The main parties are making a tragic mistake in putting their faith in the theory of nuclear deterrence.
In this election campaign it is up to us to question their beliefs, because it is pretty unlikely that journalists will challenge them.
Please copy this letter and send to all your Parliamentary Candidates, and make sure they answer the questions.
NUCLEAR WAR QUESTIONS TO PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES
27 May 2024
Dear [name of
candidate]
Congratulations
on being chosen to be our Parliamentary Candidate. This letter comes to you
from a member of MEDACT, which is the UK affiliate of 1985 Nobel Prize-winning
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW).
Putin’s invasion
of Ukraine and the re-ignition of the conflict in Israel/Palestine has resurrected
debate about nuclear weapons and nuclear war.
The debate has always been polarised and emotionally charged, but the
following questions capture the issue (see Appendix 1):
1. Would use of nuclear weapons result in the
destruction of human civilisation? (See Appendix 2)
2. Is the nuclear deterrence system capable of
failure? (See Appendix 3)
3. Is it possible for humanity to reduce the
number of nuclear weapons existing in our world to zero? (See Appendix 4)
There is compelling evidence (presented as Appendices that
accompany this letter) that the answer to all these questions is an unambiguous
YES.
We would be very grateful if you would give your own answers
to each of the three questions.
To respond, please feel free simply to put YES or NO at the
end of each question, or if you prefer, set out your thoughts in a letter of
response (but please make sure that you answer the questions in your letter),
and send your response to the address at the foot of this letter.
Many thanks for responding to these questions, and thank
you for putting so much time and energy into this General Election.
Best wishes
[Name and address of constituent]
APPENDIX
1
APPLYING
CLEAR LOGIC TO NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
The Inventor’s Paradox is an approach to problems that
starts by taking a view of the whole situation, looking at the principles of
the case before diving into the details. If we can arrive at certainty at the
general level, we can then apply this certainty to the specific problem.
It can be very useful where the debate is encumbered with
pre-conceived ideas and emotion, as is the case with the nuclear weapons
debate.
It is true to say that
“If the consequences of the
failure of a system would be totally destructive to civilisation, it is reasonable for humans to use that
system if, and only if, the probability of its failure is zero”.
The statement is clear and easy to understand because it is
general. If the failure of a system means 100% destruction, we may use it only
if there is a ZERO chance of failure.
We then apply this general truth to the Nuclear Deterrence
system, and it becomes clear that we can only use Nuclear Deterrence if there
is a ZERO chance of failure.
APPENDIX
2
WOULD
THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD BRING ABOUT THE END OF HUMAN CIVILISATION?
There is an important preliminary attached to this question,
which is:
Would
it be possible to get away with a limited exchange, or would one nuclear detonation
inevitably escalate into an all-out global nuclear war?
It is impossible to give a definitive answer to that question,
but the only safe assumption to make is that if one weapon is detonated, there
is a real possibility that an all-out, global nuclear war will ensue. The
reason for this lies in the nuclear deterrence doctrine of first strike, which
aims to destroy the opponent’s weapons before they can be fired. Once it is
known that an opponent has detonated a nuclear weapon, the pressure will be on
for supreme commanders to fire all their nuclear weapons before they lose them
to a first strike, and in an effort to destroy the opponent’s remaining nuclear
weapons. Although we cannot say that any exchange would inevitably lead to a
first strike, it would be the height of folly for anyone to assume that they
could use weapons in a limited tactical strike and believe that matters would
then be allowed to rest by the opposition.
Unfortunately this limited tactical strike idea is the
prevailing nuclear doctrine of the
USA, Russia and other nuclear weapons states.
They consider that
nuclear weapons could be used tactically, as an extension of a conventional
military campaign.
Therefore the answer here is, no, it would not be possible
to get away with a limited exchange: we must assume that one nuclear detonation
would in all likelihood escalate into an all-out global nuclear war.
So now for the main question:
Would an all-out strategic nuclear exchange be infinitely destructive
to human civilisation? The answer
here is a confident YES.
The effects of all-out nuclear war have been
comprehensively studied. It is known that in a nuclear war, millions of us
would die immediately of blast injuries, crush injuries, and burns. Millions
more would die more slowly of radiation sickness, infections, lack of effective
medical care, and starvation.
There are estimated to be at least 13,000 nuclear weapons
in the world held by at least 9 countries, most of them held by the United
States and Russia[1].
Toon et al in 2019[2]
estimate that even a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan involving
about 250 nuclear bombs could bring about significant global cooling, where
atmospheric soot from fires caused by the bombs would cut off sunlight for a
period. This being so, the use of the global stockpile of 13,000 nuclear
weapons would without doubt cause a “nuclear winter” lasting weeks, months or
even years[3]. This will cause wintry
temperatures throughout the year, across much of the planet. Absence of
sunlight will mean crop failures and therefore starvation.
When sunlight returns, the effects of city and forest fires
will have been significantly to increase the atmospheric CO2 load, exacerbating
global warming. Species loss will increase, secondary to habitat loss. Of
these, the loss of bees will be most important since cessation of their pollination
services will lead to failure of such crops as survivors may try to plant.
Economic growth after a global nuclear war would be
unlikely, to say the least. In fact, a deep global economic depression is
inevitable, until our civilisation will be reduced to a survival economy based
around obtaining water, food, warmth, and shelter for the local group. Life
would be short, cancers plentiful, health services would be rudimentary or
non-existent, with food, water, analgesics, antibiotics, and other essential
medicines in very short supply.
