arguments in its favour. As I wrote in the preface to theUKbook, I was rather surprised to find thatnoneof the arguments used to justify the Trident system were able to withstand even the most basic scrutiny.

The truth, as I found it, is that nuclear weapons may be the most powerful weapons ever invented, but the arguments in favour of having them are exceedingly weak. It therefore takes relatively little effort to effectively disarm whatever force those arguments may have been thought to have. If only the pride and machismo that underlie these arguments could be so easily disarmed, the world would be free of them by now.

While there are some unique features about theUK’s nuclear weapons and theUK’s circumstances in the world, the arguments made in favour of nuclear weapons in theUKare not substantially different from the arguments being used in theUS, in France, or in the other countries which supposedly rely on theUSnuclear ‘umbrella’, such as Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and the many European members ofNATO.

In Russia and China there is less open debate about nuclear weapons, but it is unlikely that where the arguments are made, they are substantially different to what are presented here. The situation is not dissimilar in India and Pakistan.

Israel is a special case because its government does not publicly admit tohavingany nuclear weapons, even though the rest of the world believes they do. Apart from anything else, this at least means the government of Israel is under no obligation to explain or justify why they have them. Nevertheless it is difficult to believe that Israelis would use arguments any different to the ones used here to justify their possession of nuclear weapons if or when they were called to do so.

And then we come to North Korea. North Korea’s original reasons for wanting to develop nuclear weapons are complex (see chapter 7). Among the nine current nuclear weapons states, they are the most likely to be attacked by another nuclear weapons state (ie theUSA). And yet, their reasons for developing nuclear weapons are exactly the same as those which have motivated theUSgovernment to develop them. So while we may be a long way away from any kind of public discussion about nuclear weapons in North Korea, the reasoning in this book still applies.

This book, while drawing heavily on theUKversion, attempts to bring in some of the differences and nuances to the arguments that apply to some of these other countries. TheUS, in particular, has a much more entrenched commitment to nuclear weapons than probably any other country. As the first country to develop nuclear weapons, the only country to have ever used them in war, and the initiator of more or less every technical advancement in the field of nuclear weaponry since then, theUSis clearly in the lead when it comes to justifying why it must have these weapons.

At the same time, theUSis the most open about its nuclear weapon programme. Of all the nuclear weapons states, we know the most about what goes on in theUS. Indeed, most of what we know about theUK’s nuclear weapons programme comes not from theUKgovernment but from documents freely available in theUSor obtained through Freedom of Information requests in theUS.

It is therefore in the United States more than anywhere else that a thorough and proper public debate about nuclear weapons is both needed and possible. My only hope is that this book can make a small contribution to that debate, and that the people of the United States, along with the people of many other countries, will ‘arm’ themselves with the information and the arguments needed to disarm the nuclear argument and rid the world of nuclear weapons.

INTRODUCTION

Getting at the Truth

ANY BOOK WITHthe word ‘truth’ in its subtitle is bound to attract a certain amount of scepticism if not downright ridicule. The idea that there is a single, knowable ‘truth’ about anything is rightly to be questioned. Even if such a concept exists in any objective sense, perhaps we are each bound by our own set of circumstances to see only our own truth and to claim anything beyond that as a delusion.

And yet, the reality is that none of us would be able to go about our daily lives without some concept of truth as a reference point. Being able to distinguish truth from lies, facts from opinions, evidence from hearsay is part of what makes us human. We all need to be able to establish for ourselves what is true and what is not.

Every witness in a court of law promises to tell ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ before giving their testimony. That is a very exacting bar to meet, but if you are caught lying in court, you will go to prison for it. This book attempts to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – as best we are able to ascertain it – about nuclear weapons. It is a tall order, and not without its challenges.

The nuclear secret

For a start, we are faced immediately with the difficulty that what we are talking about is, at its core, a secret. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg wereUScitizens found guilty of passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, given the death sentence, and executed by electric chair in1953. Today, vastly more information about the design and construction of nuclear weapons than was available to the Rosenbergs is freely available on the internet and accessible to anyone in the world. Yet the nuclear weapons states(NWSs)remain highly secretive about key aspects of their nuclear weapons programmes.

This is not just because these are horrifically dangerous weapons that governments don’t want falling into the ‘wrong hands’. It is also because, as we shall see, the whole doctrine of nuclear deterrence depends upon convincing a potential opponent that a government with nuclear weapons is deadly serious about this business. Deterrence is all about presentation and perceptions rather than about the reality that may lie beneath these.

