NATO could face a serious risk of the US leaving the alliance if Donald Trump is re-elected in November, the Telegraph said on Saturday, citing several diplomats from the bloc’s member states.
Europe’s NATO countries should develop some strategy to deal with the consequences of such an eventuality and reconsider the bloc’s defence capabilities, they warn. The possibility of America’s withdrawal is a “concern,” one European diplomat told the paper. “Nobody knows what he’s going to do next,” he said, referring to Trump. The former president secured his leadership in the Republican primaries earlier this week as he swept 14 out of 15 states at stake on Super Tuesday and got 995 Republican convention delegates’ votes. His only opponent, Nikki Haley, dropped out of the race for the GOP nomination soon thereafter. He is now expected to face off against President Joe Biden in November since the incumbent American leader also came out on top in the Democratic primaries. Earlier, several former senior US officials claimed that a Trump White House could make America withdraw from NATO. Former US Défense Secretary Mark Esper made such a prediction in December 2023. According to him, Trump could start pulling US forces out of NATO countries, potentially causing “the collapse of the alliance.” Reuters also reported on such a possibility at that time. In mid-February, Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, made a similar statement. “NATO would be in real jeopardy,” he said, adding that Trump “would try to get out.” A European diplomat said that the rest of the bloc should “do the planning” for a scenario in which Trump follows through on such plans or just weakens America’s commitment to NATO. “Preparations need to be in place,” the paper’s source added. Another official described NATO as “so overdependent on the US.” A “discussion” on hedging against risks of a US withdrawal was “necessary,” this person added. A third source quoted by the paper said European nations should check the adequacy of their own “defence planning” amid such risks. In the UK, similar concerns were previously voiced by Lord Kim Darroch, a former British ambassador to the US and a prime minister’s national security adviser. “If I were an official in any prime minister’s office around Europe, I would be commissioning the experts in government to start doing some contingency thinking about how a NATO without the United States would look and function – just in case,” he said in a piece he wrote for Prospect last month. Trump himself has not made any comment lately about leaving the alliance. Instead, he said in February that he would not “protect” those NATO members that fall short of the 2% spending threshold in case of an attack, including by Russia. Speaking at a campaign rally in South Carolina on February 10, he recalled what he described as a conversation with “the president of a big country” in Europe. When allegedly asked whether he would rush to the nation’s aid in case of an attack by Moscow, Trump said that if this nation hadn’t spent enough on defence, he “would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to it. Moscow itself has repeatedly denied any plans to attack a NATO member, adding that starting a global war would go against “common sense.”
0 Comments
Scared of being abandoned by the US under Trump, European officials are floating the idea of the bloc’s own nuclear force.
With its farmers rebelling, its economy declining, and its traditional parties decaying, you’d think the European Union has enough to worry about at home. Yet its thoroughly detached elites love to think big. And what’s bigger than nuclear weapons? That’s how they have ended up falling for one of Donald Trump’s typically blunt provocations. The former – and likely future – American president has warned that NATO members not spending enough on defence won’t be able to count on US protection on his watch. Eminently sensible – why do declining but still comparatively wealthy EU states keep behaving like defence beggars? – Trump’s threat has triggered various predictable meltdowns. The White House archly tut-tutted about the “appalling and unhinged” rhetoric of a man who is not, unlike the current president Joe Biden, overseeing a genocide together with Israel. Go figure, as they say in the US. On the other hand, many Republicans have displayed demonstrative insouciance, if not outright agreement. And that is certain to reflect what many ordinary Americans think as well; that is, if they think about Europe at all. And as if the Big Scary Orange Man hadn’t done enough damage yet, next came the Pentagon, which (sort of) revealed that Russia – that famous gas station sending out its shovel-wielding soldiers to capture German washing machines – is building, if not a Death Star, then at least something equally sinister out there in space: Sputnik déjà vu all over again, as America’s greatest philosopher might have said. All of that, of course, against a background of incessant NATO scaremongering, which, it seems, has succeeded in spooking NATO most of all. No wonder then that inside EU-Europe, reactions to Trump’s taunting sally have been marked by serious abandonment anxiety. One of its symptoms has been a call for the bloc – or Europe’s NATO members; the issue is fuzzy – to acquire its own nuclear force. One way or the other, Christian Lindner, Germany’s minister of finance, made time from razing the state budget in an economy that his cabinet colleague, the children’s book author and minister of the economy, Robert Habeck, has just labelled “dramatically bad,” in order to pen an article calling for France (not subordinating its nukes to NATO) and Britain (not even in the EU anymore) – two small nuclear powers – to step in as the new security sugar daddies by expanding their nuclear umbrellas over everyone else. Katarina Barley, eternally fresh-eyed vice president of the European Parliament and the top EU election candidate of the German Social-Democrats – a party leading a deeply unpopular government while approaching extinction in the polls – and Manfred Weber, head of the conservative faction in the European Parliament, have kept things more general: They simply suggest that the EU should get its own doomsday weapons, somehow. Donald Tusk, freshly re-established as Poland’s EU-subservient viceroy, has made similar noises. Well, who cares about details, right? That attitude of “on s’engage et puis on voit” has, after all, proven a smashing success in Ukraine. In reality, this is not a problem caused by Trump: That, in a world of more than one nuclear power, the US nuclear umbrella over any place other than the US itself is – and can only be – fundamentally unreliable is, of course, a perennial, structural problem. Those who prefer realism to wishful thinking have always understood this. Henry Kissinger, for instance, a sinister yet sometimes brutally frank practitioner of realpolitik, explained as much as early as the 1950s – perhaps most succinctly in a television interview in 1958 – just a little over a decade after the dawn of the nuclear age. If any clients abroad were to be attacked so severely or successfully that only a US nuclear strike would be left to respond, any American president – whatever treaties are in place or promises have been made – would always face an impossible choice: Drop the client or suffer a retaliatory strike on America itself. It is true that various policies have been devised to mitigate this dilemma (“limited” nuclear war, nuclear sharing, or the NATO medium-range missiles of the 1980s), but, in reality, it cannot be resolved. Yet here we are. An EU that seems to suffer from historical amnesia produces chatter about a search for nukes of its own. Not the nukes that are already in US-aligned Europe anyhow, in the national arsenals of France, Britain, and at American bases in five NATO countries, so that, at least, we are already used to them, but different nukes, new nukes. Nukes the acquisition, politics, and rules of which are all still to be figured out. What could go wrong? Everything, really. But let’s be a little more detailed. First of all, the elites of EU-Europe have, expectably, immediately displayed disunity and confusion. In essence, while no one meant the call for nuclear weapons as a challenge to the US, it was still too much for hard-core Atlanticism compradors: Germany’s minister of defence, Boris Pistorius, NATO’s figurehead General-Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, and the head of the German parliament’s defence committee – and “jokingly” “Volkssturm”-nostalgic (no kidding) – uber-hawk Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann all scrambled to contain the inadvertently mildly subversive idea that Europe could possibly try to do anything significant on its own. Perish the thought! A house so divided against itself is not a safe place to own nukes. Secondly, nuclear weapons are, of course, meant for extreme emergencies, means of last resort either to serve deterrence by the threat of we-will-take-you-with-us retaliation when all is lost anyhow (the purpose of Britain’s and France’s arsenals) or, at best, in a situation of imminent, catastrophic defeat. One implication of this fact is that the decision to use them would end up with either one person or a very compact group hunkered down in a bunker. Who would that be in the case of the EU? The head of the commission, for instance? Someone like Ursula von der Leyen, a self-promoting, short-sighted, and reckless power-grabber, free of any electoral legitimacy, who is really serving the US and not Europe? Good luck! And how would the EU overcome the fact that any such ultimate decider would also have national allegiances: An Estonian or a Pole perhaps, from states, that is, that have their own risky agendas and, to be frank, national(ist) complexes? Or someone from Spain or Greece perhaps, from, that is, countries that may well largely escape the direct effects of a large-scale fight in central Europe, and therefore would have no sane incentive to have Madrid or Athens incinerated to make a last point about Latvia or, indeed, Germany? Set up a committee (unanimity rules or majority voting on when to push the very last red button?), and all you will get is a multiplication of clashing and divided loyalties. Thirdly, more generally, can you imagine today’s EU – or anything growing out of it – in possession of weapons of mass destruction? That is, a club of states most of which are now stubbornly complicit (International Court of Justice be damned) in an ongoing genocide in the Middle East (committed by Israel against the Palestinians), many of which have a pathological obsession with crusading against Russia, and none of which can even grasp that the greatest threat to their sovereignty comes from their “allies” in Washington. And that leads us to the final and most fundamental problem: This whole debate about nukes for Europe is based on bizarrely blinkered premises that betray that EU-Europe is by far not politically mature enough to have such weapons (if any state ever is). Because if it were, then its strategists and politicians would honestly acknowledge and discuss one simple fact: A nuclear force would have to deter every possible vitally dangerous opponent, that is, of course, including the US. Yet these are the same leaders