I THOUGHT I WOULD WRITE A BRIEF NOTE on how not to end the world. I was reading about Donald Trump's proposal to revamp the United States’ nuclear weapons arsenal, something that will cost that
country’s citizens close to one trillion dollars over the next decade or so (if we make it that far). The article also discussed the recent decision by the Trump regime (I like the sound of that!) to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Weapons treaty (INF),
established in 1987, making the world even more unsafe and unstable. So, thanks for that.
Then I read about the United Nations’ 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) (70 countries signed, 23 ratified), and the listing provided by ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) of the countries that did not sign the TPNW, is significant. (I note with considerable disappointment that Canada has not signed.) Not surprising, most of the developed world, including all the current holders of nuclear arsenals (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) have yet to sign or ratify this agreement that would help establish what for me and many people is a no-brainer—a world without nuclear weapons.
Then I read about the United Nations’ 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) (70 countries signed, 23 ratified), and the listing provided by ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) of the countries that did not sign the TPNW, is significant. (I note with considerable disappointment that Canada has not signed.) Not surprising, most of the developed world, including all the current holders of nuclear arsenals (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) have yet to sign or ratify this agreement that would help establish what for me and many people is a no-brainer—a world without nuclear weapons.
So, here's the thing, fellow Canucks. You’d think that our
tiny country, wedged as it is between two behemoths armed with thousands of thermonuclear bombs and missiles at the ready, would want the number of such weapons to drop to as close to zero as
possible, and as soon as possible. (Over whose air space do you think many of those missiles will
fly? Check out a map sometime and see where Russia is
in relation to the USA. Sing it, loud, sing it proud: Oh, Ca-naa-da! Our home and fried-up land…)
But, besides the good policy
of saving our own (Canadian) bacon, there is the question as to whether we as
a species, with our poor monkey brains operating in full or partial primate
mode, are able to keep from wielding our bigly sticks in the end, with consequences
too terrible to imagine. Canada should be at the forefront, leading the
charge in this matter, encouraging all countries to sign on to the TPNW, and shaming
those that don’t.
For the last seventy-four years there has not been another world war, nor has there been the use of nuclear weapons in war since the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during that terrible month of August in 1945. I think it's fair to say that this has a great deal to do with the fact we had the good sense to create the United Nations following WWII. But even with such a forum for conflict resolution as this great international body provides, we have come close to nuclear engagements, intentionally or accidentally, on a number of occasions since the UN's founding. (And as an aside, I did not know that the use of atomic bombs was considered by more than one American administration, in the Korean and North Vietnam conflicts, for example. It's horrifying to contemplate what would have happened if such rash actions had been taken.)
But some progress was made. In 1970, a major UN nuclear weapons treaty was created. It was called the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty which successfully (more or less) kept the scourge of nuclear weapons from spreading around the globe with its emphasis on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and it and continues in effect to this day through a system of monitoring and compliance agreements with signatories. Flawed though it was, its creation was nevertheless a credit to the politicians of that era. 188 member States of the United Nations signed the NPT agreement, including nuclear weapon-possessing countries of the United States, the USSR (Russia) and Great Britain. France and China later acceded the agreement in 1992, while India, Pakistan and Israel have yet to sign, and North Korea withdrew from the agreement in 2003. (It should be noted that these four countries possess nuclear weapons.) Perhaps politicians back then were genuinely afraid of the real and present danger of nuclear conflict, and pulled us back from the brink.
Then in 1987, the INF treaty between the USSR (Russia) and the United States established the methodical destruction of thousands of missiles in both countries' arsenals over the ensuing decades. Between the two there were some 60,000 nuclear weapons in 1985, a figure that staggers the imagination. By 1995, thanks to the INF treaty agreement, that figure had been halved, until today each side has roughly 4,000 stockpiled. (The INF treaty was designed to reduce American and Russian weapon caches, leaving other nuclear weapon-producing countries free to continue developing there own, but that's another story.) The 1987 INF treaty had been a significant, further step in making our world safer. That agreement has now torn up by President Trump, and, in response, Russia's Valdimir Putin*.
