Our Nuclear-Free Opportunity

[This is another in the series of posts about the top ten reasons why a world without nuclear weapons is achievable. This one is by Nathan Pyles. This is the first in a twelve part series that I'll cross post here.] 

Top Ten Reasons Why a World Free of Nuclear Weapons is Now Achievable

Introduction 

Midge Miller died this spring. She was 86. Like most of you, I did not know her. I saw her speak only once. It was two years ago at a local public hearing on a plan to re-invest in our nation’s nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities. She could not have weighed more than a hundred pounds. She walked slowly to the microphone with the hint of a bend. But she was far more force than frailty. Her voice and her message did not quiver or equivocate as she argued against this proposed plan.

Midge Miller, among her many accomplishments, was a longtime nuclear weapons abolitionist in Madison, Wisconsin. Across the country, in every city and most small towns, are others who have long shared Midge Miller’s nuclear concerns. These are individuals who early-on recognized the dangers of nuclear conflict. But already I am glossing over their passion. I’m being too indirect – and surely they would scold me. These are people who long ago recognized the madness of our nuclear ways.

Ronald Reagan, from the small town of Dixon, Illinois became one of them. These are smart citizens who do not need to dissect papers on nuclear deterrence theory to know that the nuclear proponents are wrong. They understand from a deeper place, the fallacy of permanent existential terror as a lasting solution for peace. Every religious leader in the world is in their camp. They are on Midge’s side. They have her spiritual back.

Over their long lives, their nuclear abolition efforts have been derided as being – you chose your favorite term – naïve, quixotic, weak, Kumbaya-singing, fantasy, unachievable. Midge and the others ignored their critics, not even allowing these cynical words to register as speed bumps as they drove their cause forward. They had the moral right-of-way. They held another candlelight vigil, called their elected representatives, occasionally ran for office, and wrote their local newspaper editor one more letter.

While it is often difficult to see incremental progress on a sixty-five year project, the effect of their prolonged effort is cumulative. This is the languid path a brighter future tends to take – whether it’s the abolition of slavery, achieving women’s suffrage, or banning our most lethal weapons - none comes easily, none comes quickly. Entire generations must change their thinking.

The complete global elimination of nuclear weapons, which just a few years ago was considered impossible, is rapidly looking to be the logical, if not the only, long-term solution for halting nuclear proliferation and its incumbent dangers. While Iranian and North Korean nuclear efforts hog today’s headlines, these may well be the last sputtered sparks of a dying nuclear flame. We are quickly approaching, to steal Malcolm Gladwell’s term, a tipping point in global nuclear weapons’ policy.

This twelve part series, Our Nuclear-Free Opportunity, will explore the top 10 reasons why a world free of nuclear weapons is not only achievable – it may now only be a decade or so away. Thanks in no small measure to the echoing voices of the Midge Millers from all around the world.

Top Ten Reasons Why a World Free of Nuclear Weapons is Now Achievable

1. Interdependence of global economies and financial systems.

2. Free global communications and social networking.

3. Humanity’s moral evolution - two steps forward, one step back.

4. Poor ROI from nuclear weapons spending.

5. The fallacy of deterrence in a proliferated world.

6. Building off of past arms control successes.

7. Thank you Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

8. Simultaneous alignment of most stakeholders.

9. A new generation of global leadership.

10. The powerful motivation of self-preservation. 

Mrs. Martin's top ten

In no particular order:

1. The Obama Admin is exercising leadership on this issue, wants to make deep cuts happen, and is determined to build a new relationship with Russia
2. The U.S. military has new missions, e.g. counter-insurgency, state-building, peacekeeping, for which nuclear weapons are useless.
3. There is a new generation of leaders (UK, Russia, the developing world, maybe less so France and China though) for whom security is not and never will be derived from nuclear weapons.
4. There is widespread recognition that broader nonproliferation goals such as limits on enrichment and reprocessing are impossible without genuine progress toward disarmament.
5. In successive U.S. nuclear posture reviews the role and importance of nuclear weapons is diminishing.
6. The Cold War is definitively over and nuclear weapons are seen by the public as anachronistic and dangerous relics, like smoking, martinis with lunch and doing anything without a helmet.
7. There is new money and influence behind the road to zero—four horsemen, Global Zero, NTI, celebrities etc.
8. There is more confidence today in verification measures and technical means of detecting noncompliance (this area still needs work).
9. Terrorism (9/11), the Iraq war, North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs, demonstrate each in their own way that nuclear weapons are ineffective deterrents to homeland attacks, civil wars and insurgencies and proliferation. 
10. Ward Wilson has persuasively argued that cities can’t be held hostage to nuclear blackmail and that Hiroshima didn’t end WWII.

