New rise of nuclear threat
It’s now 80 years since the nuclear bombings of the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nuclear era begun, and since then, the world has lived under nuclear threat. The size of the threat has varied but never vanished totally. First only one country had nuclear weapons, then two, and soon there were five nuclear armed states. 1970 the world decided to limit the proliferation and aimed for disarmament. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, acknowledged the nuclear arsenals of the US, Soviet Union, China, Britain and France. After NPT still four new countries obtained nuclear weapons.
During the cold war the number of nuclear warheads reached over 60 000. There were several severe crises, e.g. the Cuban missile crises and events in Berlin after the wall had been built. Nuclear war was near to breaking out.
At that time all world leaders were aware of the possible consequences of nuclear war and the risks it included. The concept of mutual assured destruction, MAD, was clear to everyone. Also the first scientific models of nuclear winter were launched in the beginning of the 80’s.
Then in the end of 80’s nuclear disarmament proceeded rapidly with agreements between presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, and after the collapse of Soviet Union and the Berlin wall we all thought the nuclear threat was over. We could begin to work with other existential threats like poverty, global inequality, environmental disasters and global warming. It looked like the world based on rules and agreements would work and conflicts could be solved peacefully.
But this was not to be. Both India and Pakistan tested and built their own nuclear weapons, and after the Gulf war North Korea estimated that the bomb would be the only way to prevent US invasion. Israel had had the bomb since the 60’s, although they never officially admit it.
And in the 2000’s Russia became increasingly aggressive and imperialistic first in Central Asia and then in Ukraine. Especially the attack on Ukraine has induced several threats to use nuclear weapons, if Nato would intervene. Thus, nuclear weapons have not been a tool to prevent war (as those believing in deterrence claim it would do), but their existence has enabled the Russian invasion.
Nuclear disarmament has not proceeded in decades, and currently most nuclear arms states are increasing and modernising their nuclear arsenals – making them more accurate and more difficult to be warded off successfully.
Meanwhile the talk of nuclear weapons has become more careless. There have been open threats to use them as just exceptionally big bombs you could use in a battlefield. Before the Israeli and US attack to Iran’s nuclear facilities there was talk in Israel (e.g articles in newspapers) of using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme.
It looks like the present world leaders are not aware of the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear war. There is too much faith in the ability to avoid or limit a nuclear war in case of a military conflict.
Deterrence – the idea of nobody using nuclear weapons because it would cause a counterattack and self-destruction – is a very delicate and dangerous construction, which can easily fail. It is based on the belief, that leaders are rational (just look at the current leaders) and can calculate the risks reasonably, are will always be well informed and would not take unnecessary risk. But one day a leader under a pressure and haste can assess the situation incorrectly, and a bluff can go fatally wrong.
Also, a technical error can lead to a nuclear war. We know of numerous occasions where an erroneous computer programme or incorrect radar interpretation has caused an alarm of a coming nuclear attack. Only good luck and sensible officers have savesdus from a nuclear Armageddon. But as the UN secretary General Antonio Guterres has said, luck is not a strategy.
And now these hypocrite nuclear states, Israel and US have unlawfully bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities to stop Iran’s nuclear program. And Finland among many other countries think this was ok. There are clear double standards towards Israel and other countries. It’s very difficult to see how this helps to prevent Iran’s ambition to build a nuclear bomb.
And if Iran will build a bomb, then probably Saudi Arabia and Egypt might want to follow, maybe also South Korea an even Japan. And meanwhile there has been suggestions of a Eurobomb – a common nuclear weapon for European countries in order to have nuclear deterrent independently regardless of what the US will do.
All this could endanger the whole “nuclear regime” which is mainly based on the NPT which has been able to restrict the number of nuclear weapons states, even if we have now 5 + 4 of them. The more countries obtain nuclear weapons, the more probable a nuclear war would be.
So, what can we do?
It’s very important to point out clearly the fallacy of nuclear deterrence. We need disarmament. We need strengthening of the ‘‘international rule-based order¨, diplomacy and peaceful means to solve conflicts. All this needs both governments and civil society. This is the legacy of the Helsinki OSCE meeting.
My organisation, IPPNW, has for 45 years warned about the humanitarian impact of nuclear war. Every leader should be aware of what really would happen if nuclear weapons were used. The whole existence of our civilisation and even the survival of our species is at stake.
Last November the UN general assembly decided to make a report of the consequences of nuclear war. And IPPNW has now for a year worked in the WHO to get them to renew their report of the impacts of nuclear war on health and health services. The previous report is from the 80’s, so it undeniably needs updating. Marshall Islands and other Pacific states and many other countries have been the official sponsors, and we got strong support from the international Red Cross and World Medical association. Two months ago, this May the WHO decided to make such a report.
What was too bad is that many NATO countries voted against this resolution, and Finland among some others abstained. A Finnish diplomat explained that basically they have nothing against WHO doing such a report, but they thought that motives for the resolution were political and thus “wrong”. He believed our motive for the resolution was to gather information of the impacts of nuclear war to get the International Court of Justice to decide it would be against International Law and Humanitarian Law to use nuclear weapons. What a splendid idea, and this is what we tried in the 90’s. We have always thought nuclear weapons to be not only immoral but also illegal.
So, for us the main strategy in opposing nuclear weapons is to show unequivocally the catastrophic consequences of any use of nuclear weapons so that both decision makers and the wider audience would understand this..
The fact that nuclear weapons states and NATO are afraid of this information shows we are on the right track.
We must eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us
Comments
Post a Comment