Nuclear Non-Proliferation as a Concept is a Fraud
Forum topic related to:
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is horribly flawed to begin with. But making matters worse is the reality that its chief signatory, the United States, has wantonly abused and disregarded what is good about the NPT -- and the effect has been to make the world a more dangerous place. If we are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it is necessary first to deconstruct the NPT and address what’s wrong with it. It’s also important to question the premise that nuclear arms proliferation will make the world more unsafe. On the contrary, nuclear arms disarmament may be impossible until nuclear arms proliferation hits saturation level.
The NPT consists of three parts: (1) non proliferation; (2) disarmament; and (3) peaceful use of nuclear technology. Let’s take each of these parts individually.
Non-Proliferation
The notion that it’s a good idea to prevent new countries (NPT signatories) from obtaining nuclear weaponry is, quite frankly, a faulty one. This part of the NPT assumes the world will be safer if admission to the nuclear-weapons club is kept to a few select nations (the ones that already have it). Right now, one of the biggest threats to the survival of our species is an aggressive war in which nuclear weapons are used (global warming is a subject for another discussion). Countries that currently have nuclear weapons have continually threatened to use them in an asymmetrical warfare scenario to subjugate “weaker” (i.e., non-nuclear equipped) people. Asymmetrical warfare is not new, as imperialist countries have relied on it for centuries… but the ability of nuclear weapons to annihilate an entire population in one fell swoop takes asymmetrical warfare to an unprecedented and terrifying level. Perpetrators of such nuclear aggression -- or threat of nuclear aggression -- include the obvious states with a history of bellicose policy: the US, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan.
In essence, by having a nuclear weapon, a nation has one of the greatest bargaining chips -- not to mention a potent tool of control and protection. Powerful military forces like the US will never invade or attack a country that has the ability inflict some amount of significant damage in return -- and a nuclear weapon provides that ability (at least in theory).
For three decades, the system of mutually assured destruction (the appropriately acronymed “MAD”) kept relative stability between the US and the former Soviet Union -- the myriad proxy wars and their associated atrocities in East Asia, Africa, and Central America notwithstanding. Hypothetically, if every nation in the world were to be nuclear-weapon equipped, there would probably be no state-initiated aggressive wars. No state actor could risk nuclear retaliation.
So the logic of the entire first part of the NPT, non-proliferation, should be reevaluated and possibly discarded. It is flawed reasoning to assume blindly that a world in which nuclear weapons belong to an exclusive "club" of powerful nations is any safer or more stable than a world in which nuclear weapons can be obtained by all.
Disarmament
This topic constitutes the second part of the NPT. While true disarmament is a noble pursuit, Article VI of the NPT does not actually require disarmament. It only talks about efforts to “negotiate in good faith” with each other in a way that might eventually lead to some sort of disarmament trend. This is so weak as to be almost useless. And we all know that none of the original five signatories to the treaty has made any moves in this direction… but again, it’s easy to understand why. The presence of nuclear weapons in a nation’s military arsenal is an extremely potent tool of control, coercion, and oppression -- irresistible to heads of state, captains of industry, and other powerful interests who are actually running the world. Countries like the US, China, India, and Israel have an enormous incentive not to disarm. So for the “disarmament” part of the NPT to have any potency, it would have to be revised to include language requiring real disarmament with hard time tables and there would have to be significant punitive -- and enforceable -- measures built in to address non-compliance.
However, this may not be enough. The addiction to empire and domination over weaker countries to which powerful countries have become accustomed to is too strong. Empire and domination require asymmetry in the ability of the imperial power to destroy the victim. I submit that specific world-wide conditions have to be in place before powerful military forces will be willing to disarm. Notably, a “level playing field” of weaponry is required where no single power necessarily has the upper hand. In other words, a saturation of nuclear weapons proliferation throughout the world is necessary before we will see the existing nuclear powers disarm.