that have simply ignored that the greatest act of war, eco-terrorism, and vital-infrastructure demolition against the EU – the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines – was launched by Washington, whether hands-on or via proxies. The EU is a large bloc of countries in an increasingly unstable and lawless world where the ever-wider proliferation of nuclear weapons will be inevitable. Hypothetically, such an entity would be a candidate for owning such weapons. Yet, in reality, the EU lacks three essential qualities to even consider acquiring them: It is far too fractious, it has no serious concept of its own interests as apart from and, indeed, opposed to the US, and it lacks an elite that could remotely be trusted with weapons capable of ending the world. There, it is of course, not alone. But isn’t one US on planet Earth bad enough already? Iran informed the IAEA that it had expelled “several experienced Agency inspectors,” Grossi said in a statement on Saturday. These inspectors were involved in monitoring Tehran’s compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a 1970 agreement under which signatories without nuclear weapons agreed not to develop them. While Iran is permitted by the NPT to revoke the credentials of inspectors, Grossi called Tehran’s decision “disproportionate and unprecedented.” While Grossi did not state how many inspectors had been barred, he said that the decision affected “about one third of the core group of the Agency’s most experienced inspectors” in Iran.
“This profoundly regrettable decision by Iran is another step in the wrong direction and constitutes an unnecessary blow to an already strained relationship between the IAEA and Iran,” he said. The Iranian Foreign Ministry said that it booted the inspectors in response to the Western powers using the IAEA “for their own political purposes.” This statement was an apparent reference to an announcement by France, Germany, and the UK that they would maintain sanctions on Iran over its alleged non-compliance with the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, which offered Tehran limited sanctions relief in exchange for a pause on its uranium enrichment activities. Separately, the US, UK, and 61 other NPT signatories demanded earlier this week that Iran explain the presence of uranium traces at three undeclared nuclear sites. These traces were discovered by IAEA inspectors late last year. A report by the agency stated that some particles had been enriched to 83.3% purity, just below the 90% threshold for nuclear weapons use. Iran has repeatedly denied that it is seeking a nuclear weapon, and insists that its atomic research is strictly peaceful. The 20th century witnessed an unprecedented acceleration in scientific and technological advancements, reshaping the world in profound ways. At the heart of this transformative period stands J. Robert Oppenheimer, a brilliant physicist whose contributions to the development of the atomic bomb and his broader impact on science and society remain both remarkable and controversial. Oppenheimer's life and work provide a fascinating glimpse into the complexities of human ingenuity, ethical dilemmas, and the responsibility that accompanies scientific breakthroughs.
J. Robert Oppenheimer was born on April 22, 1904, in New York City. From an early age, his intellectual curiosity and exceptional aptitude for physics became evident. He pursued his education at prestigious institutions, including Harvard University and the University of Cambridge, where he studied under renowned physicists such as Max Born and Niels Bohr. Oppenheimer's early research focused on quantum mechanics and theoretical physics, showcasing his remarkable ability to navigate complex scientific ideas. However, Oppenheimer's most enduring legacy is intrinsically tied to his role as the scientific director of the Manhattan Project during World War II. As the world grappled with the horrors of war and the Axis powers' potential for harnessing nuclear energy, the United States initiated an ambitious effort to develop an atomic bomb. Oppenheimer's leadership and contributions were pivotal in bringing together a diverse group of scientists and engineers to work towards this goal. Under his guidance, the Los Alamos Laboratory became a crucible of innovation, where groundbreaking research in nuclear physics and engineering was conducted. The successful culmination of the Manhattan Project led to the creation of the world's first atomic bomb, which was used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The devastating power of these bombs ushered in the atomic age, with profound implications for global politics, security, and ethics. Oppenheimer's involvement in the development of these weapons posed a moral conundrum, and he famously quoted the Bhagavad Gita upon witnessing the first successful test: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." This expression of remorse and awareness of the destructive potential of his work underscores the complexity of scientific advancements and their ethical ramifications. Following World War II, Oppenheimer's life took a different turn as he became an advocate for arms control and international cooperation. He recognized the urgency of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and worked to ensure that the destructive power he had helped unleash would not engulf the world in further conflict. His efforts culminated in the Atoms for Peace program, which aimed to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear technology while curbing its militarization. Despite his contributions to science and his efforts towards disarmament, Oppenheimer's