Posted on 9-1-2003

The Slippery Slope Bomb
by Joseph Rotblatt*, Wednesday January 8, 2003, The Guardian Newspaper.

Today's discussions made it clear that, on the nuclear issue, we are in bad
shape. In my opinion, we are on a slippery slope and will be heading for
disaster unless we make a big effort to prevent it.

A group of hardliners in the United States has hijacked the president - not
that much force was needed for this - starting a campaign under the slogan
"you are either with us or against us".

This was applied to the anti-terrorist campaign after the September 11
events, but actually it has a general application. It has created a
polarised world, and a polarised world is a dangerous world.

This situation has not appeared out of the blue - it has been brewing for a
long time, and the seeds were planted at the very beginning of the nuclear
age.

I was involved in the earliest - one might say prehistoric - stage, and I
have been able to see it developing. Some of you may have heard my tale
before, but I see young people in the audience - and, for this story, young
is anybody under 60 - and for their sake I will recall it briefly.

For the scientists in the UK who started the work on the atom bomb, the
rationale was to deter Hitler from using his bomb against us, and thus
winning the war.

I developed the concept of nuclear deterrence even before the start of the
second world war, and I was probably the first to carry out research on the
feasibility of the bomb, with James Chadwick in Liverpool in November 1939,
two months after the start of the war.

It was not until much later that I realised the fallacy of the nuclear
deterrence concept, but at that time I thought that only by possessing the
bomb could we prevent a Nazi victory.

I did not contemplate, and never condoned, the actual use of the bomb. This
was the basis for my work in the UK and later on the Manhattan Project in
the US.

With this background, you can imagine my shock when General Leslie Groves,
the overall boss of the Manhattan Project, said in a private conversation:
"You realise, of course, that the main purpose of the project is to subdue
the Russians."

The date is important - March 4 1944, long before the bomb was made, and a
time when the main burden of fighting the Germans was borne by our then
allies, the Russian army.

Years later, when I told this story at a conference in Geneva, at which
George Bush senior - then a candidate for the presidency - was one of the
speakers, Richard Perle, sitting on the platform, angrily denied it.
Fortunately, I was able to prove its veracity.

In 1954, during the Oppenheimer hearings, General Groves made the following
statement, and this is published: "There was never, from about two weeks
from the time I took charge of this project, any illusion on my part but
that Russia was our enemy and that the project was conducted on that basis.

Several versions are circulated in the literature of President Truman's
decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are probably all true, to a
lesser or greater decree.

The saving of American lives was undoubtedly a strong consideration. But so
was the need to demonstrate to the Russians the newly-acquired and
overwhelming military might of the US.

James Byrnes, the then secretary of state, said: "Our possessing and
demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable.

"From the start, it was the intention of the hawks that the United States
should maintain the monopoly, or at least predominance, in nuclear weapons
and, in line with this, prevent unfriendly nations from acquiring them."

The aforementioned General Groves outlined this policy in October 1945,
saying: "If we were truly realistic instead of idealistic, as we appear to
be, we would not permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly
allied, and in which we do not have absolute confidence, to make or possess
nuclear weapons.

"If such a country started to make atomic weapons, we would destroy its
capacity to make them before it has progressed far enough to threaten us."

It took nearly 60 years for these ravings of a bellicose general to become
official US policy. In between, the combined endeavours of hawks and the
military-industrial complex kept the US as the frontrunner in the nuclear
arms race.

During the early stages of the cold war, the US had an enormous superiority
in the number of nuclear warheads.

Later on, it gave up numerical superiority in favour of the quality of its
arms. Out of 15 milestones in the nuclear arms race, the US was first in 14
of them.

Despite the military superiority, the US, under Ronald Reagan, still did
not feel secure, and so he decided to embark on the erection of a
protective umbrella over the US in the so-called Star Wars project.

At that time, the project was shown to be technically unfeasible and was
dropped. But had Reagan persisted in pursuing it, it would have caused a
dramatic increase in Russia's offensive weapons, or - even more
dramatically - a desperate move: a preventative, suicidal attack on the US.

