Lawrence S. Wittner: Press on, for a nuclear-free world
[Lawrence S. Wittner teaches history at the University at Albany and is the author of"Confronting the Bomb."]
This might seem like a strange time to write of a world without nuclear weapons. Sixty-four years after the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan -- when it became clear that nuclear war portended planetary doom -- the old game of nuclear muscle-flexing persists.
Thousands of nuclear weapons remain in existence, about 95 percent of them in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.
North Korea is crowing about its supposed nuclear prowess, while Iran, though denying any nuclear intentions, might in reality be preparing to enter the once-exclusive nuclear club.
And yet, there are some encouraging developments:
Despite temptations, no nation has waged nuclear war since 1945;
The 70,000 nuclear weapons in existence at the height of the Cold War have been reduced to fewer than 24,000 today.
The U.S. and Russian governments are currently on the verge of signing a treaty to make significant cuts in their nuclear stockpiles.
President Barack Obama has announced plans to champion Senate ratification of the long-stalled Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Many former top national security officials, plus some current ones (Obama, for example) have called for building a nuclear-free world.
None of this, of course, has come easily. For decades, numerous governments were happy enough to augment their military power by building nuclear weapons or to seek shelter under an ally's nuclear umbrella. It took a widespread public protest, led by peace and disarmament organizations, to secure measures for arms control and disarmament, restrain nuclear proliferation and inhibit the waging of nuclear war.
Over time, however, there was a growing recognition among far-sighted government officials that brandishing nuclear weapons was not making nations more secure. Instead, these weapons were provoking a nuclear arms race that fostered national insecurity and the terrible danger of nuclear war. Also, the nuclear weapons in national arsenals could fall into the hands of terrorists and other kinds of fanatics.
Portions of the national security establishment eventually began to recognize that relying on nuclear weapons was counterproductive -- indeed, potentially suicidal. Even the hawkish President Ronald Reagan ultimately came around to championing a nuclear-free world.
Unfortunately, serious obstacles remain. Ratification of a treaty by the U.S. Senate requires at least two-thirds of the votes, thus giving Republicans an easy way to sabotage nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements.
Read more...
Read entire article at Times Union
This might seem like a strange time to write of a world without nuclear weapons. Sixty-four years after the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan -- when it became clear that nuclear war portended planetary doom -- the old game of nuclear muscle-flexing persists.
Thousands of nuclear weapons remain in existence, about 95 percent of them in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.
North Korea is crowing about its supposed nuclear prowess, while Iran, though denying any nuclear intentions, might in reality be preparing to enter the once-exclusive nuclear club.
And yet, there are some encouraging developments:
Despite temptations, no nation has waged nuclear war since 1945;
The 70,000 nuclear weapons in existence at the height of the Cold War have been reduced to fewer than 24,000 today.
The U.S. and Russian governments are currently on the verge of signing a treaty to make significant cuts in their nuclear stockpiles.
President Barack Obama has announced plans to champion Senate ratification of the long-stalled Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Many former top national security officials, plus some current ones (Obama, for example) have called for building a nuclear-free world.
None of this, of course, has come easily. For decades, numerous governments were happy enough to augment their military power by building nuclear weapons or to seek shelter under an ally's nuclear umbrella. It took a widespread public protest, led by peace and disarmament organizations, to secure measures for arms control and disarmament, restrain nuclear proliferation and inhibit the waging of nuclear war.
Over time, however, there was a growing recognition among far-sighted government officials that brandishing nuclear weapons was not making nations more secure. Instead, these weapons were provoking a nuclear arms race that fostered national insecurity and the terrible danger of nuclear war. Also, the nuclear weapons in national arsenals could fall into the hands of terrorists and other kinds of fanatics.
Portions of the national security establishment eventually began to recognize that relying on nuclear weapons was counterproductive -- indeed, potentially suicidal. Even the hawkish President Ronald Reagan ultimately came around to championing a nuclear-free world.
Unfortunately, serious obstacles remain. Ratification of a treaty by the U.S. Senate requires at least two-thirds of the votes, thus giving Republicans an easy way to sabotage nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements.
Read more...