political beliefs and associations eventually came under scrutiny during the era of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Accusations of communist sympathies led to a controversial security clearance hearing in 1954, where his loyalty to the United States was questioned. The revocation of his security clearance marked a tragic chapter in his life, as he faced professional isolation and personal distress. J. Robert Oppenheimer's life and legacy reflect the intricate interplay between scientific progress, ethical considerations, and the complex forces that shape historical narratives. His contributions to physics, his role in the development of the atomic bomb, and his subsequent advocacy for arms control underscore the intricate relationship between science and society. His story serves as a reminder that even the most brilliant minds are not immune to the ethical dilemmas and moral responsibilities that arise from their work. In conclusion, J. Robert Oppenheimer's life story embodies the dual nature of scientific innovation—its potential to reshape the world for both better and worse. His contributions to physics and his central role in the Manhattan Project forever link him to the atomic age, a period of history defined by both scientific achievement and profound ethical dilemmas. As we reflect on his life and work, we are reminded of the necessity for careful consideration of the consequences of scientific advancements and the importance of fostering a dialogue that balances human ingenuity with ethical imperatives. US House and Senate lawmakers have raised alarm bells about the potential use of artificial intelligence in America’s nuclear arsenal, arguing that the technology must not be put in a position to fire off warheads on its own. A group of three Democrats and one Republican introduced a bill that calls for banning AI from being used in a way that could lead to it launching nuclear weapons. If enacted, the legislation would codify a current Pentagon policy that requires a human to be “in the loop” on any launch decisions.
“We want to make sure there’s a human in the process of launching a nuclear weapon if, at any point time, we need to launch a nuclear weapon,” US Representative Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican, said on Friday in a Fox News interview. “So you see sci-fi movies, and the world is out of control because AI has taken over – we’re going to have humans in this process.” Buck alluded to Hollywood’s portrayal of a nightmare scenario in which AI systems gain control of nuclear weapons, as depicted in such films as ‘WarGames’ and ‘Colossus: The Forbidden Project.’ He warned that the use of AI without a human chain of command would be “reckless” and “dangerous.” Representative Ted Lieu agreed, saying, “AI is amazing. It’s going to help society in many different ways. It can also kill us.” Lieu, a California Democrat, is a lead backer of the AI legislation, along with two other Democrats – Representative Don Beyer of Virginia and Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Although the idea of an AI-instigated nuclear war might have been dismissed in the past as science fiction, many scientists believe that it’s no longer a far-fetched risk. A poll released earlier this month by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence found that 36% of AI researchers agreed that the technology could cause a “nuclear-level catastrophe.” US Central Command (CENTCOM) last week announced the hiring of a former Google executive as its first-ever AI adviser. The Pentagon has asked Congress for $1.8 billion in funding for AI research in its next fiscal year. British rock star Roger Waters has hit out against the US for profiting off of the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which he says Washington allowed to happen because it was beneficial to American interests. Discussing US foreign policy on the Bad Faith podcast on YouTube, the Pink Floyd co-founder stated that the conflict in Ukraine was “the best thing to happen to them in the last 10 years,” because it was “really good for business.”. “Part of their business is making money from the war through making weapons and selling them to the people and taking the profits from it,” Waters explained, adding that this money never goes to ordinary people. “It’s not you or me, not ordinary people who invest in the war industry. It’s people with tons of cash, and they get very well paid when there’s war.”
Another benefit of the war for the political establishment, according to Waters, is that it allows it to convince people who struggle to make ends meet and end up homeless that their woes are the fault of the Russians and Putin, who is compared to Hitler and accused of being responsible for “destroying everyone’s lives.” Roger says he has now been banned from performing in Poland for openly criticizing the West’s military meddling and calling for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Previously, the musician had written letters personally addressed to presidents Vladimir Putin, Zelensky and Joe Biden, calling for diplomatic talks to end the conflict, stating it is “the worst possible thing that can be happening,” due to the potential of an all-out nuclear war. Six of the 12 nuclear reactors in France that were found to have corrosion issues in May have been repaired and will be restarted soon, French Energy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher has revealed. She told France Inter radio on Wednesday that, at the moment, there was “no reason” to believe that energy operator EDF would not be able to meet the schedule for restarting all shutdown reactors before winter.
