RANT: NUKES AND NUTTS PART ONE

 

  

NEXT WEEK MARKS the eightieth anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 respectively, the only time nuclear weapons were used in wartime. Today, our planet hosts nine nations who have nuclear weapons in their arsenals. Five of those nations (Britain, China, France, Russia, United States) are signatories to the 1970 NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), along with 191 non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). The four nuclear weapon possessing states (NWS) that are NOT signatories to the Cold War treaty are: India, Pakistan, North Korea (it left the NPT in 2003 to develop nuclear weapons) and Israel (undeclared). South Sudan is a NNWS that has also NOT signed the treaty.

Under the NPT, only the above five NWS are allowed to possess nuclear weapons since their stockpiles accrued prior to 1970 when the terms of the NPT came into force; the rest must comply with treaty obligations and pledge they will only develop technologies and facilities dedicated to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, eschewing the acquisition of nuclear weapons.* Signatories also agree NOT to share nuclear weapons technology with other states, nor transfer nuclear weapons outside their territories. Signatories to the treaty that violate its terms are subject to sanctions and political pressure from the UNSC (United Nations Security Council). To tamp down the spread of nuclear weapons, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) provides a clearing house for technical information and support for countries that develop civilian nuclear programs. The NPT also requires that treaty members open their nuclear facilities to inspection by the IAEA to ensure no nuclear material is diverted toward weapons production.

 

[On June 12, 1982, the largest protest in American history converged in New York, as an estimated one million protestors marched from Central Park to the United Nations to demand an end to nuclear weapons.]  

 

IN GENERAL, this system has kept in check the “horizontal” spread of nuclear weapons by offering assistance through commercial and financial organizations, and through the IAEA’s nuclear technology training programs. However, the  “vertical” spread of the ‘Big Five’ NWS in creating large stockpiles of warheads and bombs, leaves the NPT open to charges of hypocrisy and unfair treatment, where the ‘Big Five’ have capitalized on their early adoption of nuclear weapons to ‘corner the market’ on nuclear weapons technology, with the IAEA there to ensure certain technologies in nuclear energy production are withheld from signatory nations that might lead them to, for example, enrich uranium to weapons-grade purity. India objected to the closed nuclear ‘club’ and went ahead with its own program in the mid-1970s. Pakistan followed India, developing its nuclear weapons, also outside the NPT. It should be noted that nuclear weapons states are required to adopt policies that would decrease their stockpiles over time. During the 1960s, 70s and early 80s, the USSR and American caches of nuclear weapons were in the tens of thousands. The early SALT1 and SALT2 (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) treaties and the more comprehensive START and NewSTART (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the United States and the USSR (later Russia) brought nuclear armories of both countries down to roughly 5,200 warheads apiece, either deployed, in storage, or in the process of decommissioning.

 

FUN FACT: The NewSTART treaty was renewed during the Obama presidency in 2010, but is set to expire next year, unless Trump and his band of sad-sack clowns are foolish enough NOT to negotiate with the Russians for an extension to NewSTART. Without this treaty, there could very well begin a new arms race, and China—not a signatory to the treaty—may grow its own inventory of nuclear weapons to add to the mix. This is a very disturbing scenario, and one would think there would be growing public concern. But it is not on most people's radar. "Meep-meep!"

 

IN THE POST-WWII YEARS, the ‘Big Five’ nations¹ (Britain, China, France, Russia, United States) had economies large enough to establish both civilian and military nuclear programs.² They had emerged victorious from the war and called the shots from their position on the UN Security Council. Between themselves they established nuclear protocols and agreements. Imperfect treaties though all these were, nevertheless, they acted as a brake on a runaway arms race and promoted saner nuclear weapons arrangements. But times have changed, nine nations have nuclear weapons now and more may follow. We face the possibility that loose cannons in one or more governments may open the proverbial barn door, and we may not be able to close it, this time.

 

I SAW BY OPEN WINDOW

I saw by open window.

I saw a sky so blue.

I saw there in the distance

The line the bomber drew.

I heard the earth still breathing.