It is preciselybecausethese are such horrifically dangerous weapons and because governments are deadly serious about them that there also needs to be much more public discussion about nuclear weapons than there is. We need to know why we have these weapons, under what conditions would they ever be used, what would be the impact of their use, how safe are they in the meantime, are they really necessary, can we afford them, are there better alternatives? These are right and proper questions which ought to be discussed openly and publicly in any country relying on such weapons. And in order to discuss these questions, we need to know a certain amount about the subject matter.

The approach of this book

This book attempts to dig out the truth about nuclear weapons by examining the argumentsfornuclear weapons and putting those to the test. Do these arguments hold up under scrutiny? What assumptions are being made and are these justified? What are the facts as best we know them and where are they coming from? What is the logic of the argument and is it valid and reasonable?

This book looks at20key arguments that are regularly used to present the case in favour of nuclear weapons. In each case, the argument in favour is explained, along with the assumptions and logic behind it. The arguments are then unpicked and examined in more detail, revealing in most cases cracks in the logic, gaps in the evidence and inherent contradictions in what is being asserted. This analysis then forms the basis for summarising the argumentagainstnuclear weapons in each case. The arguments in favour of nuclear weapons are given a fair and sympathetic hearing. But this is not a book aiming to present a ‘balanced’ view, in which each side of the argument is given equal weight and neither turns out to be more ‘right’ than the other. This is a book about the truth of the matter and trying to seek out and determine what that is.

It will become obvious to the reader, if it is not already, that this book comes down clearly opposed to nuclear weapons. Whether this is justified on the basis of the arguments and the evidence presented is up to the reader to judge. What most people hear, however, are the pro-nuclear weapons arguments. These are presented to us every day by politicians of major political parties, the vast majority of journalists and broadcasters, academics, think tank experts, admirals and generals, business leaders, trade unionists, teachers and parents. It is hard to imagine another issue of such importance that is presented in such a one-sided, unbalanced way. This book is one small attempt to redress that balance.

Who this book is for

This book is intended for the general reader who may know little about the subject beyond what they hear on the news. It is also for those who have followed this issue closely over the years, but may now wish to refresh their memories in order to more confidently join in the current discussions. While covering in some detail the20arguments for and against nuclear weapons, this book does not need to be read from cover to cover. Some may want to dip into chapters that are particularly relevant to them or to the discussion at hand. Others may want to review the different arguments for and against nuclear weapons by looking at the beginnings and/or endings of each chapter.

The aim of the book is to get beyond the soundbites, headlines and slogans that tend to dominate the debate about nuclear weapons. The issues are complex and nuanced. They require more thought and attention than they are normally given. But for people who have neither the time nor the patience to read through a full-length book, there are plenty of short-cuts at hand.

Structure of the book

This book is divided into seven parts. Before looking at the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons, the four chapters in part one summarise what it is we are talking about. What are nuclear weapons (Chapter1)? What is the fundamental difference between anuclearweapon and any other kind of weapon (Chapter2)? What is meant by ‘deterrence’ (Chapter3)? And what does nuclear deterrence mean when other countriesalsohave nuclear weapons (Chapter4)? Following on from this introductory section, the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons are grouped into five parts (and then there is a concluding part at the end).

Part two looks at the arguments that centre around the claim that we need nuclear weapons for our security. Did nuclear weapons endWWII(Chapter5)? Have they ‘kept the peace’ since1945(Chapter6)? Are nuclear weapons protecting us here and now (Chapter7)? And are they needed to protect us from future risks (Chapter8)?

Part three looks at the arguments which focus on the nuclear weapons states themselves and their ‘place in the world’. Do nuclear weapons guarantee a seat at the ‘top table’ of world affairs (Chapter9)? What does it mean to be a ‘responsible nuclear weapons state’ (Chapter10)? Does theUS(or theUK) need nuclear weapons to fulfil their obligations to the rest ofNATO(Chapter11)?

Part four looks at the arguments relating to nuclear weapons in terms of some more basic practicalities. Are they legal (Chapter12)? Are they safe, even if never used (Chapter13)? Are they affordable and what are the opportunity costs of maintaining nuclear arsenals today (Chapter14)?