Of course, tempering this argument is the very reasonable notion that nuclear proliferation is dangerous because “crazy” non-state actors could acquire nuclear weapons, or because faulty delivery/early-warnings systems can start unintentional nuclear wars. This is true -- and we have to weigh the risks. In my estimation, nuclear proliferation is inevitable and it’s a wiser use of our collective resources to try to map out a strategy to skirt these pitfalls -- one that may eventually lead to true nuclear disarmament.
Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy
The third and last part of the NPT provides the right for states to use nuclear reactors to generate energy for civilian purposes. Putting aside the very dubious merits and significant risks of nuclear energy (a subject for another topic?), many countries have dual-use programs where their enrichment and reprocessing capabilities could be leveraged in the future for weapons systems. I have to refer back to my previous assertion that nuclear non-proliferation is not a noble goal in the absence of multilateral true disarmament. To the extent that this third part of the NPT is an "Achilles heel" for the first section (as Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has stated), I suggest we step back and take a more macroscopic view…
The NPT is essentially a disguised tool used by nuclear-weapons-equipped nations to maintain their exclusive hegemony over non-nuclear-equipped countries. I believe it is necessary to dissolve the NPT entirely and replace it with a complete anti-nuclear technology treaty (ANTT?) -- one that makes it an international crime (whether by state or non-state actors) to enrich uranium. This would prohibit the production and use of not just nuclear weapons, but also depleted uranium weapons (which have been used extensively by both the US and Israel to the horrible detriment of various civilian populations over the past 35 years). Such a treaty would also have the ancillary effect of shifting energy focus to truly renewable and clean sources, such as wind, solar, hydropower. The big question is: how do we get existing nuclear-equipped nations to abandon nuclear technology and renounce the global empire building that relies on it?
I think this should be a solution
Thank you -- this is great. But I think it should be posted as a solution. The only problem is that your proposed solution is in the last paragraph, when we're trying to encourage people to put what they're proposing up front. What would you think about moving your last paragraph to the beginning, and then re-posting this as a solution?
You've partially persuaded me already
Based on your excellent analysis of the flaws in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), I definitely think this "problem" should be re-framed. Perhaps something like "Nuclear weapons continue to pose a significant threat to the world." This would place the emphasis back where it should be -- on the dangers of the ongoing development and implementation of nuclear weapons technology. It leaves open the question of whether this technology should be retained by some (as called for in the NPT), available to all (thus moving toward the saturation you describe), or made illegal across the board (as you ultimately propose). Of course, we could simply say, quoting you in part, that "The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is horribly flawed and has made the world a more dangerous place." I prefer some variation on the first version because it poses a slightly more open question, whereas the more narrowly framed second version more or less sets the table for solutions that would scrap the treaty. If other people want to buttress the treaty instead, they would have to post a differently worded problem to respond to. For the time being, it would seem advantageous to have several diverse approaches to a commonly defined problem.
In any case, what do you think of Mintza's suggestion of re-posting your piece as a solution? She's right that you would need to put your proposed remedy up front, but I actually think that would work quite well. With a few very small alterations, the piece reads quite well with the last paragraph first. What do you think?
Your analysis of the inherent flaws of the treaty seems dead-on to me. It's clear that so long as nuclear nations threaten non-nuclear ones, the latter will seek to change their status, and proliferation is an inevitability.
There are a number of challenges implied in your proposed solution, none of which would be news to you, I would imagine. One early and loud objection would echo a common concern about gun control -- by making nukes illegal, the "good guys" would obey, but the "bad guys" wouldn't, and the latter would therefore gain the upper hand. This seems easily countered, since non-state "crazies" seeking nukes would almost inevitably rely upon technology and materials that are only available to states. Osama bin Laden isn't going to build centrifuges in the mountains of Pakistan. Therefore, this supposed challenge actually yields one of the most compelling reasons to consider your idea -- it would make it much harder, and perhaps impossible, for non-state actors to make or get a weapon, thus eliminating the threat that most worries the West. And of course, it would greatly reduce the threat of accidental war, as well.
