International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Security and Sustainable Development

With or Without Nuclear Weapons?

Liu Huaqiu

Nuclear weapons remain a controversial issue. It is, however, the general view of the international community that a nuclear-weapon-free world would be conducive to global security and sustainable development.

As weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons are cruelly inhumane weapons. The July 8, 1996 decision of the International Court of Justice stated that it is generally illegal to use or to threaten to use nuclear weapons. From a legal point of view, it would be virtually impossible to use nuclear weapons without violating the laws of arms conflict. Other weapons of mass destruction, namely biological and chemical weapons, have been banned, but nuclear weapons, which are more destructive to life on earth and to human beings, are not banned. Isn't this inherently contradictory?

In the view of some nuclear states, nuclear weapons can prevent war. This argument is groundless. After World War 2, regional wars and conflicts cropped up one after another. Nuclear powers were directly or indirectly involved in most of these wars and conflicts. It is true that no nuclear war broke out between the two major nuclear powers, United States and former Soviet Union, but the nuclear balance was unstable and led to a dangerous nuclear arms race. Both superpowers had recognized that a conventional war between them was highly likely to result in a nuclear war. Both countries would be defeated in the war which would bring calamity to the world. If the assertion that nuclear weapons can prevent war were correct, then it would be reasonable for quite a number of countries to say: "Given this, we will need to develop nuclear weapons". Will it lead to further proliferation of nuclear weapons?

In a world with existing nuclear weapons, whole mankind is living in "a peace of terror". We can still recall with fear the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis in which the U. S and the Soviet Union were on the brink of a nuclear war. In addition, the list of historical false alarms is long; for instance, in 1979 someone even fed a war game simulation into a North American Air Defense computer. Thus, dangers of accidental nuclear war do exist. What is more: without elimination of nuclear weapons, there is the possibility of theft of nuclear weapons or weapon-grade fissile materials by terrorists and the danger of nuclear terrorism activities.

Some nuclear powers argued that they needed nuclear retaliation to contain biological and chemical weapon attacks from certain countries. I do not think the argument is fully grounded. Use of biological and chemical weapons will be surely subject to condemnation by people throughout the world, and first use of nuclear weapons which are more destructive will be inevitably subject to sanctions of the international community. Therefore the credibility and effect of using nuclear weapons to deter biological and chemical weapons is rather low. In fact, the nuclear power with such argument possesses the most powerful conventional force, far enough to contain or defeat biological or chemical weapons attack from its enemy countries.

The United States continues to adopt the extended nuclear deterrence, aiming at protecting its allies by using nuclear weapons and at the same time preventing them to develop nuclear weapons by providing them with a nuclear umbrella. But virtually, the very powerful conventional force of the U.S. is adequate to protect its allies. Actually, providing its allies with a nuclear umbrella to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons is not the bestway to establish a nuclear-weapon-free-world.

The heavy economic burden as a result of the nuclear arms race has worn out the former Soviet Union down as well as half of the United States. Till today, U.S spends 25-30 billion U.S dollars each year to keep its huge nuclear arsenal. This is still a tremendous economic burden. Moreover, environmental damage lingers for decades if not centuries after nuclear explosions. Vegetation in Bikini Island, a late-1940s U.S. nuclear weapons test site, still remains toxic, and on Moruroa Atoll, French underground tests have damaged fragile coral reefs. Testing and production of nuclear weapons have already destroyed major ecosystems around the world. In the former USSR, Lake Karachai in the Southern Urals is thought to be the most contaminated body of water on Earth —it is so radioactive that a person who stood on its shores for just one hour would receive a lethal dose of radiation. The nuclear weapons research, testing, and production complex in the United States consists of some 19 sites around the country occupying more than 3,900 square miles — more than the total land area of Delaware, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia combined. The Department of Energy (DOE) has conservatively estimated that the federal government will be required to spend USD230 billion over the next 75 years to "cleanup" the existing mess. Yet a current DOE planning document indicates that more wastes will be generated by nuclear weapons related activities over the next two decades than from the cleanup of past activities.¹

It is in the opinion of many people that possession of the nuclear weapon is the symbol of major power. It is true that the five permanent members of the United Nations are nuclear states. However, with the role of nuclear weapons ever decreasing, comprehensive national strength is increasingly becoming the symbol of big power status.

Conclusions

We may draw a conclusion from discussion the above: the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world is conducive to world security and sustainable development.

1. A nuclear-weapon-free world will remove from root the danger of nuclear war.

2. A nuclear-weapon-free world will fundamentally settle the issue of nuclear proliferation. Should nuclear states continue to maintain their nuclear arsenals, nuclear proliferation will be inevitable.

3. The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world is conducive to protect our living environment, to the benefit of our future generations.

4. A nuclear-weapon-free world will help to create a harmonious international environment and promote regional or global peace and stability, thus eliminating arms race and drastically reducing military expenditure which will in turn facilitate development in economic scientific, technological and cultural fields of all countries.

It is self-evident that in order to prevent some countries from breakout , a set of complete and rigid verification mechanisms (including societal verification) is necessary for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

A nuclear-weapon-free world is helpful for world peace and sustainable development, yet it can not assure to attain world peace and sustainable development. In the view of the author, to achieve the goal of world peace and sustainable development, at least two factors should be taken into consideration.

1. Establish an international political and economic new order on the basis of the U.N. Charter and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence: All countries of the world, big or small, should be equal, respect each other, refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and seek to settle disputes through peaceful negotiations so as to set up genuine democracy in international relations. The irrational and unjust old international economic order is an important factor in causing poverty and backwardness in developing countries. The international community, the developed nations in particular, should take truly effective measures to assist the vast number of developing countries to develop their economies, for instance, by helping nations of South East Asia to overcome the financial crisis. Without economic development and social progress in developing countries, it is hard to maintain long-term tranquillity and prosperity in the world.

2. Strengthen the role of the United Nations: The status and the role of the U.N. in international affairs is irreplaceable by other international organizations or state groups. Efforts should be made to give more play to the role of U.N. in setting up a new world order, solving international disputes by peaceful means and promoting economic growth of all nations, developing nations in particular. All member states of U.N. are equal members of the organization. All international affairs should be dealt with in accordance with the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter. No state has the right to override the United Nations acting as world leader.

The author believes that in a nuclear-free world with an international political and economic new order of democracy, justice and reasonableness, world security and sustainable development is sure to come into being.

1. See "Creating A Nuclear Weapons Free World", published by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, August 1997.

Liu Huaqiu is a senior fellow and director of the Program on Arms Control and Disarmament at the China Defense Science and Technology Information Center (CDSTIC). The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of CDSTIC.

Address:26 Fuchenglu, Haidian District, Beijing 100036, China; tel +10-687-75539 Ch fax -684-29278

email: qiliu@publik.fhnet.cn.net