it presents basic concepts on arms control and disarmament

1. Arms and
Disarmament

2.  The conventional logic underpinning normal practices of
states – and of non-state forces resorting to use of force
to achieve political aims
 Peace is not always good, war is not always bad
 “Just war” and “unjust peace”
 Weapons are neutral, what matters is who uses them
and for what purpose
 You can’t obtain and secure peace and justice without
resort to violence as the final argument
 Use of force in politics will always be with us
 The best we can do is limit it

4.  The antimilitarist position:
The destructiveness of modern warfare
 Weapons of mass destruction
 In wars, most casualties are now civilian
Use of force – both by states and by non-state forces - is
often politically counterproductive
 If we address root causes of conflict and work for just
solutions by political means, weapons may not have to
be used
 Peace works - if it is based on justice

5.  To make the world more peaceful, it is necessary to
change the existing social conditions which breed conflict
and violence
 How to change it? Various proposed solutions:
 Facilitate replacement of authoritarian regimes by
democracies
 Promote social and economic development to eliminate
poverty and suffering
 Strive for equality and social justice
 Replace capitalism with some form of socialism

6.  While recognizing the need to address the root causes of
conflict, antimilitarism focuses on the means of political
struggle
 Arms buildups themselves make war more likely
 Military budgets are a burden on the economy
 The incidence of warfare can be reduced if states cut their
armaments to a minimum

7.  The idea of disarmament
 Traditional: compelling a defeated state to disarm
 In the 20th century: a new international practice - mutual
arms control and disarmament by international treaties
 Natural reaction to the Era of Global Conflict, which
threatens the very existence of humanity
 Limit the scale of wars
 Respond to public antiwar sentiment
 Opposition to arms buildups dates back to late 19th century

8.  After WWI
 Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 8:
 “The maintenance of peace requires the reduction of
national armaments to the lowest point consistent with
national safety.”
 1922: the Five Power Naval Limitation Treaty, extended
and Conferences of 1922 and 1930
 A historic precedent was set
 World Disarmament Conference of 1932 – no success,
buildup of international tensions, new wars

10.  After WWII
 Demobilization everywhere; strong desire for peace
 Creation of the United Nations Organization
 But the Cold War generated a new arms race
 Its cutting edge were nuclear weapons
 And the conventional (non-nuclear) arms race continued

11.  The First Nuclear Age: 1945-1991

12. Trinity, history’s first nuclear explosion,
Alamogordo, NM, July 16, 1945

13. Robert
Oppenheimer,
father of the
atomic bomb

15. World’s first nuclear weapon: The Little Boy,
explosive yield 12-15 kilotons (1/100 of B83 bomb)

16. Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

19. The Weapons

20. US B83 nuclear bomb, explosive yield – 1.2 megatons

21. A single US nuclear submarine carries 192 nuclear
warheads which can kill up to 50 mln. people

23. A
MIRV

24. Topol-M ICBM (Russia)

25. Tu-95 strategic bomber (Russia)

26. B-52 strategic bomber (US)

27. ”The
White
Swan”:
Tu-160
strategic
bomber
(Russia)

28. B-2A strategic bomber (US)

29.  The world’s nuclear arsenals
 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some
 111 sites in 14 countries.
 Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or
operationally deployed.
 96% of the total are in the possession of the United
States and Russia
 *BAS, Nov.-Dec. 2009, p. 86-87

30. The nuclear arsenals, by country
Country Numbers of weapons
Russia 13,000 (est., 2,790 deployed)
USA 9,400 (2,200 deployed)
France 300
China 240 (est.)
Britain 180
Israel 80-100 (est.)
Pakistan 70-90 (est.)
India 60-80 (est.)
N. Korea ?
Total ~23,360

32. Chain reaction

36. Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

39.  The destructive power of nuclear weapons
 Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Aug. 1945:
 0.25 million lives
 Total destructive power of existing nuclear
weapons:
 150,000 times the bombs which destroyed Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, or
 2,000 times the destructive power used in all of
World War II, including the nuclear bombs dropped
on Japan

40.  What are these weapons for?
 2 schools of thought:
 They can be used to fight and win wars
 They can only be used to prevent wars as a means of
deterrence
 Since 1945, they have never been used in a war
 Deterrence only
 In 1949, US lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, and
deterrence became mutual
 By 1960s, it became clear that a nuclear war would
have no winners
 It would be an act of omnicide (killing everyone and
everything)

