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.
|