Anti-Nuclear Articles

In 2007 Parliament approved the research stage for a replacement for Trident submarines but not warheads. Yet construction of facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston and Burghfield for the design and fabrication of new warheads started back in 2002. These facilities which are two-thirds owned by US corporations Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering will provide the infrastructure for modernization of the UK’s nuclear weapons. While the government has now delayed the “Initial Gate” decision on Trident replacement until after the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in New York in May, ongoing construction of these, and budget requests for similar facilities in the US, demonstrate that the US and UK have no intention of disarming any time soon. US Vice President Joe Biden claims the US Stockpile Management Program will not involve the development of any new nuclear weapons designs. But the US and UK are collaborating on development of a new “trigger”, effectively a new design nuclear weapon. These preparations for modernization of nuclear arsenals will almost certainly thwart progress on disarmament at the NPT Review Conference in May.

But this year’s NPT Review Conference is a crucial opportunity for progress toward nuclear disarmament which should be given every chance of success. Under the NPT, which came into force in 1970 and was signed by 190 countries, non- nuclear weapons states agreed not to obtain them and “nuclear weapon states”-the United States, Russia, the UK, France, and China-promised to pursue negotiations toward nuclear disarmament. India, Israel, and Pakistan are not party to the Treaty and have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew in 2003. The Review Conference is a five-yearly meeting of states signatory to the treaty. The 2005 Review Conference failed when the nuclear weapon states focused on cases of non-compliance while non-nuclear weapon states emphasized disarmament obligations. The failure was largely due to the intransigence of the Bush administration.

In contrast Obama’s “vision of a world free of nuclear weapons” seems promising. But a closer look at Obama’s rhetoric and budget requests raises questions about his intentions. According to Jackie Cabasso Obama’s mantra of a world without nuclear weapons is “invariably followed by a disclaimer that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the U.S. will maintain a strong nuclear deterrent.” When he proclaimed this goal in Prague Obama added the phrase “perhaps not in my lifetime”. Hillary Clinton later added : “we might not achieve ... a world without nuclear weapons in ... successive lifetimes.” According to Cabasso the “disclaimer reflects the influence of a ... powerfully entrenched military-industrial complex which has ... perpetuated the role of nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of U.S. national security policy.” It is “no accident” that Obama makes “no reference to abolition.” Indeed the phrase “a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons” is taken from Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn, who have extensive ties to the military-industrial-academic nexus and are lobbying for increased funding for the nuclear weapons labs. Their “political agenda” reflects a “political economy” that is “fundamentally at odds with nuclear abolition”. Indeed these four, who have Obama’s ear, believe that there are circumstances in which the United States would be justified in using its nuclear weapons. With tight budgets and the threat from Russia having faded the nuclear weapons labs need to make a case for their own continuation. These “Four Horsemen” of the Apocalypse have been busy doing that. In a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal they stir up public fears of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons: “We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands”. While it is indeed a worry that the proliferation of nuclear weapons could lead to non-state actors acquiring nuclear weapons the notion that they could “fall into dangerous hands” is disingenuous as the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons is in the hands of the only party ever to have used them on the innocent civilian populations of two cities. To describe these non state parties moreover as “unauthorized users” of nuclear weapons as Kissinger et al do implies that states such as the US which use nuclear weapons are authorized to do so. In adapting their rhetoric Obama is signalling that he does not intend going beyond arms control to actual abolition. Rather, as we saw in this week’s budget announcement he is increasing the flow of dollars to the labs, universities and corporations by funding modernization of nuclear weapons.

Let’s compare the rhetoric to the reality. Obama is near completion of an agreement with Russia for reduction of deployed strategic nuclear weapons. He has promised to pass the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiate a Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty. Listening to these fundamentally good proposals we might believe that this American president is doing everything possible in pursuit of nuclear disarmament. But these steps do nothing to reduce the massive stockpiles of warheads and leave in place the U.S. first-strike arsenal. The emphasis on securing nuclear materials from terrorists and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons perpetuates the national security narrative which backs up claims we need to maintain the US arsenal, and distracts from the obvious fact that the US will continue to possess some ten thousand nuclear weapons. Yet, provided the new treaty with Russia succeeds the US and Russia will be able to argue that they are pursuing negotiations in good faith.

The fact is Obama is planning to modernize nuclear weapons under the guise of “Stockpile Management”. Obama has funded and is requesting more funding for facilities for development and fabrication of new warheads including a supercomputer for simulating testing of new warhead designs. Using data it collected from its extensive testing of nuclear weapons and from “subcritical” testing of less than 3.3 pounds of plutonium the US will be able to circumvent a Test Ban Treaty and develop new nuclear weapons. The US and UK are already collaborating on development of a new “trigger” for more accurate calibration of the altitude of explosion, effectively a new design nuclear weapon. But a Reaching Critical Will briefing concludes that modernization is unacceptable Trading some arms control agreements or arsenal reduction for modernised nuclear weapons research and production facilities capable of building the nuclear threat anew is not disarmament. If the danger of nuclear war is to be eliminated, ceasing to plan and build for an eternal nuclear threat must come early, not late, in the process.... Modernisation is not acceptable.... Nuclear weapon states cannot be allowed to get away with espousing their dream for a nuclear weapon free world while upgrading their weapon systems.

Whatever Obama’s intentions there are a number of measures we should advocate. No modernization for one. But above all is the abolition of nuclear weapons. The NPT does not outright ban nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are banned as are landmines. We can do the same with nuclear weapons. It is imperative that the anti-nuclear movement use all its force to push for the NPT Review Conference this May to commit to negotiations leading to abolition of nuclear weapons - a nuclear weapons convention - within a timebound framework, by 2020.

There will be an International Day of Action in New York on 2 May calling for Nuclear Disarmament Now! Hundreds of citizens’ peace groups including CND will hand in petitions with signatures of millions of people calling for the NPT states to commit to negotiations leading to abolition of nuclear weapons. If you have not yet signed the petition please do it now at http://www.iparl.com/petition-cnd/ and download a copy from http://www.cnduk.org/ and collect signatures. Help stop the modernization of nuclear weapons here in the UK by joining the blockade of Aldermaston 15 Feb.

All articles in this section

Printer friendly version

Home | Top