Earlier, media reports stated that EDF had hired about 100 American welders from Westinghouse in order to repair the power units on time. France generates roughly 70% of its electricity from a nuclear fleet of 56 reactors, all operated by EDF. However, many of them have been closed down for maintenance, some due to corrosion-related issues. Currently, only 31 units are reportedly operating. EDF has pledged to restart all shutdown reactors before winter to avoid power shortages in the country. However, since October 6, there have been strikes among EDF employees involved in repair work at 19 reactors, delaying maintenance by several weeks. Last month, the French national electricity grid operator RTE warned that it would not rule out the risk of blackouts this winter due to prolonged strikes halting the repair. According to RTE, outages could only be avoided if power consumption was reduced by 1% to 5%, while in the event of an extremely cold winter – by 15%. Failure to restart the plants on time could have “heavy consequences” for power supply over the winter period, the operator has warned. The United States decided to speed up the deployment of B61-12 nuclear bombs in Europe. Politico reports this with reference to its own sources. The deployment of the upgraded thermonuclear gravity bombs was scheduled for the spring of next year, but now, they are due to arrive in December 2022. US officials shared this with NATO allies during a closed-door meeting in Brussels this month. Such a move requires replacing outdated B61 nuclear bombs with a newer B61-12 version in various storage facilities in Europe for potential use by the U.S. and allied bomber and fighter jets. Politico notes that this decision comes amid increasing tensions over Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It is noted that the modernization of the B61 nuclear bomb program has been openly discussed in the US budget documents and public statements for many years. Pentagon officials state that this is necessary to ensure the modernization and safety of the aviation nuclear weapon arsenal. They are convinced: the current steps are not related to current events in Ukraine and were not artificially accelerated. B61 nuclear bombs have been in service with the United States since 1968. Currently, the B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, and B61-11 modifications are being used. B61-3 and B61-4 belong to tactical ammunition, and they are used with F-15E and F-16C fighter jets. B61-7 and B61-11 bombs are considered strategic and are used with B-2 and B-52 bomber jets. The development of B61-12 has been ongoing since 2012. In 2018, the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security approved its project. The upgraded bomb should replace the B61-3, B61-4, and B61-7 currently in service with American combat aircraft. he B61-12 bomb received a 50 kilotons warhead and became high precision: a controlled tail rudder is installed on it, which will significantly increase accuracy and abandon the use of a brake parachute.
The world’s indifference to the prospect of a nuclear disaster, today, is frankly insane. For the past few months, Western experts have downplayed the probability that the Ukraine war would lead to nuclear escalation between Russia and the West. Since Putin first put Russia’s nuclear arsenal on alert back in February, many experts have argued that he was merely posturing in a bid to throw his “adversaries off balance”. However, Putin’s most recent threats of using such weapons — made in a televised speech on Wednesday morning — must not be taken lightly, regardless of his motivation or intention.
He said that Western officials have threatened Russia with nuclear weapons, a charge that US President Joe Biden denied during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly hours later. Putin also announced a partial mobilisation and his support for upcoming referendums in four Russian-controlled regions of Ukraine that could pave the way for their annexation by Moscow. It’s one thing for the West to dismiss as irrelevant the threat of Putin firing, for instance, a secretary. However, any chance he may fire his nukes should be taken seriously, regardless of how remote the possibility is. In fact, the West has so far avoided imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine or transferring long-range missiles and other weapons that may threaten Russian territory for fear of the Kremlin’s retaliation against Europe. Yet, the sophisticated military assistance that the US and its allies have provided to Kyiv has begun to change the balance of power on the battlefield in favour of Ukraine. Russia’s mounting losses in the past few weeks are clearly pushing Putin into a corner. He is angry, humiliated and is losing clout at home and abroad. That’s why he has decided to mobilise 300,000 extra troops to try to reverse his setbacks in Ukraine. However, as past Russian and American wars have shown – whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere – a troops surge may win him time but won’t necessarily win him the war. That’s why he coupled his decision for a military surge with a nuclear warning, putting the West on notice: back off or face the consequences. Hence the seriousness of Putin’s threat to use weapons of mass destruction. The threat is “not a bluff” as he put it, nor a bluster; it rather sounds desperate and deliberate. It is also the biggest