41.  The balance of terror
 The two sides – the Americans and the Russians –
have balanced each other out for the past 50 years
 MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction
 The weapons became unusable – nuclear deadlock
 No one can strike first without causing devastating
retaliation
 Second strike capability – ability to survive a strike and
strike back
 Can be as small as 100 warheads

42.  The disappearance of the first strike capability
severely limited possibilities of nuclear war
 Those who believe in using nuclear weapons to win
wars are unhappy about this
 They seek ways to regain nuclear superiority (also
known as strategic superiority)
 Their argument: in order to deter the enemy, he must
know you can fight and win nuclear war
 So, you need to devise new weapons which would
make it possible
 So, deterrence requires ability to wage nuclear war
with a purpose – MAD, indeed!

43. The US-Russian nuclear arms race

44. October 1962:
the Cuban
Missile Crisis,
the turning
point

45. Gorbachev and Reagan sign a treaty to ban all
medium-range ballistic missiles (The INF Treaty)

47. 24 nuclear arms control treaties since 1959
Main existing:
Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963
INF, signed in 1987
START-I, signed in 1991
SORT, signed in 2002
CTR agreements
The Outer Space Treaty
NPT, signed in 1968, went into effect in 1970
CTBT, signed in 1996, still not fully in effect

48.  And yet…
 The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2007:
 "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since
the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. “

50. The four threats
 1. Nuclear terrorism
 2. Nuclear proliferation
 3. Existing nuclear arsenals
 Their size and posture
 The NPT linkage
 Policies of US and Russia in the past decade
 4. Climate change linkages
 New interest in nuclear power generation and trade in
nuclear fuels
 Climate change will undermine international security
 Environmental impact of the use of nuclear weapons

51. Operational status
 Dr. Bruce Blair, former Minuteman ICBM Launch
Control Officer and now President of the World Security
Institute (Washington, DC):
 “Both the United States and Russia today maintain
about one-third of their total strategic arsenals on
launch-ready alert. Hundreds of missiles armed with
thousands of nuclear warheads-the equivalent of about
100,000 Hiroshima bombs-can be launched within a
very few minutes.”
 http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom08/ngostateme
nts/OpStatus.pdf

52. Ecological impact
 The detonation of these weapons in conflict would likely
kill most humans from the environmental consequences
of their use. Ice Age weather conditions, massive
destruction of the ozone layer, huge reductions in
average global precipitation, would all combine to
eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer . . .
resulting in global nuclear famine. Even a "regional"
nuclear conflict, which detonates the equivalent of 1% of
the explosive power in the operational US-Russian
arsenals, could cause up to a billion people to die from
famine (see
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAm
Jan2010.pdf and www.nucleardarkness.org )

53.  If India and Pakistan were to fight a
nuclear war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH6Im
zZurtM&feature=player_embedded#!

54. 10 arguments for abolition of nuclear weapons
based on David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

55.  1.
 Fulfill Existing Obligations.
 The nuclear weapons states have assumed legal obligations to negotiate
in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament.
 Article VI, Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968:
 “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in
good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms
race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international
control”.

56.  The International Court of Justice, In an advisory opinion of July 8, 1996,
concluded that principles of humanitarian law do apply to nuclear
weapons.
 The opposite conclusion "would be incompatible with the intrinsically
humanitarian character of the legal principles in question which permeates
the entire law of armed conflict and applies to all forms of warfare and to
all kinds of weapons, those of the past, those of the present and those of
the future" (www.icj-cij.org).
 According to the Court's opinion, any weapon that has the potential to
harm must be limited in usage, due to the established practices and
treaties of international humanitarian law.
 The world's highest court also highlighted the obligation to nuclear
disarmament:

57.  The Court’s opinion:
 “... The threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to
the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular
the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the
current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its
disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use
of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme
circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would
be at stake..

58.  2.
 Stop Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
 The failure of the nuclear weapons states to act to eliminate their nuclear
arsenals will likely result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other
nations. If the nuclear weapons states continue to maintain the position
that nuclear weapons preserve their security, it is only reasonable that
other nations with less powerful military forces, such as North Korea, will
decide that their security should also be maintained by nuclear arsenals.