Part five then addresses the arguments that claim the states which have nuclear weapons are doing all they can to disarm. How committed are they to ‘multilateral’ disarmament (Chapter15)? Have they already disarmed as much as they can (Chapter16)? And even if we got rid of nuclear weapons, would it have any effect on other countries acquiring them (Chapter17)?

And finally, in part six, we address the set of arguments that say you can’t ‘disinvent’ the bomb, so we need to learn to live with it, however awful that may be (Chapter18). This includes the moral arguments (Chapter19) and the claim that opposing nuclear weapons is not living in the ‘real world’ (Chapter20).

In brief, the main arguments for and against nuclear weapons and the chapters in which they are covered are as follows:

The main arguments made for and against nuclear weapons:

Chapters1and2

FOR:The awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons is what makes them effective as a deterrent.

AGAINST:They are Weapons of Mass Destruction with unacceptable humanitarian consequences.

Chapters3and4

FOR:They are a deterrent and will never be used as a weapon. Having them prevents others using them.

AGAINST:A deterrent is a weapon that will sooner or later be used as a weapon.

Chapter5

FOR:Nuclear weapons forced Japan to surrender and endedWW11, saving lives as a result.

AGAINST:The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary and unjustified.

Chapter6

FOR:Nuclear weapons have kept the peace since1945and preventedWWIII.

AGAINST:There is no hard evidence that they have ever ‘worked’ as a deterrent.

Chapter7

FOR:Nuclear weapons are essential to national security in the21st century.

AGAINST:Nuclear weapons serve no military purpose and do not defend us from21st century threats.

Chapter8

FOR:Nuclear weapons are an insurance policy against future unknown risks.

AGAINST:Nuclear weapons will be increasingly vulnerable and only make the world less safe.

Chapter9

FOR:Nuclear weapon gives theNWSSa seat at the top table and status in the world.

AGAINST:The major powers do not need nuclear weapons to be key players in the world and would be more respected if they gave them up.

Chapter10

FOR:Being a ‘responsible’NWSmeans making sure that nuclear weapons cannot get into the ‘wrong hands’ or be used except as the ultimate ‘deterrent’.

AGAINST:There is no such thing as a ‘responsible’NWS. Possessing these weapons is the height of irresponsibility.

Chapter11

FOR:We have a duty to share the nuclear burden and to protect other countries inNATO.

AGAINST: USnuclear weapons do not protectNATOcountries either.NATOnuclear policy makes the world less safe.

Chapter12

FOR:TheNWSs can maintain nuclear arsenals without reneging on international commitments.

AGAINST:Nuclear weapons are illegal under international law and maintaining them indefinitely violatesNPTobligations.

Chapter13

FOR:Nuclear weapons are kept safe and out of harm’s way with little risk.

AGAINST:There is a large and increasing risk of accident, miscalculation or unauthorised use.

Chapter14

FOR:The costs are affordable and justified, and do not adversely affect other government spending.

AGAINST:The costs are huge and take funds away from other much-needed government programmes.

Chapter15

FOR:TheNWSs are committed to a multilateral approach to nuclear disarmament.

AGAINST:TheNWSs continue to block multilateral disarmament because they are not really serious about it.

Chapter16

FOR:TheNWSs have already disarmed to the barest minimum needed for deterrence.

AGAINST:TheNWSs have removed obsolete weapons but continue to upgrade their nuclear capabilities.

Chapter17

FOR:There’s no point in theNWSs disarming further because it will have no effect on other states.

AGAINST:If any one of theNWSs took a lead it could break the deadlock on disarmament and speed up the process towards elimination.

Chapter18

FOR:Nuclear weapons are here to stay and they cannot be ‘uninvented’.

AGAINST:Eliminating nuclear weapons is doable and there is no need to hold onto things that are no longer needed.

Chapter19

FOR:Nuclear weapons prevent war, which is a greater evil, so they are morally justified.

AGAINST:Nuclear weapons are morally indefensible.

Chapter20

FOR:Nuclear weapons are part of the real world and those who think otherwise are living in cloud cuckoo land.

AGAINST:The real world is one in which the majority of countries oppose nuclear weapons. No country can be secure unless all are secure.

Each chapter investigates these issues in detail and at the end of each chapter is a summary of the conclusions reached. At the end of the book is a summary of all the chapters (Chapter21). For anyone looking for even more information, there is a detailed bibliography of relevant books and other materials, including websites with vast amounts of relevant information. These can be accessed through the dedicated website for this book:

www.disarmingarguments.com.