And then I heard it sigh.

I heard its heart stop beating,

Beneath an azure sky.

 

  

Cheers, Jake.  ____________________________________

 

* INTERESTINGLY, South Africa is the only country to have developed an indigenous nuclear weapons program and then given it up in 1990 to join the NPT. In the 1980s, apartheid SA developed several nuclear bombs (probably with help from Israel) to ward off the USSR which supported liberation movements inside South Africa like the ANC (African National Congress). Today, both countries are partners and founding members of the BRICS coalition. [How times change! Ed.]

 

1. The ‘Big five’ nations also happen to be the five permanent members of the powerful United Nations Security Council. Go figure.

 

2. Eighty years on from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the ‘secrets’ of building nuclear bombs and reactors is pretty much an open secret. There are some tricks-of-the-trade around enrichment processes and configuring nuclear warheads onto missiles that will fly, and so on. But many nations that have mature nuclear programs, like Canada for instance, could enrich U-235 to weapons-grade Pu but choose not to because of cost (it’s expensive to build nuclear weapons that have only one use (hopefully!) and that’s to sit in their silos. Whereas nuclear power stations can contribute to the economy by providing cheap³ electricity to run industries, etc. There are also treaty obligations as in the NPT, for instance, which come with penalties should the terms of the treaty be breached, not to mention complaints and diplomatic rows from concerned neighbours.

WHEN you enter the ‘club’, the rules of the game change, your international relationships change, and not necessarily for the better. For example, Israel has nuclear weapons—an open secret—but hasn’t formally declared itself a NWS. If it did NOT have nukes, it would have had to behave like a normal and relatively sane country, knitting together relations with its neighbours and coming to workable solutions internally on how to govern itself. I see nuclear weapons as a distorting factor in Israeli society and politics. Thus, Israel becomes a threat to its neighbours and moves like a wrecking ball through international law. It gets away with too many things it wouldn’t be able to, under normal circumstances. And that’s not good for anyone, including Israel.

 

FUN FACT: Following the June bombings of its nuclear facilities, Iran, suspicious that the IAEA leaked information to the Israelis about their nuclear program and the names of some of their scientists,  ordered the agency to leave. However, it remains a member of the NPT. Should it be attacked again, it will probably withdraw from the treaty and secretly work on a Bomb. It may then declare itself a Nuclear Weapons State or it may keep its status a secret, like Israel. MIT professor Ted Postol says for all intents and purposes Iran is ALREADY a NWS and should be treated as such, like all NWS are treated—with kid gloves. What a bizarro world we have!

 

3. I’m not so sure how ‘cheap’ nuclear power is when you factor in the humongous construction and maintenance costs, not to mention disposal of the highly radioactive waste, something NO ONE has yet found an answer. (Ship it to Mars, perhaps? Elon, what say ye?) There are approximately 440 reactors in 31 countries operating today. 

 

 

NO POEMS WERE HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS POST (MOSTLY)

 

 

AFTER THE WAR

It’s after the trial

when you’ve passed

their test,

whatever will come,

will still be our rest.

 

POTS

Another cracked bowl

finished. Perfect!

 

MACHINES

There’re machines that fly

And machines that scry.

But those that I fear

Are machines that die.

 

BOILED WINGS

Murder from the skies.

Then darkness,

as a witch’s vat

bubbles and boils away

everything.

Soon, flesh will fall from bone

and the lights go out,

leaving earth, as they must,

for the distant stars.

And in those final breaths,

voices will sound out

like the breaking of bells.

 

FATE

Fate dropped a penny,

then the other shoe.

Both fell to heaven,

To land beside you.

 

ORBIT

It had been coming for a long time.

You could see that now.

If you’d been more observant

you would have seen lines of doubt

etching themselves across her face.

You might have taken them for a sign,

or a guide to look deeper.

...

Then one day (suddenly it seemed)

you notice she frowns around you,

how she’s given to moods and fits

of impatience.

You began to quarrel over things like flags

and rain and other bits of the inconsequential.

