"Atomic Echoes"

The estimable Joseph Cirincione makes the case for a more ambitious non-proliferation policy:

There is now a flurry of efforts crossing party and ideological lines to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and the number of nations that have nuclear weapons. Most prominent is the appeal this January from Democrats William Perry and Sam Nunn and Republicans George Schultz and Henry Kissinger for “a world free of nuclear weapons.” These veteran cold warriors strongly supported the nuclear build-ups of the past. Now, their action plan includes many of the elements of the early Truman era: deep cuts in existing arsenals, a global ban on nuclear tests, a halt in production of new weapon materials, and international control of the entire uranium enrichment process, including the formation of an international fuel bank for nuclear reactors. Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammed ElBaradei urges similar steps, as do projects from a dozen research institutes. And some members of Congress and presidential contenders have picked up parts of these proposals.

He says the country's political leadership should pick up on these cues and show some international leadership. I should add that while I wouldn't want to call Cirincione deeply unserious, that along with mocking Very Serious People in the national security world it would do this blog good to point out some good ones, and Cirincione's on that list.

Comments

It's worth noting that the Very Serious People of climate policy, who advocate for a massive worldwide expansion of nuclear power for electricity, are, if they get their way, going to make nonproliferation efforts immeasurably more difficult. Count me as highly skeptical of the notion that the world's poor countries are going to sit contently by and let the world's rich countries dole out the fuel that generates their electricity.

Posted by David Roberts | August 10, 2007 6:19 PM

The fundamental problem with nonproliferation is that I can't see how it is going to be in the interests of anyone except the currently declared nuclear powers. And, that being the case, most other nations simply won't go along.

Let's face it: whatever happens with nuclear testing, the U.S. is not going to get rid of most of our existing arsenal of nuclear weapons (nor should we). Thus, nonproliferation is an inherently hypocritical policy. It's basically the codification of Hilaire Belloc's old doggerel: "Whatever happens/We have got/The Maxim gun/And they have not."

The U.S. has always felt free to meddle in the affairs of other nations. During the Cold War, we routinely overthrew elected governments in Latin America and other parts of the world (including Iran) when they displeased Western business interests. There was some hope that the end of the Cold War would mean more benign U.S. foreign policy, but the Iraq War has shattered that hope.

Try to apply the Golden Rule for a moment, and look at this from the perspective of other nations. If you were in their place, especially if you were the leader of a disfavored nation like Iran or Venezuela, wouldn't you be going after nuclear weapons, to protect yourself against invasion by the American Empire?

Posted by Josh G. | August 10, 2007 6:23 PM

David Roberts: It's worth noting that the Very Serious People of climate policy, who advocate for a massive worldwide expansion of nuclear power for electricity, are, if they get their way, going to make nonproliferation efforts immeasurably more difficult.

Yet another reason why nonproliferation is a stupid idea that should be abandoned.

Posted by Josh G. | August 10, 2007 6:25 PM

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to depair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

Woody Allen, Side Effects

Posted by James Gary | August 10, 2007 6:49 PM

Anything for which Kissinger has signed up cannot be ipso facto good for us and the humanity.

Posted by gregor | August 10, 2007 6:57 PM

So where do the candidates stand on this? I know Obama is for an international fuel bank, pledging, I think, $50 million (or was it $50 billion?) to start it up (which also puts the lie to David Roberts complaint), has already been aggressive on non-proliferation legislation in the Senate, and wants to reduce the # of "hair trigger" nukes in the U.S. and Russia as much as possible. That's a pretty solid position (and one of the things that attracts me to his campaign).

What are the stances of the other candidates?

Posted by mrl | August 10, 2007 7:11 PM

Uh, William Perry?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he the one last year urging the US to launch missiles at North Korea?

Kissinger? I agree with the poster who implied ulterior motives.

If these guys are on board with "nonproliferation", they mean "attack North Korea and Iran - and maybe China", not "reduce US nuclear weapons" - unless Russia and China disarms first, of course.

