The twentieth century has been by far the bloodiest in human history, with 160 million people perishing in every conceivable type of conflict, from the two ‘wars to end all wars’ to the ongoing disputes in the former Yugoslavia. Mercifully, we have so far managed to avoid the global disaster that would unquestionably result from the military use of nuclear weapons, although it has only recently emerged how narrowly this possibility was averted during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In the views of an increasing number of authorities, nuclear weapons have ceased to be a useful military tool, even if they ever were. If we do not now take urgent measures to return to a non-nuclear world, the risk that the twenty-first century will witness nuclear holocaust will be substantial and, in my opinion, simply unacceptable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
‘Preventing deadly conflict’, (final report of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict), xii; 1997, New York, NY, Carnegie Corporation.
2.
New York Times, 1997, 31 December.
3.
KissingerH.: ‘Diplomacy’, 805; 1994, New York, NY, Simon and Schuster.
4.
KaysenC.: ‘Is war obsolete?’, Int. Secur., 1990, 14, (4), 63.
5.
I have included in my concept of ‘collective security’ elements of what Janne Nolan refers to as ‘cooperative security’ (seeSteinbrunerJ., CarterA., PerryB., NolanJ., et al.: ‘Global engagement’; 1996, Washington, DC, Brookings). Ms Nolan states that ‘one strategy does not preclude the other and both are, in fact, initially reinforcing’.
6.
See Washington Post, 1994, 11 June, A1.
7.
MayE. R and ZelikowP. D.: ‘The Kennedy tapes’; 1997, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
8.
FursenkoA. and NaftaliT.: ‘One hell of a gamble’; 1997, New York, NY, Norton.
9.
General Gribkov elaborated on these points at a meeting in the Wilson Center, Washington, DC on 5 April1994.
10.
SeeDokochaevA.: ‘Afterword to sensational 100 day nuclear cruise’, Krasnaya Zvezda, 1992, 6 November, 2 and V. Badurikin's interview with Dimitri Volkogonov in ‘Operation Anadyr’, Trud, 1992, 27October, 3.
11.
Both the Canberra Commission (p. 22) and the Carnegie Commission (p. 70) came to the same conclusion. Using almost identical words they state: ‘The position that large numbers of nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility.’
12.
This statement was endorsed by the US National Academy of Science in 1991 in a report signed by 18 security experts including David C. Jones, former Chief of Staff of the US Air Force (‘The future of the US–Soviet nuclear relationship’, 3; 1991, Washington, DC, National Academy Press); by the Stimson Center's Panel on Nuclear Forces, chaired by the former Saceur, General Andrew Goodpaster (‘An evolving nuclear posture’, 15; 1995, Washington, DC, Stimson Center); and by the Canberra Commission (‘Report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons’, 18; 1996, Commonwealth of Australia).
13.
I recognise, of course, that the abolition of nuclear weapons would not be possible without the development of an adequate verification system. Are acceptable verification regimes feasible? The decision point on whether verification is adequate for complete elimination (as opposed, for example, to reductions to a level of say 100 warheads), is not likely to be resolved for some time. In the end, comparative risks must be evaluated. The Canberra Commission (to which I will refer later), which also recommended abolition, concluded that the risk of use of the weapons far exceeds the risks associated with whatever nuclear force a cheating state could assemble before it was exposed.
14.
SeeFialksJ. J. and KempsF.: ‘U.S. welcomes Soviet arms plan, but dismisses pact as propaganda’, Wall Street Journal, 1986, 17 January and T. C. Reed and m. O. Wheeler: ‘The role of nuclear weapons in the new world order’, 1991, December.
15.
See William Perry's statement to the Stimson Center, 20 September 1994 and the Department of Defense briefing dated 22 September 1994.
16.
BundyM., CroweW. J.Jr, and DrellS. O.: ‘Reducing nuclear danger: the road away from the brink’, 100; 1993, New York, NY, Councilon Foreign Relations Press.
SeeZuckermanS.; ‘Nuclear illusions and reality’, 70; 1982, New York, NY, Vikingand Sunday Times, 1982, 21 February.
19.
KissingerH.: ‘NATO defense and the Soviet threat’, Survival, 1979, November/December, 266.
20.
BBC Radio interview with Stuart Simon, 16 July1987.
21.
Larry Welch to Adam Scheinman, 21 March1994.
22.
Boston Globe, 1994, 16 July.
23.
McnamaraR. S.: ‘The military role of nuclear weapons’, Foreign Aff., 1983, Fall, 79.
24.
‘De-alerting strategic nuclear forces’, preliminary draft of a study of nuclear forces presented by Blair on 29 January1998to the Independent Task Force on Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War.