PART ONE

The Basics

CHAPTER 1

What are Nuclear Weapons?

NUCLEAR WEAPONSuse the physics of ‘fissile materials’1to create a very large explosion. The smallest possible nuclear explosion is similar in size to some of the largest possible conventional (ie non-nuclear) explosions,2but most nuclear weapons involve explosions many thousands or even millions of times larger than that.3As with any large explosion, the heat and blast effects kill and injure people, topple buildings and cause other widespread destruction. Unlike any other type of explosion, however, nuclear weapons also release radiation, which is uniquely harmful to humans in a range of different ways (see chapter 2).

The early ‘atom bomb’ was based on nuclear fission – splitting the atoms of uranium or plutonium in a chain reaction that rapidly creates temperatures hotter than the interior of the sun. At those massively high temperatures, other elements can also break apart to ‘boost’ the fission process and atoms of hydrogen can fuse together to create helium, causing an even larger explosion. This is where the term ‘hydrogen bomb’ came from, although the latter process is called nuclear fusion.

Today, most nuclear weapons incorporate all three stages into a single weapon: a fission bomb is detonated first, to create the temperatures needed for fusion, a neutron ‘booster’ then multiplies the impact of the fission process, and finally a fusion bomb is exploded, using hydrogen to create the maximum blast for the minimum quantity of fissile material.

When we talk about nuclear weapons we are mainly talking about the nuclear warhead, where the explosion takes place. To be used as a weapon, the warhead must be made into a free-fall bomb or put onto a missile so it can reach its target. Bombs and missiles also require some form of platform, or ‘delivery vehicle’, to launch the weapon. Delivery vehicles include aircraft, submarines, missile silos, mobile missile launchers and other delivery systems.

Nuclear weapons have been produced in all shapes and sizes since 1945. The smallest nuclear weapons ever deployed had a destructive capacity equivalent to around 10 tonnes ofTNT, or 0.01 Kilotons (0.01KT). The largest nuclear weapons ever deployed were in the 20–25MT(25,000KT) range. Most nuclear weapons today are between 100–1,000KT(or 0.1 – 1MT) in size.

Nuclear weapons capable of reaching targets many thousands of miles away are considered ‘strategic’ weapons. These are delivered by long-range bomber aircraft, ballistic missile submarines or inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Nuclear weapons with a shorter range, measured in hundreds rather than thousands of miles, are considered ‘intermediate’ nuclear forces, and normally these are defined in terms of the shorter range of bomber aircraft or missiles.

Nuclear weapons with a very short range, measured in miles or tens of miles, are considered ‘battlefield’ or tactical nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, tens of thousands of battlefield nuclear weapons were facing each other in Central Europe. These included nuclear weapons fired from artillery pieces, dropped from helicopters, fired from trucks and jeeps, dropped as depth charges from ships, fired from torpedo tubes and even nuclear weapons designed to be carried into battle strapped onto the backs of soldiers and then detonated from a distance.

Who has nuclear weapons?

As of mid-2017, only nine states are producing and deploying their own nuclear weapons: The United States, Russia, China,UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. South Africa developed and tested a nuclear weapon but then gave up its nuclear programme. Eleven other countries toyed with the idea of developing their own nuclear weapons and gave up their programmes before actually testing a nuclear device.4At least 37 other countries are considered economically and technically capable of producing nuclear weapons if they chose to do so.

According to theUSBureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, reporting in April 2017 under the terms of the NewSTART Treaty,5theUScurrently has a total of 1,411 deployed nuclear warheads on 673 delivery vehicles and Russia has 1,765 deployed nuclear warheads on 523 delivery vehicles. These numbers do not include nuclear warheads which are considered ‘stockpiled’ or ‘retired’. Both countries have approximately 4,000 warheads in the first category and 2,500 in the second category, bringing the total warhead count up to around 7,000 nuclear warheads each.6

TheUKclaims to have 120 warheads operationally deployed on its Trident submarines, with another 95 ‘stockpiled’, for a total of 215. France and China both have close to 300 warheads in total. France is considered to have nearly all its warheads ‘deployed’ while China is not considered to haveanyof its warheads deployed.7India and Pakistan currently have between 100–150 each, although again these are not considered to be deployed. Israel is believed to have around 80 nuclear warheads and North Korea around eight.