And of course Israel gets to keep hers under the US "don't ask and don't tell" policy....

Cirincione isn't stupid - he should know that the current push from unlikely suspects is a red herring to cover ulterior motives.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 10, 2007 9:35 PM

How could you have a more ambitious non proliferation policy than Dick Cheney's? Bomb the shit out of em. Well the with nukes option, which is on the table, does make for some logical inconsistencies but what the hell.

The B Team never took much stock in non proliferation. They practically aided and abetted Pakistan's acquisition of nukes, the fountainhead of proliferation ever since.

Don't forget to stock up on your Potassium Iodide.

Posted by rapier | August 10, 2007 9:54 PM

Roberts - It's worth noting that the Very Serious People of climate policy, who advocate for a massive worldwide expansion of nuclear power for electricity, are, if they get their way, going to make nonproliferation efforts immeasurably more difficult.

Not "immeasurably", just that any nation with peaceful nuclear technology is fairly well along in having the ability to use that base to shift and go for nuclear weapons. The barriers are properly focused on preventing fissile material production and in "great powers" efforts to fold vulnerable nations under their nuclear umbrellas or in trying to establish whole regions on the globe as "nuclear weapons free".

Count me as highly skeptical of the notion that the world's poor countries are going to sit contently by and let the world's rich countries dole out the fuel that generates their electricity.

That is Iran's argument that even if it makes no financial sense for them to enrich their fuel, they want it for "national independence". Which is a dishonest, crap argument because they are dependent on other nations for critical strategic and commerce items. Note there is no similar Iranian movement to build their own computers, or become self-sufficient in grain production. What they want is obvious - the Bomb.

Other "poor" countries with no interest in nuclear weapons have 6 enrichment and two current plutonium/uranium spent fuel reprocessors to use. Which offers far better economy than building "poor nations" own hyper expensive program from scratch to get 3% enriched or MOX fuel. The advanced nations - outside Israel and Pakistan and N Korea - have the trained workbase, excess capacity as the world chew up Russia's huge HEU stockpile, and good history with the IAEA.

Some facts:

1. Spent fuel is pretty safe from terrorist theft to make into a nuke bomb.

a. Radioactivity is too intense to just grab it and walk away.
b. Plutonium is the wrong isotopic blend for use as weapons material, even if the terrorists have 300 million to build a reprocessing facility./

2. Dirty bombs are nothing compared to a real nuke. Their only threat is panic in still-ignorant people and huge cleanup costs in nations like America that still lack a quick recovery plan.

3. Once HEU from enrichment or Russian stocks is blended with regular uranium, it cannot be used in a bomb.

4. All other CO2-neutral methods of power generation are either marginal contributors inadequate to ever power a nation (solar, wind, biofuel), or pretty tapped out (hydro sites). Conservation sounds nice, but not when the 3rd World is exploding in population, developing - nor in the US, where going from 220 million to 300 million ate up all past easy conservation gains and increased our energy demand another 30% and where the US Census says we will have 363 million people in the US by 2050.

5. Nukes - fission or fusion, plus coal, and a sharply lowered standard of living for all but global elites and those rising from complete 3rd world misery - appears to be where we are heading.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 10, 2007 11:11 PM

Josh G. said we, the US, should not get rid of most of our nuclear arsenal. I don't know how big that arsenal is, nowadays, but it surely still comprises a few thousand megaton-range warheads. I challenge him to name more than a _hundred_ targets worth a nuke on the entire globe. I further challenge him to describe a scenario wherein we _use_ more than _ten_ nukes within a year and are still defending anything resembling the "way of life" we take so much pride in now.

Before anybody pipes up about the deterrent value of nukes, let us remember little Tom Tancredo's recent experience. If I were Tancredo (but sane) I would pose this question to Serious People: what good is our nuclear arsenal if we can't even _threaten_ to use it?

Posted by Tony P. | August 10, 2007 11:36 PM

Cirincione's the best. He's wight about evewything. (And his speech impediment is very endeawing.)