Self-interest is likely to become the prevailing ethical
norm, and government would be by gangsterism and rule by war-lords.
In
summary, it is entirely reasonable to expect that an all-out nuclear exchange
would lead to the end of human civilisation.
In terms of the syllogism set out at the beginning, the
consequences of the failure of a nuclear deterrence system would indeed be
infinitely destructive to our civilisation.
So the next question is this:
Is
the probability of deterrence failure greater than zero?
The
answer here is unfortunately also YES
See Appendix 3
APPENDIX 3
IS
THE NUCLEAR DETERRENCE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF FAILURE?
Nuclear deterrence is a complex system comprising
electronic sensors embedded in a command and control network composed of humans
who are working to protocols interwoven with pattern judgments and evaluations
which are affected by the emotional state of the individuals and groups that
make the judgments.
The
groups themselves, particularly the supreme decision-making groups, are
isolated from the body of humanity, and are known to be susceptible to a condition
known as group think – defined as a mode of thinking that people engage in
when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members'
strivings for unanimity override their motivation realistically to appraise
alternative courses of
action[4].
Moreover, the interplay of decision makers is now far more complex than in
the days of the cold war, with nuclear-armed players coming on to the field who
might not view the destruction of the prevailing world civilisation as a thing
to be avoided at all costs, and we have other players already on the scene who
believe that nuclear weapons could be used tactically without risking a
strategic exchange.
In addition to this, supreme rulers are prone to human
failure, either physical or psychological, which may affect their judgment. Dr
David Owen has characterised this as the Hubris Syndrome[5].
There have already been at least 11 instances where the
world came perilously close to nuclear war[6].
A time of global
political tension and crisis, it is entirely possible that a mentally
challenged President or Prime Minister, faced with a complex web of global and
national crises, encountering false information from an error within the
electronic detector system, could decide that a nuclear war was the only option.
In conclusion, it is entirely reasonable to judge that the
probability of failure of the nuclear deterrence system is greater than zero[7].
Since
the conditions of the statement in Appendix 1 have been matched, it is necessary for us to
work to bring about a condition of zero nuclear weapons being held in our
world.
Is global elimination of nuclear weapons a pipe dream, or
is it feasible?
See Appendix 4
APPENDIX 4
IT
IS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A GLOBAL ZERO OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Background
The quantity of nuclear weapons has already been
significantly reduced.
The START I Treaty came into force in 1994 and has been
extended twice, with the current START III due to end in 2026.
Before this treaty, the USA and Russia had about 60,000
nuclear weapons between them. Now the figure is nearer 10,000.
This figure shows the approximate stockpiles in the world
over time, showing the dramatic reduction produced by START, which should give
us hope that further reductions are possible.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty has been in
force since 1974. Unfortunately, the Nuclear Weapons States have not met their
obligation under Article 6 of the Treaty 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".
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
came into force in January 2021, and effectively makes the possession of
nuclear weapons illegal. The Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) are ignoring the TPNW
at present.
The NWS are a tiny minority of the 193 states which
comprise the United Nations, and as time goes by they will begin to feel their
isolation more acutely.
Measures such as the Periodic Assessment of Nuclear Executives
will serve to highlight the responsibilities of leaders of NWS.
CONFIDENCE
BUILDING
Intensive diplomacy and consciousness raising is necessary
before leaders will begin to work on a plan to reduce the number of nuclear
weapons on the planet to zero, but once they start to apply themselves to this
vital task, the action plan is relatively simple.
GLOBAL ZERO ACTION PLAN
Phase I
Russia and the
U.S. cut their nuclear arsenals from over 5,000 warheads each to 1,100 warheads
each.
Nuclear-armed
states engage in direct talks to strengthen global stability, reduce nuclear
risks, and set the stage for further arsenal cuts.
Nuclear-armed
states commit to never using nuclear weapons first.
Phase II
Russia,
the U.S., and China cut their nuclear arsenals to 300 warheads each. All other
nuclear-armed states agree to not exceed this limit.
Nuclear-armed
states continue direct talks to further global stability, strengthen monitoring
and verification, and develop a framework for the Global Zero Accords.
Phase III
All
nuclear-armed states negotiate, sign and ratify the Global Zero Accords, a
binding international treaty that removes all nuclear weapons from military
service within two years, and requires the complete destruction of nuclear
warheads by 2045.
Phase IV
Universal
prohibition, verification, and enforcement continues.
Source: https://www.globalzero.org/reaching-zero/
Article 4 of the
TPNW provides the official mechanism for the Action Plan to be
implemented. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/tpnw-2017/article-4?activeTab=undefined
IN
CONCLUSION, the use of nuclear weapons result in the destruction of human
civilisation, the nuclear deterrence system capable of failure, and it is
possible for the international community
to eliminate totally the presence of nuclear weapons from the world.
[1] h#ps://www.livescience.com/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist
[2]
h#ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar;cles/PMC6774726/
[3]
h#ps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.222.4630.1283
[4] Janis, Irving L. Vic;ms of
Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972, page 9.
[5] [Owen, D, In sickness and in Power, Methuen
2008, ISBN 978-0-413-77662-4].
[6]
h#p://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/11-instances-where-nuclear-deterrence.html