59.  3.
 Prevent Nuclear Terrorism
 The very existence of nuclear weapons and their production endanger our
safety because they are susceptible to terrorist exploitation. Nuclear
weapons and production sites all over the world are vulnerable to terrorist
attack or to theft of weapons or weapons-grade materials.
 In addition, nuclear weapons are not helpful in defending against or
responding to terrorism because nuclear weapons cannot target a group
that controls no fixed territory

60.  4.
 Avoid Nuclear Accidents
 The risk of accidental war through miscommunication, miscalculation or
malfunction is especially dangerous given the thousands of nuclear
warheads deployed and on high alert status. Given the short time periods
available in which to make decisions about whether or not a state is under
nuclear attack, and whether to launch a retaliatory response, the risk of
miscalculation is high.

61.  5.
 Nuclear weapons have not prevented wars,
 which is what they were supposed to do. Nuclear weapons states have
been involved in more wars than non-nuclear weapons states.
 Between 1945 and 1997, nuclear weapons states have fought in an
average of 5.2 wars, while non-nuclear weapons states averaged about
0.67 wars.

62.  6.
 Cease the immorality of threatening mass murder
 It is highly immoral to base the security of a nation on the threat to destroy
cities and potentially murder millions of people. This immoral policy is
named nuclear deterrence, and it is relied upon by all nuclear weapons
states.
 Father Richard McSorley has written, "Can we go along with the intent to
use nuclear weapons? What it is wrong to do, it is wrong to intend to do. If
it is wrong for me to kill you, it is wrong for me to plan to do it. If I get my
gun and go into your house to retaliate for a wrong done me, then find
there are police guarding your house, I have already committed murder in
my heart. I have intended it. Likewise, if I intend to use nuclear weapons in
massive retaliation, I have already committed massive murder in my
heart."

63.  7.
 Defend democracy
 Nuclear weapons undermine democracy by giving a few individuals the
power to destroy the world as we know it. No one should have this much
power. If these individuals make a mistake or misjudgment, everyone in
the world will pay for it.
 Decisions about nuclear weapons have been made largely in secrecy with
little involvement from the public. On this most important of all issues
facing humanity, there is no informed consent of the people.

64.  8.
 Halt the Drain on Resources
 Nuclear weapons have drained resources, including scientific resources,
from other more productive uses. A 1998 study by the Brookings Institution
found that the United States alone had spent more than $5.5 trillion on
nuclear weapons programs between 1940 and 1996. The United States
continues to spend some $25-$35 billion annually on research,
development and maintenance of its nuclear arsenal. All of these misspent
resources represent lost opportunities for improving the health, education
and welfare of the people of the world.

65.  9.
 Precedents
 Some countries have already given up nuclear weapons, showing that it is
possible for a nation to be secure without them.
 South Africa
 Ukraine
 Belarus
 Kazakhstan

66.  10.
 Meet Our Responsibility
 We each have a responsibility to our children, grandchildren and future
generations to end the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and
all life. This is a responsibility unique in human history. If we do not accept
responsibility to speak out and act for a world free of nuclear weapons,
who will?

67. Can nuclear weapons be prohibited?
Yes, they can!
 Negotiations toward prohibition of nuclear weapons will by
necessity be protracted, but it should be remembered that
the NPT was negotiated from 1959 to 1968.
 Prohibition could either be negotiated through an
analogous protracted international process, or it might
alternatively be obtained by a covenant among the existing
nuclear weapons states turning over their nuclear
weapons to international management.

68.  Obviously, this will become possible only with fundamental
changes in the international system – to reduce sources of
conflict and promote peaceful ways of resolving
differences
 Nuclear disarmament and reform of the international
system must go hand in hand

69.  The proposal for an International Nuclear Weapons
Convention, to be signed by 2020
 The NWC would prohibit development, testing, production,
stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear
weapons.
 States possessing nuclear weapons will be required to
destroy their arsenals according to a series of phases
 The Convention would prohibit the production of weapons-
usable fissile material and require delivery vehicles to be
destroyed or converted to make them incapable of use
with nuclear weapons.