escalation since the invasion began seven months ago and the biggest troop mobilisation since the end of the Cold War. Some are now sounding a warning about Putin’s potential use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Or as one analyst put it: “Russia is willing to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine continues its offensive operations”. Indeed, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday that the Kremlin could use tactical nuclear weapons to defend its occupation of parts of Ukraine that it annexes. In theory, the use of these weapons, which are short-range and designed for limited strikes, sounds implausible considering Ukraine’s geographic proximity and Russia’s nuclear doctrine which underlines the defensive use of nuclear weapons or when the very existence of Russia is threatened. Which countries have carried out nuclear tests? According to the Arms Control Association, at least eight countries have carried out a total of 2,056 nuclear tests since 1945. The US has conducted half of all nuclear tests, with 1,030 tests between 1945 and 1992. In 1954, the US exploded its largest nuclear weapon, a 15 megatonne bomb, on the surface of the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, the test was codenamed Castle Bravo. The power of the nuclear test was miscalculated by scientists, and it resulted in radiation contamination that impacted inhabitants of the atolls. The nuclear fallout of the explosion is said to have spread over 18,130 square kilometres (7,000 square miles).The Soviet Union carried out the second highest number of nuclear tests at 715 tests between 1949 and 1990. The USSR’s first nuclear test was on August 29, 1949. The test, codenamed RDS-1, was conducted at the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan. According to the CTBTO, the Soviet Union conducted 456 tests at the Semipalatinsk test site, with devastating consequences for the local population such as genetic defects and high cancer rates.
Kazakhstan closed the Semipalatinsk test site on August 29, 1991. Following this move, the UN established August 29 as the International Day against Nuclear Tests in 2009. France has carried out 210 nuclear tests, while the United Kingdom and China have each carried out 45 tests. India has carried out three nuclear tests, while Pakistan has carried out two. North Korea is the most recent nation to carry out a nuclear test. In 2017, its sixth and most powerful bomb was detonated at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site. The underground explosion created a magnitude-6.3 tremor. The largest nuclear detonations The largest nuclear explosion occurred in 1961, when the Soviet Union exploded the Tsar Bomba on Novaya Zemlya north of the Arctic Circle. The explosion’s yield was 50 megatonnes, 3,300 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Other major nuclear explosions by different nations include China’s largest detonation in Lop Nur in 1976, the test had a yield of four megatonnes. The UK conducted a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific Ocean between November 1957 and September 1958 as part of Operation Grapple. Grapple Y was the largest of the operation’s nuclear tests, with a yield of three megatonnes. A survey conducted in 1999 by the British Nuclear Veterans Association found that the impact of the tests on 2,500 veterans who had been present showed that more than 200 had skeletal abnormalities and 30 percent of the men had died, mostly in their fifties. In 1968, France conducted a series of nuclear tests codenamed Canopus at Fangataufa Atoll in the South Pacific Ocean. The test had a yield of 2.6 megatonnes and was 200 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Since 1945, more than 2,000 nuclear test explosions have been conducted by at least eight nations. August 29 marks the International Day against Nuclear Tests. The day, declared by the United Nations in 2009, aims to raise awareness of the effects of nuclear weapons testing and achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world. On July 16, 1945, during World War II, the United States detonated the world’s first nuclear weapon, codenamed Trinity, over the New Mexico desert. Less than a month later, the US dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 100,000 people instantly. Thousands more died from their injuries, radiation sickness and cancer in the years that followed, bringing the toll closer to 200,000, according to the US Department of Energy’s history of the Manhattan Project. Nuclear warheads per country
Nine countries possessed roughly 12,700 warheads as of early 2022, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Approximately 90 percent are owned by Russia (5,977 warheads) and the US (5,428 warheads). At its peak in 1986, the two rivals had nearly 65,000 nuclear warheads between them, making the nuclear arms race one of the most threatening events of the Cold War. While Russia and the US have dismantled thousands of warheads, several countries are thought to be increasing their stockpiles, notably China. The only country to voluntarily relinquish nuclear weapons is South Africa. In 1989, the government halted its nuclear weapons programme and in 1990 began dismantling its six nuclear weapons. In 1991, South Africa joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear country. When the Cold War ended, the nuclear threat diminished. But.....