 

That glow, once always upon her

whenever she moved about you,

grew cooler, fainter.

She became distant, aloof,

regal, you once criticized,

though she was never your queen.

 

Over time, you grew to resent her.

But you never thought

to wonder why she changed.

Or how it was done.

 

In the end, she became an irritant,

an unpleasant reminder.

So, you chose to ignore her

and grew indifferent to her presence,

sundering the final gravity between you.

And when she left

you neither mourned nor rejoiced.

You simply looked elsewhere

for your reflection.

 

PERSPECTIVE

“BE GONE!” roars Elephant.

“GET OFF!” parries Ant.

If one could just see

What the other still can’t.

 

SPARE THE ROD

Rap for the knuckle.

Pinch for the nose.

Bullet for my baby,

plucked like a rose.

 

ENGAGING THE VOID

Death is currently busy

at this time.

Please stay on the line

and a Grim Reaper

will be with you shortly.

 

AT HOME

Home.

“This is home.”

A stranger sound

than “alone.”

 

 

 

  

  

RANT: NUCLEAR BINGO

 

 

WAITING FOR THOSE LAST FEW NUMBERS to be called to fill your card at the local bingo hall is one thing. Waiting for those final numbers when you’re dealing with nuclear weapons is a whole, other kettle of fish.

I’ve mentioned previously that the one major nuclear arms agreement still intact between Russia and the United States, the New START treaty, is set to expire in 2026 unless both sides renew it. We’re still waiting for those renewal talks to commence, but I’m not holding my breath that will be anytime soon. It’s Wile E. Coyote time, folks.

 

The New START treaty limits the number of “operational” or armed missiles, ICBMs (“Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles”) and submarine launched ballistic missiles (“SLBMs”) for each side. Roughly 1500 armed nuclear warheads (Russia has slightly more) are installed in various delivery systems. There are several thousand more warheads in storage and scheduled to be decommissioned by both countries (see chart below). After 2026, unless the treaty is renegotiated, we can expect to see a new arms race, as each side deploys more of its store of warheads and builds more nuclear weapons and launch systems.[It might be a good time to add more weapons manufacturers to your stock portfolio; there might be a boom in your future. Just sayin'. Ed.]😁

 

👉It should be noted that in 2002, the American president George W. Bush withdrew from the long-standing Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.

The 1972 ABM treaty limited both USSR/Russia and the United States to just two anti-ballistic missile batteries in their respective countries. Obviously, this was no more than a symbolic gesture of ballistic missile “defense” and would be wholly inadequate to protect continental United States or the vast landmass of the USSR/Russia. The treaty's purpose was to keep both countries vulnerable to the other’s ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers. If both were vulnerable (without a real defense), then both would be deterred from attacking the other, when the reciprocal destruction of their own country was an all-but-assured consequence for launching a first strike. It was called the “MAD” (Mutual Assured Destruction) principle, and for decades it kept the nuclear powers in a kind of stasis and more or less minding their nuclear Ps and Qs.🚀

 

PRESIDENT BUSH'S EARLY 2000s' withdrawal from the treaty, saw the Americans develop anti-ballistic missile defense capabilities now that they were free from the constraints of the ABM treaty. But creating a viable ABM defense system is difficult to achieve and is no  guarantee for stopping anything close to 100% of a massed ICBM/SLBM attack. Recall the April 13 drone and missile attack by Iran against Israel, and how over-stretched Israel's vaunted "Iron Dome" missile defense umbrella became in only a single evening. Without Western air power, many more of the incoming missiles would have found their targets.  

