Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

'Arms Control Is As Good As Dead': Speech by Joseph Rotblat, January 8

Professor Joseph Rotblat, recipient of the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize together with the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, speech to a Conference on Nuclear Policy and Proliferation, organized by The Guardian newspaper, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), London, January 8.

After the comprehensive and erudite discourses that have been presented today, my contribution may be billed as light entertainment - but I assure you that I am deadly serious. Today's discussions made it clear that, on the nuclear issue, we are in bad shape. In my opinion, we are on a slippery slope and will be heading for disaster unless we make a big effort to prevent it.

A group of hardliners in the United States has hijacked the president - not that much force was needed for this - starting a campaign under the slogan "you are either with us or against us". This was applied to the anti-terrorist campaign after the September 11 events, but actually it has a general application. It has created a polarised world, and a polarised world is a dangerous world.

This situation has not appeared out of the blue - it has been brewing for a long time, and the seeds were planted at the very beginning of the nuclear age. I was involved in the earliest - one might say prehistoric - stage, and I have been able to see it developing. Some of you may have heard my tale before, but I see young people in the audience - and, for this story, young is anybody under 60 - and for their sake I will recall it briefly.

For the scientists in the UK who started the work on the atom bomb, the rationale was to deter Hitler from using his bomb against us, and thus winning the war. I developed the concept of nuclear deterrence even before the start of the second world war, and I was probably the first to carry out research on the feasibility of the bomb, with James Chadwick in Liverpool in November 1939, two months after the start of the war. It was not until much later that I realised the fallacy of the nuclear deterrence concept, but at that time I thought that only by possessing the bomb could we prevent a Nazi victory. I did not contemplate, and never condoned, the actual use of the bomb. This was the basis for my work in the UK and later on the Manhattan Project in the US.

With this background, you can imagine my shock when General Leslie Groves, the overall boss of the Manhattan Project, said in a private conversation: "You realise, of course, that the main purpose of the project is to subdue the Russians." The date is important - March 4 1944, long before the bomb was made, and a time when the main burden of fighting the Germans was borne by our then allies, the Russian army. Years later, when I told this story at a conference in Geneva, at which George Bush senior - then a candidate for the presidency - was one of the speakers, Richard Perle [Defense Department official under President Reagan], sitting on the platform, angrily denied it. Fortunately, I was able to prove its veracity.

In 1954, during the Oppenheimer hearings, General Groves made the following statement, and this is published: "There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy and that the project was conducted on that basis."

Several versions are circulated in the literature of President Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are probably all true, to a lesser or greater degree. The saving of American lives was undoubtedly a strong consideration. But so was the need to demonstrate to the Russians the newly-acquired and overwhelming military might of the US. James Byrnes, the then secretary of state, said: "Our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable. From the start, it was the intention of the hawks that the United States should maintain the monopoly, or at least predominance, in nuclear weapons and, in line with this, prevent unfriendly nations from acquiring them."

The aforementioned General Groves outlined this policy in October 1945, saying: "If we were truly realistic instead of idealistic, as we appear to be, we would not permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly allied, and in which we do not have absolute confidence, to make or possess nuclear weapons. If such a country started to make atomic weapons, we would destroy its capacity to make them before it has progressed far enough to threaten us."

It took nearly 60 years for these ravings of a bellicose general to become official US policy. In between, the combined endeavours of hawks and the military-industrial complex kept the US as the frontrunner in the nuclear arms race.

During the early stages of the cold war, the US had an enormous superiority in the number of nuclear warheads. Later on, it gave up numerical superiority in favour of the quality of its arms. Out of 15 milestones in the nuclear arms race, the US was first in 14 of them. Despite the military superiority, the US, under Ronald Reagan, still did not feel secure, and so he decided to embark on the erection of a protective umbrella over the US in the so-called Star Wars project. At that time, the project was shown to be technically unfeasible and was dropped. But had Reagan persisted in pursuing it, it would have caused a dramatic increase in Russia's offensive weapons, or - even more dramatically - a desperate move: a preventative, suicidal attack on the US.

Fortunately, a man with much common sense, Mikhail Gorbachev, came to power and called a halt to the nuclear arms race. In doing so, he handed back to the US the nuclear supremacy - actually, nuclear monopoly.

The euphoria in the West following the collapse of the Soviet Union had an amazing effect. The general public came to believe that the end of the cold war also meant the end of the nuclear peril, and that the nuclear issue could be taken off the agenda of important problems. This is seen in a public opinion poll in the UK about the most important issues facing Britain. During the cold war, more than 40 per cent put nuclear weapons as such an issue. Since the end of it, the percentage dropped rapidly, and nowadays is practically zero.

The situation is probably the same in the US, and it is my opinion that this enabled the hawks to become bolder in their plans, not only to ensure, but also to demonstrate to the rest of the world, the overwhelming superiority of the US.

US policy in relation to Iraq is an illustration of this. The alleged help given by Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida is cited as a reason for the hostility, but the campaign to change the regime in Iraq - if need be by military means - long precedes the September 11 events.