Of course, the real obstacle to your idea is the one you lay out yourself: the fact that countries with nuclear weapons are extremely attached to the power imbalance that they have in relation to those that don't have them. You suggest that these nuclear powered nations will never willingly surrender that edge, and thus the edge must be eliminated by nuclear technology saturation. Presumably, once no one has the edge, it will be possible to consider everyone giving up the weapons.
I wonder if that is the only way to break the "addiction," as you aptly put it. (Obviously you wonder as well, since you ultimately call for a total ban, rather than no ban at all). I am reminded of an article I read just a few days ago in the New Yorker, Fuel for Thought, by James Surowiecki. Quick synopsis: 3/4 of the population favors big increases in mandatory fuel efficiency, even while they continue to buy low efficiency SUV's in hugely disproportionate numbers. Surowiecki argues that this isn't as nutty as it would appear, but actually reflects some "wisdom of the crowds." People recognize that if an Escalade is going to collide with a Prius, they would rather be in the Escalade. And by driving the Escalade, they are not going to suffer any more from global warming than the Prius driver. So the Escalade choice makes some sense for the individual, just like the choice to maintain a nuclear arsenal makes some sense to a nation.
But the polls show that people recognize that the collective effect of so many low efficiency vehicles is bad. The solution they prefer would appear to be the best one -- change the rules and level the playing field. If heavy low efficiency light trucks are phased out legislatively, replaced by lighter more efficient vehicles, then people won't be tempted to drive a tank to keep their kids safe (or compensate for low self esteem) in order to keep up with all the other tank drivers. To a certain extent, Surowiecki seems to be arguing, individual choices are largely defensive. Remove the threat (the guy next door has a bigger car, the car that blindsides you is an 8600 lb Hummer), you remove the incentive to respond in kind, and you short-circuit the arms race.
Following your saturation logic, the only way to get people to give up their Hummers would be if everyone drove one. The fact that there is such broad support for curtailing their availability instead would seem to point toward the possibility of the nuclear solution you eventually propose -- banning nuclear technology now, rather than proliferating it in the hopes that we could then ban it.
Of course, the fact that the public can sometimes see the big picture doesn't mean that leaders will, or have any incentive to. Still, leaders (at least the political ones) rely upon public acquiescence in order to stay in power. The public has been sold on the idea that maintaining a nuclear arsenal is a good idea. There might be a window right now for persuading them otherwise, at least in this country, since there are no current state threats, and most people are more afraid of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. As I've already pointed out, disarmament appears to be a vastly superior strategy for dealing with this fear. But as soon as our relations further sour with Russia, or other nations go nuclear (like Iran), it will be too easy to manipulate people with Reagan-style bear-in-the-woods arguments that "we better be armed, since we can't trust ____."
Nuclear Weapons and Empire
Mintza and Dave,
Thanks for your comments. I’ll address them individually:
1) Repost as a solution: I’d like to do that… although first I want to put a little more thought into the proposed solution. My idea for the “ANTT” is still a little sketchy, so I’ll work on it and repost in a couple of days.
2) Reframe the problem as "Nuclear weapons continue to pose a significant threat to the world”: I think this is a good idea because it broadens the question to accommodate a variety of perspectives (not just the one I’ve put forward), while still capturing the crux of the problem. But to step back for a moment: I feel the underlying problem isn’t actually nuclear weapons, but maintenance and expansion of empire. The nuke is just a tool -- like a glorified screwdriver -- used to help governments achieve the ultimate goal of empire and domination. If we rid ourselves of our thirst for empire, we remove the demand for aggressive war, along with the tools that accompany it. And it’s not just limited to nuclear weapons: the Bush Administration’s plans to militarize space using satellite weaponry is another scary proposition. Eschewing empire is the real intractable problem.
