The terrifying film ‘The man who saved the world’ has been
showing in London. Stanislaw Petrov, who appears himself in the film,
was the lieutenant colonel in charge of the Russian early warning system
when the electronic alarms blared deafeningly and insistently in his
command centre. All checks confirmed that there was no malfunction. They
confirmed a nuclear attack from the US was on its way. It was not
possible to wait for radar confirmation of the incoming ballistic
missiles because by that time it would be too late to retaliate. Petrov
knew that if he reported the alarm to the high command they would
immediately order a retaliatory strike1 initiating a global
nuclear war and the end of most of the human race. On his own imitative
he decided that he did not trust the computers and did nothing.
The author Steve Taylor, in his book ‘The Fall’, expresses the view
that the human race became, to a significant degree, insane about six
thousand years ago when we introduced warfare as a way of ‘solving’
disputes. It is difficult to deny that it is insane to set up a system
in which it is down to the humanity of one man to save the planet. The
insanity is compounded when we realise that, rather than learning from
the past, we have perpetuated the same mad system. We even call it MAD
(Mutual Assured Destruction).
Over a thousand nuclear weapons are held, right now, ready for launch
at the press of a button. Missiles travel at more than fifteen thousand
miles an hour so we are entirely dependent on computers to warn of an
attack. We know that computers malfunction. But those manning the early
warning centres are rigorously trained to follow orders to the letter.
They have a protocol and they are trained to follow it robotically. It
seems most unlikely that the next time the alarms go off there will be a
Stanislaw Petrov present with the immense courage to go against his
training. Putting his humanity first under enormous pressure to obey
orders was heroism of the highest order. This was recognised when he was
honoured at the United Nations and it is reiterated by Kevin Costner in
the film (Stanislaw Petrov is a fan of Costner and Costner is a fan of
Petrov so they met when Petrov visited the US). Introducing Stanislaw to
his film crew Kostner said ‘I act heroes. Here is the real thing’.
There will be a next time. Unbelievably, in spite of
this terrifying experience, we continue to perpetuate the same
arrangement; with missiles ready for immediate launch at the press of a
button and the only way of deciding to do this is on the basis of
incoming electronic signals from a system which we know cannot be
trusted!
The threat is escalating
The more nuclear weapons states there are the more likely that the
weapons will be launched by accident or malfunction. The number has been
escalating since the US used nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945.
Already there are nine; US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan,
Israel, and North Korea. Inevitably the leaders of other states want
them. The leaders think it gives them status. According to a Sunday
Times report Saudi Arabia has given Pakistan billions of dollars in
subsidized oil, while the latter has unofficially agreed to supply the
Gulf state with nuclear warheads
2. An anonymous British military official told the Sunday Times
“The
fear is that other Middle Eastern powers — Turkey and Egypt — may feel
compelled to do the same and we will see a new, even more dangerous,
arms race”2
Yet not all states want to take the nuclear path. A wide range of
countries capable of building nuclear weapons, including many living in
actual or potential “conflict zones,” have elected not to pursue this
option, including Japan and South Korea. Countries such as South Africa
and Ukraine have dismantled existing arsenals.
Deterrence
The logic of the deterrence concept leads to more and more states
wanting nuclear weapons. If one state needs a deterrent then, of course,
other states need a deterrent. It also leads to the ones which have
these weapons upgrading and extending them since it is thought that the
more in number and the more in destructive power your arsenal is the
more it will be an effective deterrent.
Apart from the appalling risks from malicious and inadvertent use,
misunderstandings and terrorist attacks, there are major safety risks. A
recent Whistleblower, a Royal Navy submariner, William McNeilly,
exposed the safety risks in an 18 page report and says the Trident
deterrent is a ‘
Disaster Waiting To Happen’. He tells us
“ We are so close to a nuclear disaster it is shocking, and yet everybody is accepting the risk to the public.” He also tells us that poor security checks could leave the door open for the
“worst terrorist attack the UK and world has ever seen”.
The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
In an attempt to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to get rid of
the existing ones The Nuclear Non proliferation Treaty (NPT) was drawn
up and came into force in 1970.
The NPT is an international treaty of which a primary goal is to rid
the world of nuclear weapons. A treaty review conference is held every
five years and this year it extended from 27
th April to 22
nd
May. This treaty is the only binding international commitment to the
goal of nuclear disarmament of all states. 190 states are now party to
the treaty. Four
UN member states have never joined the NPT:
India,
Israel,
Pakistan and
South Sudan.
Nuclear states who are signatories to the treaty undertake to pursue
nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear
arsenals. The UK has been legally bound by the treaty since 1970. In
spite of this the signatories to the Treaty, including the UK,
essentialy ignore the obligation they have incurred.