Various right-wing groups in the US, the neo-Conservatives, have, over the years, conducted campaigns for a more aggressive US foreign policy, in particular in the Middle East - including a chance of regime in Iraq. Let me quote one such case. In 1986, a project entitled "A Clean Break" strongly advocated the removal of Saddam Hussein. It originated in an Israeli-US study headed by Richard Perle. He followed this up in an open letter to President Clinton, demanding a full-scale drive for a regime change in Baghdad. The list of co-signatories nearly coincides with the list of the politicians who now occupy prominent positions in the Bush administration.

I have singled out this case because it brings into the open the role of Israel in the whole problem of security in the Middle East, and hence the world. In my opinion, far too little attention has been given to the consequences of Israel possessing a military nuclear capability. Israel's formal stand on this issue beggars belief. "Israel will not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East." This blatant lie is repeated in face of the fact that, for many years, Israel - with the help of France and, no doubt, the US - possessed a considerable nuclear arsenal and the means of delivery. The denial policy is illustrated in the barbaric treatment of Mordechai Vanunu for his disclosure of plutonium production in the Dimona reactor. He is now nearing the end of an 18-year sentence, nearly all of it in solitary confinement. He had his parole refused, and there is doubt about his ever regaining freedom.

Not only does Israel keep nuclear weapons, it would not allow their acquisition by other countries in the region. In June 1981, three years after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Menachem Begin ordered his air force to destroy the Iraqi Osiraq reactor. This was the first case of a pre-emptive strike on a nuclear installation. The next case may be an attack on Yongbyon in North Korea.

My strong criticism of Israel's policy in no way implies that I condone the suicide bombings by Hezbolah and other Palestinian groups. Violence is not acceptable, whatever the cause. On a much more trivial level, I am also opposed to the boycott of Israeli scientists called for by some groups in the West. Cooperation, not isolation, is the way to solve a conflict. But I do believe that the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is one of the major sources of the troubles in the Middle East.

I feel strongly that the setting up there of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction would greatly relieve the tension, and should have high priority. The glaring asymmetry of the US in its relations with Israel and Palestine is being exploited by radical groups in the Arab world to bring in religion as an element of the anti-American feeling.

Al-Qaida seems to me to be the consequence of long-standing American policies, rather than the way it is being presented - that the current American policy is the consequence of the al-Qaida attacks.

That brings me back to the current US policy on the nuclear issue. The year 2002 was remarkable for the formulation of new policies, starting with the Nuclear Posture Review in January, and ending with the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, released in December.

This last document starts with: "Weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological, and chemical - represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the US." If we added at the end "and the rest of the world", I would be in full agreement with this statement. But I regret to say that I have misled you - this is a misquotation: I have omitted a few words. The whole quotation reads: "Weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological, and chemical - in the possession of hostile states and terrorists, represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the US."

And this is the crux of the matter. According to the current counter-proliferation policy, nuclear weapons are bad, but only if in the possession of some states or groups. In the possession of the US, they are good, and must be kept for the sake of world security. The fact that, as a signatory of the NPT, the USA is legally bound to their elimination, is completely ignored.

Yes, the argument goes, the number of warheads at present kept at hair-trigger alert can be reduced somewhat - witness the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed in Moscow in May last year - but should we go to less than about 1,000 warheads, the world would become unsafe. Indeed, nuclear arsenals will have to be retained indefinitely, not as a last resort or a deterrent just as a weapon against a nuclear attack, but as an ordinary tool in the military armoury, to be used in the resolution of conflicts, as has been practised in the past, and even in pre-emptive strikes, should political contingencies demand it.

This is, in essence, the current US nuclear policy, and I see it as a very dangerous policy. Towards its implementation, President Bush has already authorised the development of a new nuclear warhead of low yield, but with a shape that would give it a very high penetrating power into concrete - a "bunker-busting mink-nuke", as it has been named. It is intended to destroy bunkers with thick concrete walls in which public enemies, like Saddam Hussein, may seek shelter.

To give the military authorities confidence in the performance of the new weapon, it will have to be tested. If the US resumed testing, this would be a signal to other nuclear weapon states to do the same. China is almost certain to resume testing. After the US decision to develop ballistic missile defences, China feels vulnerable and is likely to attempt to reduce its vulnerability by a modernisation and build-up of its nuclear arsenal. Other states with nuclear weapons, such as India or Pakistan, may use the window of opportunity opened by the US to update their arsenals. The danger of a new nuclear arms race is real.

As mentioned before, the new policy includes pre-emptive acts, and this greatly increases the danger. If the militarily mightiest country declares its readiness to carry out a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, others may soon follow. The Kashmir crisis, in May last year, is a stark warning of the reality of the nuclear peril. India's declared policy is not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. But if the US - whose nuclear policies are largely followed by India - makes pre-emptive nuclear attacks part of its doctrine, this would give India the legitimacy to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan. Even more likely is that Pakistan would carry this out first.