NEVERTHELESS, the Americans stationed naval vessels in the Baltic and Barents Sea armed with AGEIS [from Gr. aigís meaning “goat skin”; later usage: “protection”, “a shield”. Ed.] cruise missiles. They later installed land-based AGEIS missile arrays in Poland and Romania over the objections of the Russians. The relative closeness of the NATO missile batteries to Russia made for the possibility that American ABMs could interdict some Russian ICBMs should they launch from silos in western Russia. The Kremlin pointed out that such missile arrays would compromise the Russian Federation's nuclear deterrence capability and give the Americans a dangerous advantage, tipping the strategic nuclear deterrence balance out of kilter. The Americans argued that the ABMs were there to defend against missiles from Iran or North Korea. 😆 Which is a bunch of crock! According to a leading nuclear arms expert, Professor Ted Postol, the "Aegis Ashore" batteries are not capable of intercepting incoming ICBMs from Iran. So why are they there, other than to guard dog the Russians? Doctor Postol makes the very relevant point that the Aegis Ashore system (like its naval counterpart) can easily be reconfigured to launch cruise missiles which are nuclear capable munitions. And, while they may currently be configured to launch only anti-air missiles, as the Americans claim, they can be quickly fitted out to launch offensive payloads. He says, the Russians are rightly concerned with this development.

 

[T]he Aegis systems in Eastern Europe have characteristics that make them especially threatening to Russia.... [They] were designed...to be able to launch both cruise missiles and anti-air missiles. This creates a short-warning attack threat to Russia via US conventional or nuclear-armed cruise missiles that were otherwise banned by the INF (Postol, "Russia")

 

IN THE EARLY 2000s, after the strictures against ABM development were removed following Bush's unwise walking away from the ABM treaty, and because of the Americans installations of so-called "defensive" missile batteries in eastern Europe, the  Russians developed alternative missile types and launch platforms that could overcome any ABM  system the U.S. might employ in the European theatre. They succeeded in producing ingenious workarounds like hypersonic missiles that cannot be intercepted, some of which are nuclear-capable. These missiles are now part of the Russian arsenal. They can travel up to Mach 10, that is, 10 times the speed of sound, thousands of miles per hour! No missile defense can stop them.

"We had to create these [hypersonic] weapons in response to the US deployment of a strategic missile defense system, which in the future would be capable of virtually neutralizing, zeroing out all our nuclear potential". Putin announcement 2018

 

IT'S AN UNNERVING THOUGHT: one side, with weapons that could conceivably shoot down incoming ballistic missiles or launch a first strike with hypersonics, disrupting with their speed the other side’s retaliatory launches. Of course, there are smaller-yield tactical nuclear weapons (bombs, artillery shells, missiles with a range under 500 miles) like those Russia has recently deployed in Belarus. The Americans, for their part, have 100 tactical nuclear bombs stored in six European nations that are currently being equipped with "glide bomb" technology. And there are the "defensive" missile arrays in Poland and Romania, previously mentioned, with a third battery proposed for Germany in 2026. 

 “In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin gleefully^* unveiled a range of new developmental nuclear delivery systems—an intercontinental hyper-sonic glider, a nuclear-powered cruise missile, and a nuclear-powered torpedo—that he stated were a response to the demise of the ABM Treaty. History appears to back him up. The glider, which has now been deployed, was first tested in about 2004—just two years after the U.S. withdrawal took effect.” (Carnegie)

 

👉ANOTHER TREATY that the Americans walked away from was from 1987's Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)Treaty. This treaty was significant because it got rid of an entire ‘family’ of nuclear weapons (short, medium, intermediate-range missiles and their delivery systems. Over two thousand missiles and warheads were destroyed during this treaty’s existence, significantly reducing the chance for Europe being turned into a giant ashtray in the event of a nuclear war. Missile emplacements in Western Europe and those in Eastern Europe were destroyed and eliminated from both sides’ arsenals. But, after 2000, as I discussed earlier, strains were placed on the treaty’s viability with complaints from both sides of not abiding to the terms of the deal. And to be fair, there is evidence both sides pushed against the constraints of not being able to develop land-based, mobile and siloed cruise missile platforms. Russia was accused of working on a new type of cruise missile in the early 2000s, while the U.S., for its part, put anti-air batteries in Poland (2008) and Romania (2015) over the objections of the Russians who complained these so-called "defensive" anti-ballistic missile systems could be reconfigured to fire intermediate/long-range, nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

 

IN 2018, President Trump began the process to withdraw the United States from the INF treaty. And just recently, the Americans have inked a deal to install similar missile batteries in Germany by 2026.