Fortunately, a man with much common sense, Mikhail Gorbachev, came to power
and called a halt to the nuclear arms race. In doing so, he handed back to
the US the nuclear supremacy - actually, nuclear monopoly.

The euphoria in the West following the collapse of the Soviet Union had an
amazing effect. The general public came to believe that the end of the cold
war also meant the end of the nuclear peril, and that the nuclear issue
could be taken off the agenda of important problems.

This is seen in a public opinion poll in the UK about the most important
issues facing Britain. During the cold war, more than 40 per cent put
nuclear weapons as such an issue. Since the end of it, the percentage
dropped rapidly, and nowadays is practically zero.

The situation is probably the same in the US, and it is my opinion that
this enabled the hawks to become bolder in their plans, not only to ensure,
but also to demonstrate to the rest of the world, the overwhelming
superiority of the US.

US policy in relation to Iraq is an illustration of this. The alleged help
given by Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida is cited as a reason for the hostility,
but the campaign to change the regime in Iraq - if need be by military
means - long precedes the September 11 events.

Various right-wing groups in the US, the neo-Conservatives, have, over the
years, conducted campaigns for a more aggressive US foreign policy, in
particular in the Middle East - including a chance of regime in Iraq.

Let me quote one such case. In 1986, a project entitled "A Clean Break"
strongly advocated the removal of Saddam Hussein.

It originated in an Israeli-US study headed by Richard Perle. He followed
this up in an open letter to President Clinton, demanding a full-scale
drive for a regime change in Baghdad. The list of co-signatories nearly
coincides with the list of the politicians who now occupy prominent
positions in the Bush administration.

I have singled out this case because it brings into the open the role of
Israel in the whole problem of security in the Middle East, and hence the
world. In my opinion, far too little attention has been given to the
consequences of Israel possessing a military nuclear capability.

Israel's formal stand on this issue beggars belief. "Israel will not be the
first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East." This
blatant lie is repeated in face of the fact that, for many years, Israel -
with the help of France and, no doubt, the US - possessed a considerable
nuclear arsenal and the means of delivery.

The denial policy is illustrated in the barbaric treatment of Mordechai
Vanunu for his disclosure of plutonium production in the Dimona reactor. He
is now nearing the end of an 18-year sentence, nearly all of it in solitary
confinement. He had his parole refused, and there is doubt about his ever
regaining freedom.

Not only does Israel keep nuclear weapons, it would not allow their
acquisition by other countries in the region. In June 1981, three years
after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Menachem Begin ordered his air
force to destroy the Iraqi Osiraq reactor. This was the first case of a
pre-emptive strike on a nuclear installation. The next case may be an
attack on Yongbyon in North Korea.

My strong criticism of Israel's policy in no way implies that I condone the
suicide bombings by Hezbolah and other Palestinian groups. Violence is not
acceptable, whatever the cause.

On a much more trivial level, I am also opposed to the boycott of Israeli
scientists called for by some groups in the West. Cooperation, not
isolation, is the way to solve a conflict. But I do believe that the
possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is one of the major sources of the
troubles in the Middle East.

I feel strongly that the setting up there of a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction would greatly relieve the tension, and should have high priority.

The glaring asymmetry of the US in its relations with Israel and Palestine
is being exploited by radical groups in the Arab world to bring in religion
as an element of the anti-American feeling.

Al-Qaida seems to me to be the consequence of long-standing American
policies, rather than the way it is being presented - that the current
American policy is the consequence of the al-Qaida attacks.

That brings me back to the current US policy on the nuclear issue. The year
2002 was remarkable for the formulation of new policies, starting with the
Nuclear Posture Review in January, and ending with the National Strategy to
Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, released in December.

This last document starts with: "Weapons of mass destruction - nuclear,
biological, and chemical - represent one of the greatest security
challenges facing the US."

If we added at the end "and the rest of the world", I would be in full
agreement with this statement. But I regret to say that I have misled you -
this is a misquotation: I have omitted a few words.