My top ten

As you may recall, my friend Nathan Pyles is trying to come up with the top ten reasons why it's now more likely that nuclear weapons will be abolished than, say, ten years ago. He's working on his list (which I'll post). One reader (a Mrs. Martin - not her real name?) posted another. Here is mine. What's yours?

1. The time to reconstitute a nuclear arsenal is now ridiculously short. Something like six months. This means any cheater has a very small window to accomplish whatever he’s trying to do.

2. Sixty years of history with nuclear weapons has shown that they just aren’t the right tool for most situations. We’ve gone from thinking they’re the be-all and end-all (certainly the end-all), to thinking they’re just some weapons that are too big to use most of the time.

3. US conventional strength is now so great that nuclear weapons are superfluous for most situations. Certain US security doesn’t need nuclear weapons. This create problems vis-a-vis other nations, but is an enormous advantage in getting the process rolling politically in the US.

4. There is an American President who supports nuclear disarmament.

5. The Democratic party seems to be on the upsurge and they generally tend to favor disarmament.

6. The current President went out of his way to befriend the key Republican whose support will be needed to pass any nuclear weapons legislation (Sen. Richard Lugar).

7. The chief domestic political obstacle to disarmament (the Republican party) seems bent on self-immolation.

8. There is, increasingly, a consensus in the world for disarmament.

9. The British appear to be, more and more, assuming a leadership role in advocating the abolition of nuclear weapons.

10. There are, indeed, new things to be said about nuclear weapons. The old paradigm has not only turned out to have little connection with the course of events, but there are clear indications that strong pragmatic arguments can be made against nuclear weapons. Arguments that haven't yet been tried.

Top Ten Reasons

My friend Nathan Pyles (who won second place in last year's Doreen and Jim McElvany Nonproliferation Essay Challenge) has been asked to write some blog posts for a friend's political website. Nathan is writing on the top ten reasons why a world without nuclear weapons is now possible. Having talked with him, watched him present, and read his stuff, I know that Nathan is smart about this stuff. You can tell from his winning essay on how to shape the messaging for getting rid of nuclear weapons. He's also interesting because he doesn't come from within the nonproliferation mainstream. He's actually (gasp!) a businessman who's read widely and deeply on the issues and brings fresh ideas and strong judgment to this issue.

It occurred to me that it would be interesting to try my hand at ranking the top ten reasons and post them. Then when Nathan posts his, perhaps we can put them side by side or one after the other. 

Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at it? If you want to give it a whirl, I'd be happy to post your top ten reasons. Email me by clicking the "email me" button almost all the way at the bottom on the left and send me your list. Be interesting to compare thoughts. Got to go work on my list.

Homeland deterrence

(I recently presented at the University of Chicago and this is another thought prompted by those very useful exchanges.) 

People often say that, although it may be possible to question whether nuclear weapons win wars or are successful at coercing, it is certain that nuclear weapons deter attacks on one's homeland. I believe that the 1973 Yom Kippur war invalidates this, but there are issues that can be debated about that example.

I realized this morning that size is an issue here. The size of your arsenal and the character of the stakes makes a difference. For example, imagine the following set of circumstances: the Germans develop nuclear weapons in late 1944 and (because of limited access to uranium) they are only able to construct two nuclear weapons. They announce that they possess a bomb that can devastate a city. Allied use of Ultra allows them to know that the Germans have only a very limited number of nuclear weapons.

The Allies are poised at Germany's borders - Soviets on the east, US and British on the west. Is there anyone who believes that the Allies would be deterred? That they would allow Hitler, after all of the death and destruction that he has brought to Europe and the millions who have died - that they would allow him to remain unmolested in Germany? The Allies would push on even if it cost them two, or five, or even ten cities. Perhaps more. I have not the slightest doubt about this and cannot even imagine how you would make the counter argument.

It may be that at some level (of arsenal size) and against some opponents a nuclear arsenal would protect you against invasion of your homeland. But it is by no means an open and shut case and it might be difficult to decide where to draw the line. A claim like "an arsenal of 50 would definitely protect your homeland" might or might not be true depending on the circumstances. It's not clear how you decide whether it would work.

More work needs to be done on this.