For humanity’s sake, it is time to abolish nuclear weapons
While the White House was mum on what transpired in Helsinki between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, Russian ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov announced that the two had made important verbal agreements on arms control and other matters. Trump has also recently tweeted that nuclear proliferation was among the issues discussed.
The U.S. and Russia hold 92 percent of the world’s almost 15,000 nukes, and they have been modernizing their nuclear arsenals. With NATO and Russian ground forces facing each other, Russia and the U.S. must find a way to reduce the danger of mishaps, misunderstandings, and miscalculations. And bilateral nuclear arms control agreements are essential to manage the risk of nuclear confrontation.
But the two major arms control treaties are at risk. Recent disagreements between the U.S. and Russia over the implementation of the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) must be resolved. The INF bans all nuclear ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges from 500-5,000 kilometers. Although both sides have accused each other of violations, compliance can be verified through data exchanges, inspection, and monitoring, which would reduce nuclear tensions and risks. Russia is concerned with U.S. systems designed to shoot down incoming missiles, claiming that this undercuts nuclear deterrence. Also, there are concerns about cybersecurity and the space domain. The U.S. has already proposed a space force.
The other treaty, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), is set to expire in 2021. The Treaty limits deployable nuclear warheads and bombs at a maximum of 1,550 for each country. In May this year, both sides said that they had met the basic limits of the treaty. Putin has shown willingness to extend the treaty, and Trump should accept the offer despite several major issues, such as Crimea and Ukraine, which need to be addressed, as well. But the danger of nuclear conflagration demands that the countries prevent the onset of another nuclear arms race. Their current arsenals far exceed any reasonable deterrence levels.
The next step should be the elimination of nuclear weapons as the 1968 Non-proliferation Treaty mandated, when it called upon the then five nuclear weapons states to pursue “in good faith” negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. All 15 judges of the World Court agreed in the case on nuclear weapons that under the Nonproliferation Treaty this obligation exists. Notwithstanding continuing efforts in the U.N. General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament, half a century has passed and the nuclear powers have failed to make “good faith” efforts to reflect this legal obligation.
A year ago, however, the General Assembly did overwhelmingly adopt (122 to 1) the “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.” Unlike the Chemical Weapons Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, there was until then no such treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. And this treaty, boycotted by all nuclear weapons states, will have only symbolic significance. But its importance should not be underestimated, for it creates expectations and potentially customary practices.
The 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review mandates the development of a range of non-strategic, low-yield nuclear options, on the rationale that these are no more destructive than conventional weapons. Also, the U.S. administration will not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks against the U.S. and its allies and partners. Increased reliance on non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons is gaining acceptance by other nuclear countries, as well. This does lower the threshold for the actual use of such heinous weapons.
It is imperative that the U.S. and Russia engage in: sustained military-to-military dialogue, and regular dialogue on strategic stability. The unique destructive power of nuclear weapons must be grappled with. A single U.S. bomb in Hiroshima cost 140,000 precious lives and hundreds of thousands suffered long-term consequences. It is time to abolish nuclear weapons, for the very survival of humanity is at stake.
Ved Nanda is Distinguished University Professor and Director of the Ved Nanda Center for International Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. His column appears the last Sunday of each month and he welcomes comments at vnanda@law.du.edu.