3) Fuel-efficient car mandate: I wish the solution to nuclear disarmament was more like the solution for rampant SUVs (legislating minimum fuel efficiency limits, regulating vehicle mass, and standardizing bumper heights). But your SUV analogy is really good for the concept of short-circuiting the nuclear arms race by leveling the playing field.
When writing a “solution” to the nuclear weapons problem, do you think it is too broad to tackle empire as a root cause? My rationale is as follows: imperial ambition has always been an essential ingredient of America. We hear lots of talk from Washington, disseminated through the obsequious corporate media, about how we’re fighting the so-called war on terror in order to “protect the American way of life.” What does that mean? If our “way of life” refers to the cocoons most of us are living in that immerse us in transitory comfort and relative privilege -- then I think a reasonable argument can be made that it’s selfish and cruel to protect it.
We have created this “way of life” largely through the subjugation and exploitation of others, not through our intelligence and virtue (as nationalist propaganda would have us believe). From wiping out pre-Columbian indigenous Americans with systematic campaigns of genocide, to 400 years of enslaving sub-Saharan Africans, to 200 years of dominating other parts of the Americas behind the guise of the Monroe Doctrine, to 20th-Century proxy wars, subversion, and CIA-led coups in the Middle East -- we as Americans have a long history of imperial aggression in pursuit of establishing what we now call “our way of life.”
The computer that I’m typing this on cost me only $1000 because the semiconductor microchips that run it are made from a mineral called coltan -- which is found primarily in the Congo -- and US corporations like Intel can get it at dirt-cheap prices after having fueled a civil war there that killed 3.5 million people. Our inexpensive computers, cell phones, and iPods are part of our “way of life,” and 3.5 million Congolese subsidized these things with their lives. (It’s not unlike blood diamonds, where the global demand for the gems helped finance civil wars in Sierra Leone, Angola, and Liberia.)
We are supporting corrupt and brutal enterprises through the oil we buy for our cars, the food many of us eat (most of which comes from large agribusiness), and the various luxury goods with which we populate our lives. Until we recognize this aspect of our society and consciously decide that we no longer want to live in a system built upon the domination of other peoples, our representatives in Washington will wage aggressive wars on our behalf and use “gunboat diplomacy” to extract the resources we need to maintain our “way of life.” To wage these imperial wars with some degree of success, we will need the advantage of asymmetrical warfare provided by a near-monopoly on nuclear weapons. If we’re really serious about nuclear disarmament, maybe focusing on international treaties is not the sole path. Maybe nuclear disarmament starts a little closer to home -- with us.
posting a solution
You raise a bunch of very interesting substantive points, but I will need to respond to those later. I want to respond to the site-organization-and-purpose-related question that you pose now.
When you've fleshed out your ideas to your own satisfaction (and keep in mind that you can revise anything you post on the site whenever you want), I would recommend that you post two different pieces, instead of one. Your ANTT idea is an interesting take on the proliferation issue and I hope you'll post it as a solution. At the same time, I understand that you see the larger problem -- maintenance and expansion of empire -- as far more important to address. I don't think that problem -- and your thoughts about it -- can or should be squeezed into the proliferation issue. It deserves its own separate heading.
Accordingly, I think you should write up a brief problem description for the empire problem and submit it as a new problem. You can describe it however you like, but the idea is to try to stay brief and focus on what the problem is, forgoing for the moment any in-depth analysis of why or how the problem exists, who it affects, etc. You can post all of that as one or more In-Depth Discussion topics that will spin off of the problem post. And of course you can also post any solution ideas that you have to the problem...
Having created whatever empire-specific content, you can offer links to it in your ANTT solution (or the In-Depth Discussions about the nuclear problem), and vice versa. So people could go back and forth between your thoughts on the tool (nukes) and the underlying forces that determine its use (empire).
What do you think?
Yeah
Good plan. I'll do it...