MADDER than MAD — Nuclear war looms

We must take action

by Bill Paton, 14 September 2024, Beijing

Nuclear weapons are proliferating and their tactical use is becoming disturbingly plausible. All nine nuclear-armed nations are modernizing their arsenals, deploying new models of warheads. The U.S. is expanding its nuclear-capable missile launch systems around the world, Russia has a whopping 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons uncovered by any treaty, and China is growing its nuclear stockpile and silo system. After nearly 80 years, global nuclear arms control by the original five nuclear powers has failed, and non-nuclear states must unite to demand that they come to their senses.

It can't be a good sign that the wealthy are preparing for the worst, investing heavily in new, luxury nuclear fallout shelters. For example, Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly acquired a Hawaiian island and is building a $400 million compound complete with an apocalypse bunker. (1) Bill Gates is rumored to have a bunker at each of his properties. This resurgence echoes the Cold War era when millions of people dug underground shelters in their backyards, stocking them with canned supplies.

The start of the war in Ukraine sparked this renewed interest in bunker construction, and demand remains high. (2) Governments, recognizing the devastating power of hydrogen bombs targeted at their bunkers, have sold many of these structures off. In East Germany, one former bunker has been transformed into a luxury underground complex, offering multi-million-dollar 'bunker condos.' (2)

With Russia now openly revising its nuclear weapons policy amid a counter-invasion by U.S./NATO-backed Ukraine, the risk of escalation is more palpable than ever. This is just one in a series of alarming developments:

• In 2016, NATO deployed launchers in Romania capable of firing nuclear-armed 'Tomahawk' missiles.

• In 2018, Russia revealed the 'Poseidon,' a drone submarine designed to detonate a 1-2 megaton bomb near coastal cities, causing devastating tsunamis.

• In 2019, both the US and Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which had eliminated 2,692 missiles by 1991. The U.S. initiated the withdrawal, accusing Russia of violations while offering no evidence.

• China continues to bolster its nuclear arsenal, building more warheads and silos. Beijing remains uninterested in arms control talks with the U.S., citing the vast disparity in nuclear stockpiles—America's arsenal exceeds 5,000 warheads, while China’s is now thought to be about 500. (3)

• In 2021, Russia claimed leadership in hypersonic nuclear missile technology, with weapons capable of traveling over ten times the speed of sound and evading anti-ballistic missile defenses.

• That same year, the U.S., UK, and Australia agreed to give Australia the capability to build nuclear-powered submarines, though these will carry conventional weapons.

• By 2022, North Korea was believed to possess 20-30 nuclear weapons and enough fissile material for 25 more. Amid rumors of a second Trump presidency withdrawing U.S. protection, South Korea considered acquiring its own nuclear deterrent.

• In 2023, the U.S. established four new strategic military bases in the Philippines, aimed at countering China near Taiwan and the disputed Spratly Islands.

• Russia, in 2023, deployed nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missiles with extended range, capable of navigating undetected to any location via low-altitude, circuitous routes.

• Also in 2023, the U.S. began docking a nuclear submarine on a rotating basis at South Korea's port in Busan, each armed with 16 Trident missiles, totaling over 100 nuclear warheads. Officially aimed at deterring North Korea, these missiles are less than 10 minutes away from Shanghai or Beijing.

• Russia, in the same year, announced it had deployed nuclear missiles in Belarus.

• The U.S. also deployed nuclear-capable 'Typhon' launchers in the Philippines in 2023.

• The U.S. and Japan signed 70 military agreements this year, including plans for joint command over nuclear and conventional weapons, signaling an effort to jointly counter China.

• Last month, reports surfaced that President Biden approved a highly classified strategic nuclear plan aimed at China, and potentially a nuclear conflict with China, Russia, and North Korea combined. (4）

• This month, North Korea’s leader announced plans to significantly expand that country’s nuclear arsenal.

• Also this month, Russia announced they were revising their nuclear weapons policy and issued a warning that NATO’s use of medium-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia from Ukraine would necessitate NATO soldiers conducting the guidance and targeting themselves, at the least—and of their own weapons—which Russia would view as a direct NATO attack.

• The U.S. announced that in 2026, they will install nuclear-capable missile launchers in Germany.

These events paint a deeply disturbing picture of escalating nuclear brinkmanship. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, all nine nuclear powers—the U.S., Russia, the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—are now investing in their arsenals and deploying new nuclear-capable delivery systems.（5）

Since the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came into effect in 1970, 191 nations have signed it. The treaty limits nuclear weapon possession to the five original nuclear powers—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the U.S.—all of whom are signatories. The four other nuclear-armed states—India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea—have not signed. Article VI of the NPT commits the original five to disarmament, but this commitment remains far from reality.

"Article VI

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." (6)

Efforts by the U.S. and Russia to control nuclear weapons faced setbacks, to put it politely. SALT II was agreed upon in 1979 but not ratified. SALT III negotiations were never completed. New START finally succeeded SALT I in 2011 after 32 years of negotiations. In 2023, Russia suspended New START but pledged to maintain the 1,550 limit on 'strategic' weapons (the biggest bombs with intercontinental delivery systems, mostly missiles but also long-range bomber planes). The treaty expires in February 2026, with both nations likely to then increase their arsenals, if not before.

Fifty years after a treaty to halt nuclear proliferation, the number of nuclear-armed countries has almost doubled, with all nine countries' arsenals expanding. During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) ruled U.S.-Soviet relations, emphasizing the deterrent of retaliatory strikes to prevent a first strike. In retrospect, this truly was mad:

"If the militarily most powerful and least threatened states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster."