For the last seventy-four years there has not been another world war, nor has there been the use of nuclear weapons in war since the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during that terrible month of August in 1945. I think it's fair to say that this has a great deal to do with the fact we had the good sense to create the United Nations following WWII. But even with such a forum for conflict resolution as this great international body provides, we have come close to nuclear engagements, intentionally or accidentally, on a number of occasions since the UN's founding. (And as an aside, I did not know that the use of atomic bombs was considered by more than one American administration, in the Korean and North Vietnam conflicts, for example. It's horrifying to contemplate what would have happened if such rash actions had been taken.)
But some progress was made. In 1970, a major UN nuclear weapons treaty was created. It was called the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty which successfully (more or less) kept the scourge of nuclear weapons from spreading around the globe with its emphasis on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and it and continues in effect to this day through a system of monitoring and compliance agreements with signatories. Flawed though it was, its creation was nevertheless a credit to the politicians of that era. 188 member States of the United Nations signed the NPT agreement, including nuclear weapon-possessing countries of the United States, the USSR (Russia) and Great Britain. France and China later acceded the agreement in 1992, while India, Pakistan and Israel have yet to sign, and North Korea withdrew from the agreement in 2003. (It should be noted that these four countries possess nuclear weapons.) Perhaps politicians back then were genuinely afraid of the real and present danger of nuclear conflict, and pulled us back from the brink.
Then in 1987, the INF treaty between the USSR (Russia) and the United States established the methodical destruction of thousands of missiles in both countries' arsenals over the ensuing decades. Between the two there were some 60,000 nuclear weapons in 1985, a figure that staggers the imagination. By 1995, thanks to the INF treaty agreement, that figure had been halved, until today each side has roughly 4,000 stockpiled. (The INF treaty was designed to reduce American and Russian weapon caches, leaving other nuclear weapon-producing countries free to continue developing there own, but that's another story.) The 1987 INF treaty had been a significant, further step in making our world safer. That agreement has now torn up by President Trump, and, in response, Russia's Valdimir Putin*.
A further concern is the upcoming extension to the 2011 NewStart treaty signed by then Russian president Medvedev and American president, Obama which was an updated version of the Start II treaty which was never ratified. This agreement between the world's two pre-eminent nuclear powers put limits on the types and numbers of 'delivery systems' for nuclear warheads (missiles, bombers, etc.). The problem is that the treaty is due for renewal in 2022. Trump is making the suggestion that perhaps China (and other nuclear powers?) should be part of this agreement--a good idea in principle, but the time-line to develop such a treaty would be vanishing short. To me, this feels like another Trumpian 'let's make a deal' negotiating tactic, or more ominously, a prelude to pull out of the agreement altogether, as he has done with the INF treaty and of course the Iran nuclear deal. If the NewStart deal is not renewed, it could add to the potential for an out-of-control arms race., a prospect too frightening to contemplate. Are we just going around in circles? Today, the bellicosity of the current American president, who was elected, in part, due to his stated criticism of overseas military adventures and bloated Pentagon budgets, and who now proposes to expand America’s nuclear arsenal and make more “battlefield” nuclear weapons available, with the threat to use them in a first strike, raises for us an existential crisis, namely, the real possibility for a nuclear exchange to occur in war within our lifetimes.
Cheers
*I thought this article from the Keiv Post was interesting. It gives some basic information on the INF treaty and the US-Russian withdrawals. However, it also rather uncritically describes how Ukraine is now free to develop its own array of short and medium range (non-nuclear) missiles to protect their country from Russia (or more likely, buy the weapons from America). It seems it's no longer "better to jaw-jaw than war-war," and that Mr. Churchill's sage advice is to be less and less heeded these days.
How many missiles can we fit onto the head of a pin before one goes off?
No comments:
Post a Comment