"Deterrence": As a strategy, it makes about as much sense as "proliferation"

The doctrine of deterrence -- and the preferential comfort it affords a few nuclear weapons states -- will not survive the 2017 Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations . . . .

The biggest global event of 2017 will be the negotiations on a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations
United Nations, New York
27-31 March 2017
15 June - 7 July 2017
(For more information: ICAN)

I have just read a very provocative analysis of what the nuclear weapons ban treaty is all about. It asserts, in part:

"The ban treaty, then, is
an instrument to disrupt the comfort
of those who still believe that deterrence logic
(or mutual assured destruction)
provides a security rationale for nuclear weapons."

(emphasis added)

(See "The ban treaty: An interim step, but politically profound" by Joelien Pretorius in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.)

This was a revelation to me, taken in concert with my current re-reading of Mohammed ElBaradei's The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times."That's right!" I thought. "'Deterrence' is only the chosen logical paradigm for those who already control a massive advantage AND have a way of maintaining that advantage. They -- the nuclear weapons powers - have managed to attach a taboo to proliferation, but not to deterrence. It's bogus."

"Deterrence" is the back-door concept by which nuclear weapons states, having undertaken a treaty obligation to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise by others to not acquire them, over and over and over again make excuses for doing so. "And yet . . . to achieve deterrence . . . maintain strategic balance . . . and keep in mind global security . . . . "

It slowly began to dawn on me that, because I live in the US, and have been inculcated with more than 50 years of pro-deterrence propaganda, at some deep level I have bought into the deterrence argument. Logically, of course, I have rejected it; but that's not the same thing as the visceral disdain for the idea that is felt by every person living in a non-nuclear weapons state.

If you think about it, it is only one set of parties for whom deterrence is okay, and for whom proliferation doesn't make any sense at all. Those without nuclear weapons don't have the luxury of being comfortable with it.

In fact: is it possible that those without nuclear weapons -- and facing the nuclear weapons monopoly of the "haves" -- may see proliferation as a preferable option?

In fact: if you really believe in deterrence, don't you believe in deterrence for everybody? Don't you achieve perfect deterrence when you achieve total proliferation?

Before you say "of course not," please consider: proliferation can never be more taboo than deterrence.

In 2017, the nations of the world will make that clear.


Related posts

It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."

(See Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???)



How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons? How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States)) 





The Age of Deception deserves close reading by anyone who wants to understand why a nuclear ban will be negotiated in 2017.

(See HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: ElBaradei's "Age of Deception")

Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???

Of particular interest when the UN vote was taken - the actions of USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea ... and Japan.

Vote on resolution to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons in 2017 (L-41)
Green - Yes (123, 76%)
Red - No (38, 24%)
Beige - Abstained
(Via @ILPIwmd - share on Twitter)

"What do you notice . . . ?"

If I were lucky enough to be a high school or college teacher, I would seize the opportunity to invite my students to investigate a real life moment in global politics.

Last Thursday, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to proceed with negotiations in 2017on global nuclear disarmament - a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.

It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."

ROLL CALL: votes on "taking forward multilateral
nuclear disarmament negotiations"

The assignment is simple: Pick a country ... guess how you might expect them to vote, giving reasons for your answer ... then look at how they really voted.  Next, try to think about additional reasons that might explain their actual vote. Final step: go online and see what others are saying about why the country voted the way they did.

This will prove to be a very illuminating exercise for anyone -- young or old -- who thinks they know which countries are working for the peace and safety of the world.

More information at on Common Dreams: "US Votes 'No' As UN Adopts Landmark Resolution Calling to Ban Nuclear Weapons"


For instance, see . . . 

133 Is a Lot of #Nuclearban-Supporting Countries

Tlatelolco 50: A Gift to the World

SCIENCE MARCHES: Are All These Countries In the Dark About Nuclear Weapons?

VIETNAM and the NUCLEAR BAN: Out From Under the Shadow of US Nuclear Terror

Why People Want a Pacific (and World) Free of Nuclear Weapons

A Peace-building Commonwealth Wants to Ban Nuclear Weapons
and The Road to the Commonwealth Games Passes Through #Nuclearban Territory

NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully)

NOWRUZ: New Day for a World Without Nuclear Weapons

China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement

USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.)

North Korea and #NuclearBan

(Most of) The Mideast Wants a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World

Where Will Europe Stand on #Nuclearban?