Joseph Rotblat (7)

There is speculation today that 'tactical' nuclear weapons could be used in battle without causing a global catastrophe. It is thought these 'smaller' bombs could be used on a battlefield, for instance to take out an enemy military base in one shot. Their blast yields range from much smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima to much bigger, but are generally slightly bigger at about 20 kilotons. This notion of taking the risk of starting a 'limited' nuclear war is truly Strangelovian, not just MAD but MADDER.

How, after 80 years, did we reach this point? The biggest mistake was made 50 years ago, when we began trusting the big nuclear powers themselves to gradually disarm. Not only have they failed to disarm, and failed to prevent proliferation, they have focused on preserving and now improving their own superior nuclear capabilities.

The Pact

An important event, the Summit of the Future at the 79th UN General Assembly this month, will approve a far-reaching global Pact that goes beyond anything before. This ambitious agreement covers crucial topics including peace and security, technology, youth and global governance. Currently in its third draft, it will be finalized between now and 22 September, and will include a renewed commitment to disarmament:

"We decide to:

"(a) Recommit to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons in the context of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

"(b) Undertake further efforts, especially by the nuclear-weapon States, to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons, recognizing that the objective of the efforts of states in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control, including by taking steps to critically review the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security concepts, doctrines and policies and avoiding a nuclear arms race."

And:

"(f) Seek to accelerate through concrete actions the full and effective implementation of existing, respective nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments, in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its agreed review outcome documents, including by adhering to relevant international legal instruments and through the pursuit of nuclear weapon free zones to enhance international peace and security and the achievement of a nuclear-weapons free world." (8)"

Any new United Nations agreement, even one made in person by a majority of world leaders, is bound to be met with cynicism given members poor track records at following through on past agreements. However, this attitude is self-defeating. The Pact for the Future presents a historic opportunity to hold nuclear powers accountable, pushing them to finally honor their promises to disarm.

Non-nuclear countries have the capability to take significant action, much more than they have previously. The 184 nations lacking nuclear weapons, if a majority work together, can collectively represent the majority of the world's population. Their goal is simply to honor a promise made five decades ago, signed by 191 countries, to prevent global destruction.

What is required at this moment are innovative diplomatic strategies implemented in unity. For example, five European countries—Germany, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium—host U.S. nuclear weapons. Belarus, too, is hosting Russian nuclear weapons. These countries hold unrealized bargaining power, and far from making them more secure, the bases stocking those U.S. weapons will quite likely be incinerated in the first hour of a nuclear war.

Both the NPT and the Pact for the Future call for establishment of regional nuclear-free zones. States should designate their parts of the world as nuclear-free, forcing nuclear powers to keep their weapons at home. The Law of the Sea should be modified to ban sailing Handmaidens of the Apocalypse continuously around the world. Let them refuse to sign a revised Law of the Sea (or refuse again; the U.S., Israel and North Korea never signed the original treaty), but lets block the passage whenever we can of any vessel suspected to be carrying nuclear weapons. We should certainly not let them use our ports.

Another suggestion I can think of is to label visas for diplomats from nuclear-armed countries with a message highlighting their lack of respect for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (similar to the health warning on cigarette packets). These symbolic gestures, though small, can play a crucial role in maintaining the nuclear issue's visibility on the global stage. No doubt one or more of the nuclear powers will retaliate with a similar notice on other countries' diplomatic visas, but perhaps not as doing so to a majority of countries would only backfire.

Great powers, or course, are not so easily overpowered, but the usual goal in a liberation struggle against a superior foe is merely to bring them to the negotiating table. That is doable. Sacrifices will be necessary to keep up the pressure in the face of nuclear powers' wrath. However, continued failure to harness the moral authority and strength of 184 nations, representing the majority of humanity, could lead to that majority spending its last days in underground parking lots, basements, and caves. Let's face it. For most of us, there will be no "Luxury Survival Condo."

___________________

1) The Conversation, 29 February 2024. "Billionaires are building bunkers and buying islands". https://theconversation.com/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-and-buying-islands-but-are-they-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-or-pioneering-a-new-feudalism-223987

2) CBC News, 3 April 2002. "Bunker makers say business is booming — but there's a reason governments left bomb shelters behind". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bunker-business-1.6405487

3) SIPRI, 17 June 2024. "Role of nuclear weapons grows as geopolitical relations deteriorate—new SIPRI Yearbook out now". https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/role-nuclear-weapons-grows-geopolitical-relations-deteriorate-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now

4) New York Times, 20 August 2024, "Biden Approved Secret Nuclear Strategy Refocusing on Chinese Threat". https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/us/politics/biden-nuclear-china-russia.html

5) SIPRI (cited above).

6) United Nations, Office for Disarmament Affairs: Treaties Database. "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)" . https://treaties.unoda.org/t/npt (Emphasis added.)

7) ROTBLAT, Joseph, IKEDA, Daisaku (2007). A Quest for Global Peace: Rotblat and Ikeda on War, Ethics and the Nuclear Threat, I B Tauris & Company Ltd.

8) United Nations, 27 August 2024. [DRAFT] Pact for the Future: Rev.3. Action 26. We will steadfastly advance our efforts to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-pact-for-the-future-rev.3.pdf (Emphasis added.)

9) TIME, 29 June 2023. Here’s How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be. https://time.com/6290977/nuclear-war-impact-essay/ A team of interdisciplinary scientists estimated that a full-scale nuclear war between Russia and the United States, plus nuclear-armed NATO members UK and France, would kill five billion people, mostly from starvation during a long, dark frigid winter. They estimate that 99% of the population of the USA, Europe and China would die, along with 98% of Russians.