Termination of the superpower standoff generated hope for a world in which cooperation would prevail over competition and conflict. In 1991, the Doomsday Clock, which provides an easily understood assessment of the risk of a nuclear war, was reset and the minute hand moved from 10 to 17 minutes before midnight. Only eight years earlier, in 1983, the world was gripped by fears of nuclear war and the clock registered 23:57. Tensions are again growing. So too are nuclear arsenals. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), after a marginal decrease in the number of warheads in 2021, nuclear arsenals are expected to grow over the coming decade. SIPRI estimates that there were 12,705 nuclear warheads worldwide at the start of 2022, with over 90% of them — 11,405 — in the United States and Russian stockpiles. Some 2,000 warheads, virtually of them U.S. or Russian, are in a state of high operational alert, meaning that they can be used at a moment’s notice. All nuclear-armed states — the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — are modernizing their arsenals, and several continue to grow the number of their weapons. China’s nuclear development program appears set to yield a qualitative shift in its capabilities while North Korea is reckoned to have assembled up to 20 warheads — and has sufficient fissile material for 45 to 55 warheads. Not only are the numbers expanding, but governments appear committed to making nuclear weapons more usable, a new capability that is increasingly reflected in nuclear policy and doctrine. Talk of fighting a war with nuclear weapons is more and more common. Russia has made repeated reference to its nuclear capabilities throughout the war in Ukraine, an especially ominous sign. Those weapons represent a ghastly diversion of resources. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons estimated that the nuclear powers spent $82.4 billion on those weapons in 2021, an increase from $76 billion in 2020. That massive spending failed to deter a war in Europe. These disturbing and dangerous developments make even more important the forthcoming Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference, or RevCon, that is scheduled to be held in August in New York City. The RevCon is held every five years to assess progress toward the goals of the NPT: continuing nonproliferation by states without nuclear weapons; the availability of peaceful nuclear technology to those same states; and the movement toward nuclear disarmament by states with those awesome weapons of mass destruction. This meeting was supposed to have been held in 2020 but was postponed because of the pandemic. The SIPRI report makes clear that the five states allowed by the NPT to possess nuclear-weapons — the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K. — are not honouring their part of the bargain in which the nuclear “have-nots” commit to not acquiring those weapons in exchange for progress toward nuclear disarmament among the nuclear weapon states. The failure to follow through is not new. Frustration and disappointment prevented the last RevCon, held in 2015, from reaching consensus and producing a final report. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida plans to attend the RevCon, the first Japanese prime minister to do so. (His attendance depends on the outcome of the Upper House election scheduled for July.) He joined the 2015 RevCon as foreign minister. Kishida’s interest in a world free of nuclear weapons also reflects his family’s Hiroshima origins; that city’s tragic history as the first city in the world to experience a nuclear bombing has reinforced his commitment to nuclear disarmament. Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi will boost that effort with his attendance at the ministerial meeting of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative, a 12-member coalition committed to promoting those two prongs of the NPT. The group will convene prior to RevCon to help generate momentum for a successful conclusion to that meeting. There is a new instrument in the disarmament toolkit: the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in January 2021. It’s an ambitious document that prohibits the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance and encouragement to prohibited such activities. Nuclear armed states that join the treaty have a time-bound framework for negotiations leading to the verified and irreversible elimination of their nuclear weapons program. Impressive as it sounds, its effectiveness is limited: No nuclear weapon state has signed up. Neither has Japan, despite its unique historical experience with and knowledge of the effects of these weapons. Kishida said that Japan will not even take part as an observer in the first meeting of parties to the treaty that will be held in Vienna later this month, noting that no nuclear powers have acceded to the convention. Kishida’s reticence reflects the dilemma faced by Japan and other U.S. allies. In the abstract, disarmament is an appealing goal. Facing a potential adversary with a modern military, its own nuclear forces, a long and contentious history with Japan as well as an ongoing territorial dispute, the maintenance of a nuclear capability makes a great deal of sense. As Kishida argued when he explained why his government would not send a representative to the Vienna meeting, “Japan should promote nuclear arms control and nonproliferation realistically based on its relationship of trust with the United States, our only ally.” His logic makes sense. But Japan must remain committed to the goal of disarmament: because it is enshrined in the NPT, because nuclear weapon states have committed to that objective and because rising tensions make the possession of those weapons even more fraught. Japan can help by building up its conventional military forces to reduce the need to rely on U.S. nuclear weapons. It will take time but every contribution to the cause of disarmament is to be valued and pursued. |
Thank you for choosing to make a difference through your donation. We appreciate your support.
This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies. Opt Out of CookiesCategories
All
Archives
April 2024
|