That makes for a grand total of just under 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world as of early 2017, of which around 4,000 are ‘operationally deployed’. Many of these are, in turn, on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment’s notice.

At the height of the Cold War in the mid-1980s, there were more than 60,000 nuclear warheads in the world. More than 45,000 nuclear warheads have been successfully taken out of service and dismantled since then, meaning a reduction by three-quarters in the total number of nuclear weapons.

Virtually all of the largest nuclear weapons in the multi-megaton range have been removed since the height of the Cold War. Ironically, perhaps, so have most of the smallest nuclear weapons in the 1–10 Kiloton range and smaller. Currently, the smallest nuclear warhead in theUSarsenal is in the 50 Kiloton range and the largest is in the 455 Kiloton range. While it is difficult to know for sure, the largest nuclear weapon currently deployed by Russia is probably in the 1,000 Kiloton range (1MT) and the smallest is probably in the 10 Kiloton range.

TheUKhas only one type of warhead, and that is believed to be in the 100 Kiloton range, although they have at times claimed to also have a smaller yield option. All of France’s nuclear warheads are now in the 150–300KTrange, while China is believed to still have nuclear weapons in the 3,000–4,000KT(3–4MT) range, as well as weapons as small as 20KT.

The impact of a nuclear detonation

The Hiroshima bomb was estimated to be in the range of12,000–18,000tonnes ofTNT(12–18KT), or roughly1,000times as powerful as the largest conventional bomb in theUSarsenal today.8The total number killed by the Hiroshima bomb is not known. The original estimate of68,000dead and a similar number injured was based on a random survey of households in1946. However this did not take into account up to20,000Korean prisoners of war and an unknown number of refugees from other Japanese cities known to be in the city at that time.

Many of those who were injured by the Hiroshima blast died subsequently from radiation sickness and fatal injuries, in part because medical facilities were destroyed and very little was known about the dangers of radiation poisoning. It is difficult to know how many of the subsequent deaths in Hiroshima should be attributed to the atomic bomb as opposed to other causes. Most sources now use the figure of140,000as the total number killed by the Hiroshima bomb, although the city of Hiroshima maintains an official register of deaths from the atomic bomb right up to the present day, and that register now has more than200,000names.9

The atom bomb which was dropped on Nagasaki was of a different design and estimated to be slightly more powerful at20 KT. The total death count was initially estimated at60,000, or slightly less than at Hiroshima. A much larger number were injured but more of these people survived than in Hiroshima. Other differences between the death tolls in the two cities had to do with weather conditions, terrain, the type of buildings, the population density of the city and where the bomb was dropped in relation to where people were at the time.

A modern nuclear warhead with a yield of100KTis6.6times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. The scale of the destruction and the number of people who would be killed or injured from such an explosion is difficult to determine and depends on many factors, including those just mentioned above. There is not a linear relationship between the size of a nuclear explosion and the numbers killed or area destroyed. The biggest factor has to do with whether the bomb is detonated at, or near, the ground or higher up in the atmosphere (see next chapter). Nevertheless, based on what we know about Hiroshima, it is clear that the effects of a single nuclear weapon today, detonated on, or above a city, would be devastating.

The nuclear fireball

The detonation of a nuclear weapon creates a massive fireball as the nuclear chain reaction, or ‘fission’, breaks down the atoms of uranium and/or plutonium that are the initial fuel of the bomb. The temperature inside this fireball rises to tens of millions of degrees Centigrade. This is hotter than the interior of the sun and thousands of times hotter than a conventional explosion.10Inside the fireball, these temperatures trigger the thermonuclear ‘fusion’ reaction that creates even more destructive energy as atoms of hydrogen are fused into helium and other by-products. The fireball of a100KTwarhead is a sphere approximately500metres (1,500ft) across in all directions.

If the fireball is500metres across and the centre of it is more than250metres above the ground, this is called an ‘airburst’. With the whole of the fireball in the air, very little else is consumed by the fireball other than the nuclear fuels contained in the bomb and small quantities of oxygen and other gases in the air. If the fireball is detonated below this height, this is considered a ‘groundburst’. Everything within that sphere is then turned into radioactive by-products as a result of the explosion, and this is a critical factor which we shall explore in greater detail in the next chapter.