In view of the refusal of the nuclear states to disarm the matter was
taken to the International court of justice for an Advisory Opinion on
the obligations of the states which have signed up to the treaty. Their
opinion was unequivocal. They declared
‘There exists an obligation
to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading
to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective
international control’. Can’t be much clearer than that.
Never mind. In terms of getting the nuclear states to honour their
obligations to humanity and their treaties, the recent NPT Review
Conference has been another disastrous failure. It contains no
meaningful commitments on nuclear disarmament. Our leaders are following
their own power/influence focussed agenda and are ignoring the wishes
and wellbeing of the people just as they did with the Iraq war.
The primary nuclear weapons states, all founder members of the United
Nations Security (!) Council, are doing the exact opposite of ridding
us of this curse. They are all rebuilding their nuclear arsenals; US,
Russian, China, UK and France. The determination of the main ‘Security’
Council state leaders to ignore the wishes and real security of peoples
of the world has become clear as a result of the 2015 NPT Conference.
The leaders of these states are parking their humanity and putting their
power politics before the safety of the people. The enormity of this
crime is arguably even greater than that of Blair and Bush in starting
the Iraq war.
It is even more clear now, after this conference, that the
non-nuclear weapons states must make nuclear weapons illegal without the
participation of the nuclear weapons states. And this is what they are
doing.
A crime against humanity
There are 193 states in the United Nations. So there are 184 states
which do not have nuclear weapons. Realising the intransigence of the
nuclear states many of the non-nuclear states decided on another
approach to having them banned. The existence of nuclear weapons
threatens the commission of crimes against humanity. They are weapons
for committing genocidal-scale attacks on civilian populations. There
have now been three conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear
weapons (in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna). At these the non nuclear and less
wealthy states were able to have a much greater impact than at the NPT
conferences which were dominated by the nuclear states 159 states
supported a joint statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear
weapons arguing that nuclear weapons have catastrophic humanitarian
consequences and must never be used again under any circumstances. These
states have affirmed that elimination is the only way to prevent use.
Having nuclear weapons is, of itself, a crime against humanity. It implies the willingness to use them ‘
if our vital interests are threatened’
as ex-Prime Minister Blair put it in his 2006 White Paper, ‘The future
of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent’. It is also criminal because
it puts us all at totally unnecessary risk. As President John F Kennedy
put it:
“Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate
the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman
and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the
slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or
miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished
before they abolish us.”
This is as true now as it was when he declared it.
The Humanitarian Pledge
The non-nuclear states are putting the interests of humanity before power in the teeth of opposition from the nuclear states.
Consequently the major outcome of the 2015 NPT is the Humanitarian Pledge which has over 100 endorsements
3by
states round the planet. It was proposed by the Austrian government and
includes the pledge to join efforts to stigmatise, prohibit and
eliminate nuclear weapons in light of their unacceptable humanitarian
consequences and associated risks.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) tells us,
‘Based on the evidence of the humanitarian impacts from
any nuclear weapon detonation and an acknowledgment of the increasing
risk of use of nuclear weapons, the humanitarian pledge reflects a
fundamental shift in the international discourse on nuclear disarmament
over the past five years…
The wide and growing international support for this historic pledge
sends a signal that a majority of the world’s governments are ready to
move forward with the prohibition of nuclear weapons, even if the
nuclear weapon states are not ready to participate.’
The executive Director of ICAN, Beatrice Fihn, said from the conference,
“Regardless of what has happened here today, the
humanitarian pledge must be the basis for the negotiations of a new
treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. It has been made clear that the
nuclear weapon states are not interested in making any new commitments
to disarmament, so now it is up to the rest of the world to start a
process to prohibit nuclear weapons by the 70th anniversary of the
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
What citizens must do
600 million people demonstrated round the world to stop the Iraq War.
But the war happened. Blair and Bush were determined that it would. The
leaders had their own agenda. The lust to kill won out. It has been
said that one of the reasons that this massive demonstration was not
successful is because it only happened once. Stopping the rabid
militarists and MAD yielders of nuclear weapons will require massive
people-power. And protesting will have to be relentless; it must persist
until the goal is achieved. Mass demonstrations cannot happen everyday
but they could happen once a month. They can be supplemented by vigils,
acts of civil disobedience, bombarding the media with letters and
articles promoting the passion of the people for peace. We are many and
they are few.
Notes
1.
Even if the computers were
correct it would be an act of insanity to launch a retaliatory nuclear
attack. Why incinerate more millions because some are doomed?
2. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41890.htm
3. http://www.ican.org