The whole quotation reads: "Weapons of mass destruction - nuclear,
biological, and chemical, in the possession of hostile states and
terrorists, represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the US."

And this is the crux of the matter. According to the current
counter-proliferation policy, nuclear weapons are bad, but only if in the
possession of some states or groups.

In the possession of the US, they are good, and must be kept for the sake
of world security. The fact that, as a signatory of the NPT, the USA is
legally bound to their elimination, is completely ignored.

Yes, the argument goes, the number of warheads at present kept at
hair-trigger alert can be reduced somewhat - witness the Strategic
Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed in Moscow in May last year - but should
we go to less than about 1,000 warheads, the world would become unsafe.

Indeed, nuclear arsenals will have to be retained indefinitely, not as a
last resort or a deterrent just as a weapon against a nuclear attack, but
as an ordinary tool in the military armoury, to be used in the resolution
of conflicts, as has been practised in the past, and even in pre-emptive
strikes, should political contingencies demand it.

This is, in essence, the current US nuclear policy, and I see it as a very
dangerous policy.

Towards its implementation, President Bush has already authorised the
development of a new nuclear warhead of low yield, but with a shape that
would give it a very high penetrating power into concrete - a
"bunker-busting mink-nuke", as it has been named.

It is intended to destroy bunkers with thick concrete walls in which public
enemies, like Saddam Hussein, may seek shelter.

To give the military authorities confidence in the performance of the new
weapon, it will have to be tested. If the US resumed testing, this would be
a signal to other nuclear weapon states to do the same.

China is almost certain to resume testing. After the US decision to develop
ballistic missile defences, China feels vulnerable and is likely to attempt
to reduce its vulnerability by a modernisation and build-up of its nuclear
arsenal.

Other states with nuclear weapons, such as India or Pakistan, may use the
window of opportunity opened by the US to update their arsenals. The danger
of a new nuclear arms race is real.

As mentioned before, the new policy includes pre-emptive acts, and this
greatly increases the danger. If the militarily mightiest country declares
its readiness to carry out a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, others may
soon follow.

The Kashmir crisis, in May last year, is a stark warning of the reality of
the nuclear peril. India's declared policy is not to be the first to use
nuclear weapons.

But if the US - whose nuclear policies are largely followed by India -
makes pre-emptive nuclear attacks part of its doctrine, this would give
India the legitimacy to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan.
Even more likely is that Pakistan would carry this out first.

Taiwan presents another potential cause for a pre-emptive nuclear strike by
the US. Should the Taiwan authorities decide to declare independence, this
would inevitably result in an attempted military invasion by mainland China.

The US, which is committed to the defence of the integrity of Taiwan, may
then opt for pre-emptive strike.

Finally, we have the problem of North Korea, listed by Bush as one of the
"axis of evil." The disclosure that North Korea is already in possession of
two nuclear warheads, and the likelihood of its acquiring more of them if
the Yongbyon facility is reactivated, are a direct challenge to current US
policy.

I fear that a campaign to use military force against the regime of Kim Jong
Il, similar to that of Saddam Hussein, will ensue.

How can we prevent such catastrophes? The traditional method of dealing
with such situations - by partial agreements, damage limitation treaties,
confidence-building measures - does not seem to work any more.

In its determination to maintain world dominance, particularly on the
nuclear issue, the present administration will pay no attention to reasoned
and sophisticated arguments. Arms control is as good as dead.

As I see it, the only way is to go back to basics, to put the goal of total
nuclear disarmament back on the agenda. The only way to compel the current
decision-makers to change their minds is by pressure of public opinion.

For this purpose, the public must be awakened to the danger. The general
public is not sufficiently informed about the recent changes in military
doctrine and the perils arising from them.

We have to convince the public that the continuation of current policies,
in which security of the world is maintained by the indefinite retention of
nuclear weapons, is not realistic in the long run because it is bound
eventually to result in a nuclear holocaust in which the future of the
human race would be at stake.