From a basic airburst explosion, already more than300different radio­active isotopes are created from the exploding uranium and/or plutonium.11Many more varieties of radioactive material may be additionally created from a groundburst explosion, depending on what was on the ground at that precise time and place. If the target of a groundburst explosion was a nuclear missile silo, nuclear weapons store or other nuclear facility, any nuclear warheads or other nuclear materials – as well as living creatures – that end up within reach of the fireball are themselves going to be irradiated and added to the total fireball and subsequent release of radioactive by-products.

Heat and blast effects

Conventional explosives cause death, injuries and destruction of property from the heat and blast of the explosion. This rips through buildings, sets fire to anything that burns and throws shrapnel, bits of building and other debris through the air, all of which is highly dangerous to anything or anybody that may be nearby. A nuclear explosion causes all these same effects, in addition to the unique effects of radiation, which are discussed in the next chapter.

At a distance of4km from a100KTnuclear explosion, temperatures are still hot enough to set papers and other flammable materials alight.12Therefore fires are an enormous hazard in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion even at great distances from ground zero. In Hiroshima, the entire city centre was burnt to the ground and many of the injuries suffered by the inhabitants were the result of burns.

Blast is normally measured in pounds per square inch (psi) of ‘over­pressure.’13Ten psi of overpressure is enough to damage lungs and cause widespread fatalities and20psi is enough to pull down a heavily reinforced concrete building.14Near the nuclear fireball, the shock wave which is created by the explosion reaches200psi of overpressure, with winds of more than2,000mph, enough to flatten and kill anything, even the most heavily reinforced concrete bunker.15At1km (0.6miles) from a100KTblast, the overpressure is20psi, which is lethal for human beings and still capable of considerable damage to buildings. At2km, the overpressure still reaches5psi, with windspeeds over100mph and up to50per cent fatalities.16

Nuclear winter and nuclear famine

Another product of a nuclear explosion is the dust and soot that rises up as a result of fires and the intense heat created. Most atmospheric tests took place on Pacific islands, barren atolls or in the deserts of westernUS, central Australia or Siberia. Under these conditions, even groundburst explosions would not be expected to cause major fires and therefore the soot content has been minimal. If a nuclear explosion took place over dense forest or a densely populated city, however, fires could be expected to burn out of control for some days over a large area. This happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as in places like Dresden and Tokyo where conventional explosives were used in huge quantities to create ‘firestorms’.

During the1980s there was concern that an all-out nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the West could push so much soot into the atmosphere that it would lead to a ‘nuclear winter’ – a lowering of global temperatures, causing widespread famine, disease and death of large numbers of people not already killed by the nuclear weapons themselves or the after-effects of radiation.

TheUSand Russia each had an estimated2,500MTworth ofTNTin their nuclear arsenals at that time and climate scientists calculated that an all-out nuclear war would therefore put about150million tonnes of soot into the atmosphere. Using complex computer modelling of the earth’s climate, they estimated that that much soot could lower the earth’s average temperature by as much as8.5degrees C and reduce annual rainfall globally by as much as1.4mm. This in turn would reduce growing seasons world­wide and mean that some key grain-producing regions like Iowa and Ukraine would remain below freezing even in the height of summer and thus unable to grow anything for up to two years.17

Using the same modelling techniques, scientists then tried in the1990s to estimate the climatic effects of just100Hiroshima-sized bombs, for instance in a regional war between India and Pakistan.

Given the population densities in those two countries and the vulnera­bility of crops to radiation damage, it was concluded that even a ‘small-scale’ nuclear war in that region would have hugely devastating consequences for all the countries across the whole Northern Hemisphere and could lead to the death of over two billion people.18

Further studies have looked at the effects of ‘limited’ forms of nuclear warfare, for instance the launching of nuclear weapons from a singleUKTrident submarine. Dr Philip Webber, chair of Scientists for Global Responsibility, has estimated that the simultaneous detonation of4mega­tonnes ofTNT, roughly the total firepower of oneUKTrident submarine, could produce between10and38million tonnes of soot, sufficient to cause a cooling of the earth by1.5–3degrees C and a shortening of growing seasons by10–30days over a five-year period.19

How this might affect global food supplies is hard to estimate, but the implications are clear. Even a comparatively ‘limited’ nuclear war could cause devastating and long-lasting climactic effects, while a major all-out nuclear war would endanger the entire planet.

Targeting nuclear weapons

At the end ofWWII, theUSwas the only country with nuclear weapons. Although there was talk of getting rid of them at that point, the