 

“U.S. Army forces in Germany will field the multipurpose Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, and a hyper-sonic missile that is still in development in ‘episodic deployments…as part of planning for enduring stationing of these capabilities in the future…’” (Arms Control)

 

UP TO THIS POINT, RUSSIA has refrained from installing intermediate-range missiles along Europe’s borders, and abides by the INF treaty protocols, though it is no longer obligated to do so. But if the German deployments go ahead “Russians will consider themselves “free” from a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles.” (Arms Control)  Then its back to the future with Europe once more bristling with the latest generation of tactical and theatre non-nuclear and nuclear-capable missiles.

NOTE that Russia has delivered to its neighbour, Belarus, “tactical” or “theatre” nuclear weapons. These are short/medium-range missiles, artillery shells and air-dropped bombs, typically with lower explosive yields. (Only a half-Hiroshima, say.) Escalating tensions this year with the West prompted the Russians to ‘lay down a marker’ in Belarus,¹ warning NATO they were serious about completing their “special military operation” in Ukraine and ensure their borders were secure and their heartlands safe.

WHAT the now-defunct 1987 INF treaty accomplished in its nearly thirty years of existence was to eliminate such missile batteries from the European continent. Land-based cruise missiles, installed in the early 2000s in Poland and Romania, (mobile and siloed) and now potentially in Germany were, and are, seen as a threat to Russian security and another step up the nuclear escalation ladder.

 

WE SHOULD BE WORRIED when treaties that kept a semblance of order and calm in the relations between two nuclear superpowers, like the ABM and the INF treaties and soon perhaps New START,  are tossed out with nothing to replace them. It’s like watching (or listening, perhaps) to two heavy-weight boxers duke it out in a darkened arena, each unsure where the other is at, having to decide on the fly whether to block or go for a knockout punch.

👉AND IN THE CASE of nuclear fisticuffs, we hope neither bruiser lands a knockout blow, because there can be no winners of such a match, even if one of them goes down for the count. In nuclear gamesmanship that’s not the end of it, not by a long shot.

 

Cheers, Jake. ______________________________________

  

* "...gleefully..." A rather gratuitous dig at Russia's President Putin that I find annoying. It is supposed to give the reader the impression of Putin as a reckless trickster perhaps? Putin's announcement wasn't 'tongue-in-cheek' and it should have been a wake up call for the U.S. to get arms control negotiations working again, but nope, not in 2018 and not today either. So far. And while I appreciate the info from the Carnagie Institute, please save the jibes for real clowns, like Zelensky, Biden, Kamala, von de Leyen, Sholtz, Macron, Trudeau, etc. There are plenty of boobs go around....

 

1. When the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR ceased to exist, and its constituent parts became independent nations, the nuclear weapons' arsenals from several former Soviet republics were returned to Russia proper. Belarus was one such republic that had hosted Soviet nukes, tactical and otherwise, during the Cold War. Now they’re back in Belarus. Good job, guys!😨

NUCLEAR TREATIES OVER THE YEARS:

1963: Limited Test Ban Treaty

1968: Non-proliferation Treaty

1971-2: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I)

1972: ABM (“Anti-Ballistic Missile” treaty) cancelled 2001

1987: INF Treaty (“Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces” treaty) cancelled 2018

1991: START treaty (“Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty”)    

1992: Open Skies treaty (a mutual verification pact) cancelled 2020

1993: START II (not ratified)

2002: Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT)

2010: New START (in effect until 2026; limits overall number of nukes in U.S and Russia.)

 

VARIOUS NUCLEAR TREATIES have been able to reduce the number of nuclear warheads possessed by Russia and the United States from a high of nearly 60,000 in 1985 to roughly 5,000 a piece. These two countries hold 90% of the world's total nuclear warhead arsenals to date. There are currently nine nuclear weapons possessing countries.

 

Click here for a clear and easy-to-read timeline of all the treaties and talks around nuclear weapons control between the USSR/Russia and the U.S.