NOTE: this is currently just a carbon-copy of Nuclear_disarmament#Recent_developments to work off of. The goal is to re-organize sections based on year and/or the new developments of the TPNW; right now the entire think is just a block of text with no context of precisely /how/ recent.
Recent developments
editReaction to September 11 attacks
edittodo: write about hardening stance on DPRK, IAEA extra verification/terrorism aspect. Move some of the stuff from below into this new section.
Eliminating nuclear weapons has long been an aim of the pacifist left. But now many mainstream politicians, academic analysts, and retired military leaders also advocate nuclear disarmament. Sam Nunn, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz have called upon governments to embrace the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, and in three Wall Street Journal opeds proposed an ambitious program of urgent steps to that end. The four have created the Nuclear Security Project to advance this agenda. Nunn reinforced that agenda during a speech at the Harvard Kennedy School on October 21, 2008, saying, "I’m much more concerned about a terrorist without a return address that cannot be deterred than I am about deliberate war between nuclear powers. You can’t deter a group who is willing to commit suicide. We are in a different era. You have to understand the world has changed."[1] In 2010, the four were featured in a documentary film entitled Nuclear Tipping Point. The film is a visual and historical depiction of the ideas laid forth in the Wall Street Journal op-eds and reinforces their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons and the steps that can be taken to reach that goal.[2]
Global Zero is an international non-partisan group of 300 world leaders dedicated to achieving nuclear disarmament.[3] The initiative, launched in December 2008, promotes a phased withdrawal and verification for the destruction of all devices held by official and unofficial members of the nuclear club. The Global Zero campaign works toward building an international consensus and a sustained global movement of leaders and citizens for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Goals include the initiation of United States-Russia bilateral negotiations for reductions to 1,000 total warheads each and commitments from the other key nuclear weapons countries to participate in multilateral negotiations for phased reductions of nuclear arsenals. Global Zero works to expand the diplomatic dialogue with key governments and continue to develop policy proposals on the critical issues related to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Prohibition movement
editThe International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament took place in Oslo in February 2008, and was organized by The Government of Norway, the Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Hoover Institute. The Conference was entitled Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and had the purpose of building consensus between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in relation to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.[4]
.jpg)
The Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation took place in Tehran in April 2010. The conference was held shortly after the signing of the New START, and resulted in a call of action toward eliminating all nuclear weapons. Representatives from 60 countries were invited to the conference. Non-governmental organizations were also present.
todo: why is this relevant? Among the prominent figures who have called for the abolition of nuclear weapons are "the philosopher Bertrand Russell, the entertainer Steve Allen, CNN’s Ted Turner, former Senator Claiborne Pell, Notre Dame president Theodore Hesburgh, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama".[5]
Others have argued that nuclear weapons have made the world relatively safer, with peace through deterrence and through the stability–instability paradox, including in south Asia.[6][7] Kenneth Waltz has argued that nuclear weapons have created a nuclear peace, and further nuclear weapon proliferation might even help avoid the large scale conventional wars that were so common prior to their invention at the end of World War II.[8] In the July 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs Waltz took issue with the view of most U.S., European, and Israeli, commentators and policymakers that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. Instead Waltz argues that it would probably be the best possible outcome, as it would restore stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.[9] Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University, the author of Atomic Obsession,[10] has also dismissed the need to interfere with Iran's nuclear program and expressed that arms control measures are counterproductive.[11] During a 2010 lecture at the University of Missouri, which was broadcast by C-SPAN, Dr. Mueller has also argued that the threat from nuclear weapons, especially nuclear terrorism, has been exaggerated, both in the popular media and by officials.[12]
Weakening of conventional deterrence
edittodo: talk about this in a balanced manner, both in how this has been used as an argument for nonpro and for (implicitly) an arms race Former Secretary Kissinger says there is a new danger, which cannot be addressed by deterrence: "The classical notion of deterrence was that there was some consequences before which aggressors and evildoers would recoil. In a world of suicide bombers, that calculation doesn’t operate in any comparable way".[13] George Shultz has said, "If you think of the people who are doing suicide attacks, and people like that get a nuclear weapon, they are almost by definition not deterrable".[14]
Andrew Bacevich wrote that there is no feasible scenario under which the US could sensibly use nuclear weapons:
For the United States, they are becoming unnecessary, even as a deterrent. Certainly, they are unlikely to dissuade the adversaries most likely to employ such weapons against us -- Islamic extremists intent on acquiring their own nuclear capability. If anything, the opposite is true. By retaining a strategic arsenal in readiness (and by insisting without qualification that the dropping of atomic bombs on two Japanese cities in 1945 was justified), the United States continues tacitly to sustain the view that nuclear weapons play a legitimate role in international politics ... .[15]
In The Limits of Safety, Scott Sagan documented numerous incidents in US military history that could have produced a nuclear war by accident. He concluded:
while the military organizations controlling U.S. nuclear forces during the Cold War performed this task with less success than we know, they performed with more success than we should have reasonably predicted. The problems identified in this book were not the product of incompetent organizations. They reflect the inherent limits of organizational safety. Recognizing that simple truth is the first and most important step toward a safer future.[16]
Arguments against disarmament
edittodo: move some of the stuff from above here; more relevant. add to the section in general.
- ^ Maclin, Beth (October 20, 2008) "A Nuclear weapon-free world is possible, Nunn says", Belfer Center, Harvard University. Retrieved on 2008-10-21.
- ^ "The Growing Appeal of Zero". The Economist: 66. June 18, 2011. Archived from the original on June 25, 2019. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
- ^ Global Zero Archived February 8, 2018, at the Wayback Machine [dead link]
- ^ "International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament". February 2008. Archived from the original on January 4, 2011.
- ^ Ernest Lefever (Autumn 1999). "Nuclear Weapons: Instruments of Peace". Global Dialogue. Archived from the original on May 9, 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2012.
- ^ Krepon, Michael. "The Stability-Instability Paradox, Misperception, and Escalation Control in South Asia" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 2, 2013.
- ^ Krepon, Michael (November 2, 2010). "The Stability-Instability Paradox". Arms Control Wonk. Archived from the original on January 12, 2015. Retrieved October 3, 2016.
- ^ [1] Archived October 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May be Better,”
- ^ Waltz, Kenneth (July–August 2012). "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability". Foreign Affairs (July/August 2012). Archived from the original on December 22, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2012.
- ^ Atomic Obsession. Archived from the original on April 16, 2012. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
- ^ http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2333 Archived August 3, 2014, at the Wayback Machine From 19:00 to 26:00 minutes
- ^ http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AtomicO: John Mueller, "Atomic Obsession"
- ^ Ben Goddard (January 27, 2010). "Cold Warriors say no nukes". The Hill. Archived from the original on February 13, 2014. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
- ^ Hugh Gusterson (March 30, 2012). "The new abolitionists". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Archived from the original on February 17, 2014. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
- ^ Bacevich, Andrew (2008). The Limits of Power. Metropolitan Books. pp. 178–179. ISBN 9780805088151.
- ^ Sagan, Scott D. (1993). The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton U. Pr. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-691-02101-0.