Additional resources

"Standing With the Nonwhite World to Ban Nuclear Weapons" by Vincent J. Intondi: "It is no surprise that this current attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons is being led by many nonwhite nations. In 1955, ten years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, twenty-nine nations of Asia and Africa gathered in Bandung, Indonesia . . . "

"Nuclear weapons and the dialectic of universalism: the UN convenes to ban the bomb" by Kjølv Egeland: "[T]he nuclear ban-treaty movement marks the first time an instrument of international humanitarian law is forced into existence against a kicking and screaming European core. The civilising mission of normative stigmatisation has been taken up by those formerly on the receiving end."

 . . . and links to more helpful explanations on the "Full voting result on UN resolution L.41" page on the ICAN website.


More related posts

How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))


Hibakusha is a word that has traditionally been used to refer to people affected by the nuclear blasts in Hiroshima and Nagaski.  It is now being broadened to recognize the many additional victims of acute affects of nuclear radiation (including fallout from tests and radioactivity from mining and processing). In fact, we are all subject to the impact and threat of nuclear radiation spread indiscriminately by nations and corporations.

(See HIROSHIMA: What does it mean to say, "We are ALL 'hibakusha'?")






"It's not enough to remember this just once a year; it's not enough that we make a single book -- Hiroshima -- required reading, and never go beyond that. There should be a whole canon that people study progressively, year by year, to grasp and retain the horror of this."

(See FIRE AND BLAST: A Curriculum that Confronts Nuclear Danger?)

IT'S A START: U.S. Ambassador: "The P-5 have a responsibility to do more"

As more and more people grew aware that the confrontation between the US/NATO and Russia over Ukraine could grow to world-threatening proportions, representatives of the nuclear weapons states (the so-called P-5 - US, Russia, UK, France, China) met in London.

This led to a very interesting exchange on Twitter:

Robert Wood @USAmbCD *
London Conference demonstrated P-5 commitment to their Article VI
obligations. Good exchange between P-5 and NPDI reps.

Joe Scarry @Scarry
.@USAmbCD - Thanks - that "demonstrated P-5 commitment to their
Article VI obligations"? Could we see more? @napf @Cirincione

Robert Wood @USAmbCD
@Scarry @napf @Cirincione The P-5 have a responsibility to do more.

*U.S. Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and Special
Representative for Biological and Toxin Weapons (BWC) Convention Issues. 

U.S. Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and Special Representative for Biological and Toxin Weapons (BWC) Convention Issues says "The P-5 have a responsibility to do more [with respect to the P-5's Article VI obligations]"?

This is significant because, as the most powerful nation in the P-5, the US has the ability to make the P-5 "do more" if it wants to.

And it's also significant because the nations of the world meet in New York City at the UN starting in just over two months for the once-every-5-years review conference of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT). People around the world are clamoring for progress on the main pillar of the NPT -- the total elimination of nuclear arsenals by those who already have them. This is the "Article VI" of the NPT that all signatories (most notably US, Russia, UK, France, China) have signed on to:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." (emphasis added)

(See "THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS( NPT ) (text of the treaty) on the UN website.)

The NPT is based on a quid pro quo: nuclear "have-nots" agree to not acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear "haves" agree to disarm. (See A DEAL'S A DEAL! (What part of "nuclear disarmament" doesn't the US understand?) )

The rest of the world is getting sick of waiting for the P-5 to honor their obligation.

Equally as important, AMERICANS are demanding action.

The clock is ticking . . . .


TAKE ACTION:

Read about the spring mobilization
for nuclear disarmament ... and commit.

Tell you member of Congress

you want action on nuclear disarmament.

Help us take this message viral:

every Tuesday on Twitter - #NoNukesTuesday.

Related posts

Far too many people think that the NPT is about freezing the status quo, and preventing additional states from obtaining nuclear weapons. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The NPT is based on a quid pro quo: nuclear "have-nots" agree to not acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear "haves" agree to disarm.

(See A DEAL'S A DEAL! (What part of "nuclear disarmament" doesn't the US understand?) )

There are three centers of power that will impact nuclear disarmament: the President, the Congress, and the people. One of them will have to make nuclear disarmament happen.

(See Countdown to U.S. Nuclear Disarmament (With or Without the Politicians) )

2015 "No Nukes" Mobilizations planned in the US already include New York City in April, Nevada in March, and New Mexico in August.


(See Key 2015 Events for Nuclear Disarmament Movement Organizers )