Posted by Unserious | August 11, 2007 12:47 AM

Joseph Cirincione has a brief but memorable appearance in "Why We Fight". He starts here at 07:53 and pops in and out throughout the clip, but everyone should really check out the whole thing. It was great on the big screen and it doesn't lose a whole lot on the translation to YouTube.

Posted by Sangfroid826 | August 11, 2007 12:50 AM

I don't know how big that arsenal is, nowadays, but it surely still comprises a few thousand megaton-range warheads.

Its about 5,000 with the majority tactical or 100, 400, and 600KT thermonuclear strategic warheads numbering around 1500. Russia has about 7500. We only have a handful of bombs with greater than 1 megaton yield, mainly intended for command and control bunkers.

I challenge him to name more than a _hundred_ targets worth a nuke on the entire globe.

SIOP - Strategic Integrated Operating Plan - the US war-fighting strategy at the nuclear level - had about 700 military and civilian targets needed to end Soviet war fighting ability. China, I venture, based on their Rise, would take about 400 military and civilian strikes now to end them as a threat. If we ever had a true Clash of Civilizations, only about 250 nukes would be needed to end the Islamic threat for many centuries. 275 if Turkey, Malaysia had to be added.

I further challenge him to describe a scenario wherein we _use_ more than _ten_ nukes within a year and are still defending anything resembling the "way of life" we take so much pride in now.

A scenario that requires us to "defend our way of life" if Pakistani Islamists seized Pak nukes and intended on using them on infidels might take up to 25 tactical and clean thermonuclear weapons on Pak military targets to ensure the nukes were destroyed or undeliverable - if commando raids
and time it took to bomb with precision conventional weapons to assert our control was impractical.
Or we could just deliver an ultimatum that all Pak cities above 75,000 in population would be eradicated if they failed to hand over every nuke to us...as long as we were prepared to add another 40 targets onto the list of Military ones.

We would keep our way of life that way. The Paks, of course, would lack a way of life.

Before anybody pipes up about the deterrent value of nukes, let us remember little Tom Tancredo's recent experience. If I were Tancredo (but sane) I would pose this question to Serious People: what good is our nuclear arsenal if we can't even _threaten_ to use it?

We always threatened to use it if the Red Army poured through the Fulda Gap, if Soviet or Chinese missiles and bombers were seen inbound to the USA.
It being thousands of warheads.
It deterred. Both ways. Kruschev, Breshnev, Gorbachev, and Mao left little doubt of that in their memoirs and writings. Nixon and other US Presidents held back in many situations rather than confront the Commies directly. Nor was there any doubt at Soviet war college. Nor was there any doubt that US sub officers would turn the keys and launch if ordered.

What Tancredo said just proved that Obama wasn't the only moron. It is how a credible threat is laid with care on the table that is what counts in high stakes great power diplomacy...not the threat itself.

Would we consider bombing Mecca, Medina if radical Islam wins out, controls the Ummah, and hits Asia or the West's cities with Nukes? Yeah, why not? Bulldozing the Dome of the Rock off the Jewish Temple Mount if the Muslims start a war of civilizations we win? Sure. It should be weighed carefully.

Just another target like NYC, Moscow, Beijing, or Tel Aviv. Nothing anymore precious about a city Muslims hold sacred than a sacred place like Paris, Bangkok, London, or Hollywood.

With an added benefit that The Prophet said that Mecca was Allahs city that he would always protect by His Will, which is supreme.
Making a crater out of Mecca would be the equivalent to Christians and the continuence of their Faith of someone finding Jesus's corpse and putting it on display.
It would likely end the religion.

Which, of course, would be a bad thing to do unless we saw a few craters in the West or Asia of our cherished cities and decided that bad things had to be done to a bad religion as retaliation for attacking us with WMD.

Hopefully, it won't ever get to that. We can hope the Muslims are smarter than that and can keep their radical Jihadis in check.

Posted by Chis Ford | August 11, 2007 2:29 AM

It would likely end the religion.

That's too funny!

Posted by keatssycamore | August 11, 2007 9:25 AM