We must convince public opinion that the only alternative is the total
elimination of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, such a campaign must be
based on the fundamental principles of morality and equity.

Due to their indiscriminate nature and unprecedented destructive power, the
use of nuclear weapons has always been considered as immoral.

Yet this aspect is very seldom raised when calling for nuclear disarmament.
We are told that a campaign based on moral principles is a non-starter, and
we are afraid of appearing naive, divorced from reality.

But the use of this argument is itself an indication of how far we have
allowed ethical considerations to be ignored - we are accused of not being
realistic, when what we are trying to do is to prevent real dangers.

By utilising the tremendous advances in technology for military purposes,
the United States has built up an overwhelming military superiority,
exceeding the combined military strength of all other nations.

It is claimed that this is necessary for world security, but actually what
such a policy amounts to is to rest the security of the world on a balance
of terror.

In the long run, this is bound to erode the ethical basis of civilisation.
I would not be surprised if evidence were found that the increase of
violence in the world - from individual mugging, to organised crime, to
groups such as al-Qaida - has some connection with the culture of violence
under which we lived during the Cold War years, and still do.

I am particularly concerned about the effect on the young generation. We
all crave a world of peace, a world of equity. We all want to nurture in
the young generation the much-heralded "culture of peace".

But how can we talk about a culture of peace if that peace is predicated on
the existence of weapons of mass destruction? How can we persuade the young
generation to cast aside the culture of violence when they know that it is
on the threat of extreme violence that we rely for security?

I do not believe that the people of the world would accept a policy that is
inherently immoral and likely to end in catastrophe. And I do believe that
- if properly explained - the moral argument would win general support,
including that of the American public, and lead to a new campaign for the
elimination of nuclear weapons.

Under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the US has signed
and ratified, the US and the other official nuclear states - China, France,
Russia and the UK - are formally and unequivocally committed to the
elimination of all nuclear arsenals. The creation of a nuclear-weapon-free
world is a legal commitment by all signatories of the NPT.

But the de facto policy of the United States, as outlined above, implies
the indefinite existence of nuclear weapons, in direct contradiction to the
NPT commitment. This blatant violation of an international undertaking
should be the second fundamental principle on which to base a campaign.

Thanks largely to the fantastic progress in technology, our world is
becoming more and more interdependent, more and more transparent, more and
more interactive.

Inherent in these developments is a set of agreements, ranging from
confidence-building measures to formal international treaties, from
protection of the environment to the clearance of minefields, from Interpol
to the international criminal court, from ensuring intellectual property
rights to the Declaration of Human Rights.

Respect for, and strict adherence to, the terms of international agreements
are at the basis of a civilised society. Without this, anarchy, and
terrorism would reign - the very perils President Bush is allegedly
committed to eradicating.

While he intends to tackle this issue by military means, we must strive to
achieve it by peaceful means. While Bush plans to act unilaterally, we have
to ensure that world security is entrusted to the United Nations, the
institution set up for this purpose. And we must hope that, ultimately the
US will join the rest of the world community in this endeavour.

Many in this audience are professional people, trained to look at problems
with a detached, realistic, non-sentimental approach.

But we are all, primarily, human beings, anxious to provide security for
our nearest and dearest and peace for fellow citizens of our nation and all
the world. We want to see a world in which relations between people and
between nations are based on compassion, not greed, on generosity, not
jealousy, on persuasion, not force, on equity, not oppression.

These are simple, some will say romantic, sentiments, but they are also
realistic necessities. In a world armed with weapons of mass destruction,
the use of which might bring the whole of civilisation to an end, we cannot
afford a polarised community, with its inherent threat of military
confrontations.

In this technological age, a global, equitable community, to which we all
belong as world citizens, has become a vital necessity.

· Joseph Rotblatt was part of the Manhattan Project, the research group
behind the US-built nuclear bomb during the second world war. He later won
a Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-war efforts. This is the text of a speech
he made on January 8 at a conference on nuclear policy and proliferation
organised by the Guardian, the Royal United Services Institute for Defence
Studies and the US Physicians for Social Responsibility.