Taiwan presents another potential cause for a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US. Should the Taiwan authorities decide to declare independence, this would inevitably result in an attempted military invasion by mainland China. The US, which is committed to the defence of the integrity of Taiwan, may then opt for pre-emptive strike.

Finally, we have the problem of North Korea, listed by Bush as one of the "axis of evil." The disclosure that North Korea is already in possession of two nuclear warheads, and the likelihood of its acquiring more of them if the Yongbyon facility is reactivated, are a direct challenge to current US policy. I fear that a campaign to use military force against the regime of Kim Jong Il, similar to that of Saddam Hussein, will ensue.

How can we prevent such catastrophes? The traditional method of dealing with such situations - by partial agreements, damage limitation treaties, confidence-building measures - does not seem to work any more. In its determination to maintain world dominance, particularly on the nuclear issue, the present administration will pay no attention to reasoned and sophisticated arguments. Arms control is as good as dead.

As I see it, the only way is to go back to basics, to put the goal of total nuclear disarmament back on the agenda. The only way to compel the current decision-makers to change their minds is by pressure of public opinion. For this purpose, the public must be awakened to the danger. The general public is not sufficiently informed about the recent changes in military doctrine and the perils arising from them. We have to convince the public that the continuation of current policies, in which security of the world is maintained by the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons, is not realistic in the long run because it is bound eventually to result in a nuclear holocaust in which the future of the human race would be at stake.

We must convince public opinion that the only alternative is the total elimination of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, such a campaign must be based on the fundamental principles of morality and equity. Due to their indiscriminate nature and unprecedented destructive power, the use of nuclear weapons has always been considered as immoral. Yet this aspect is very seldom raised when calling for nuclear disarmament. We are told that a campaign based on moral principles is a non-starter, and we are afraid of appearing naive, divorced from reality. But the use of this argument is itself an indication of how far we have allowed ethical considerations to be ignored - we are accused of not being realistic, when what we are trying to do is to prevent real dangers.

By utilising the tremendous advances in technology for military purposes, the United States has built up an overwhelming military superiority, exceeding the combined military strength of all other nations. It is claimed that this is necessary for world security, but actually what such a policy amounts to is to rest the security of the world on a balance of terror. In the long run, this is bound to erode the ethical basis of civilisation. I would not be surprised if evidence were found that the increase of violence in the world - from individual mugging, to organised crime, to groups such as al-Qaida - has some connection with the culture of violence under which we lived during the cold war years, and still do.

I am particularly concerned about the effect on the young generation. We all crave a world of peace, a world of equity. We all want to nurture in the young generation the much-heralded "culture of peace". But how can we talk about a culture of peace if that peace is predicated on the existence of weapons of mass destruction? How can we persuade the young generation to cast aside the culture of violence when they know that it is on the threat of extreme violence that we rely for security?

I do not believe that the people of the world would accept a policy that is inherently immoral and likely to end in catastrophe. And I do believe that - if properly explained - the moral argument would win general support, including that of the American public, and lead to a new campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the US has signed and ratified, the US and the other official nuclear states - China, France, Russia and the UK - are formally and unequivocally committed to the elimination of all nuclear arsenals. The creation of a nuclear-weapon-free world is a legal commitment by all signatories of the NPT. But the de facto policy of the United States, as outlined above, implies the indefinite existence of nuclear weapons, in direct contradiction to the NPT commitment. This blatant violation of an international undertaking should be the second fundamental principle on which to base a campaign.

Thanks largely to the fantastic progress in technology, our world is becoming more and more interdependent, more and more transparent, more and more interactive. Inherent in these developments is a set of agreements, ranging from confidence-building measures to formal international treaties, from protection of the environment to the clearance of minefields, from Interpol to the international criminal court, from ensuring intellectual property rights to the Declaration of Human Rights. Respect for, and strict adherence to, the terms of international agreements are at the basis of a civilised society. Without this, anarchy, and terrorism would reign - the very perils President Bush is allegedly committed to eradicating. While he intends to tackle this issue by military means, we must strive to achieve it by peaceful means. While Bush plans to act unilaterally, we have to ensure that world security is entrusted to the United Nations, the institution set up for this purpose. And we must hope that, ultimately the US will join the rest of the world community in this endeavour.

Many in this audience are professional people, trained to look at problems with a detached, realistic, non-sentimental approach. But we are all, primarily, human beings, anxious to provide security for our nearest and dearest and peace for fellow citizens of our nation and all the world. We want to see a world in which relations between people and between nations are based on compassion, not greed, on generosity, not jealousy, on persuasion, not force, on equity, not oppression.

These are simple, some will say romantic, sentiments, but they are also realistic necessities. In a world armed with weapons of mass destruction, the use of which might bring the whole of civilisation to an end, we cannot afford a polarised community, with its inherent threat of military confrontations. In this technological age, a global, equitable community, to which we all belong as world citizens, has become a vital necessity.

Source: The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/rusi2003/0,12774,870758,00.html.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2002 The Acronym Institute.