2022: The First Five Nuclear Weapon States Make a Statement
Since February 2021, I have been posting on Substack weekly entries on nuclear weapon matters—history, technology, and “secrets”—in You Might Want to Know. To see the titles of other entries, check out the Archive.
Apologies to my readers for the mess of unfinished-business in the previous YMWTK. That one got away from me before the final visit.
At the end of President Biden’s first year in office, we were still waiting to learn what his stance would be toward eliminating nuclear weapons. That is, whether he would embrace the commitment President Obama had made in Prague in 2009 to “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
On January 3, 2022, a year into his first term, President Biden issued a statement that some found reassuring. It had been signed also by the leaders of four other Nuclear Weapon States. It began,
The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities.
That’s the five original Nuclear-Weapon States talking—the ones who had been allowed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 to retain their nuclear weapons. There are four more NWS’s in the world now, none of whom has signed the NPT. The first five still hold the vast majority of all nuclear weapons. Like more than 90%. The vast majority of that vast majority is held by the United States and Russia.
The statement went on to say something that went back all the way to Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, a declaration they made together in 1985 that has been quoted plenty since:
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Do you know anyone who would disagree with that? I don’t. Of course, there’s always someone.
But hold on. As long as nuclear weapons exist, a nuclear war that could not be won and so must never be fought still might be fought, right? Only if the weapons have been eliminated would it not be possible to fight a nuclear war. Would these leaders be content with a situation in which a war that couldn’t be won still might be fought?
What did the statement say about elimination? Nothing yet.
Here’s the rest of the statement the five leaders signed. It’s not long. Let’s see if there’s anything about elimination in it.
As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war. We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.
Okay, they believe nuclear weapons deter aggression and prevent war. And they are against proliferation. Nothing exactly ground-breaking there. I suppose you could ask, though, Well, if deterrence works, why shouldn’t everyone have nuclear weapons? That way we’d all be “deterred” from aggression, right? I understand some people actually do think that.
The statement went on,
We reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats and emphasize the importance of preserving and complying with our bilateral and multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control agreements and commitments. We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation “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.”
Okay, but they left out an important word that’s in Article VI of the NPT: the word “immediately.” They say they remain committed to Article VI, which supposedly they have been for the last fifty-plus years during which they’ve done nothing—“immediately” or at any other time—to pursue good faith negotiations toward complete nuclear disarmament. Good to know, I guess, that even after forty-plus years they remain committed. Or does that work the other way? Has the commitment become by now a joke?
The five signatories go on.
We each intend to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorized or unintended use of nuclear weapons. We reiterate the validity of our previous statements on de-targeting, reaffirming that none of our nuclear weapons are [sic] targeted at each other or at any other State.
Wait. Did they say we still have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles on Cold War hair-trigger alert? And did they also say that “none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State”? On anything anywhere? What’s the point of still having them on hair-trigger alert then? Unless re-targeting is now a matter of just flipping a switch or something. In which case the assurance means nothing. Less than nothing because it is pretending to be something.
We underline our desire to work with all states to create a security environment more conducive to progress on disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all. We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all. We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns.
So they say here that “the ultimate goal [is] a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all.” But what’s the difference between an “ultimate goal” and a “goal”? An “ultimate goal” is not really a goal, is it? We’ve often seen words like that used when talking about eliminating nuclear weapons: “Eventually, perhaps, one day,” etc. etc. Let me ask you: if you saw those words in a contract, what would you think the actual commitment was?
Also, “undiminished security for all”? Are they suggesting that we are now in a world that is “secure” and all we need to worry about is not “diminishing” that security? A situation that is supposedly made “secure” by, among other things, having thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, many of them on hair-trigger alert?
That’s just incoherent, isn’t it?
As it always has been.
In the end, I would have said this statement wasn’t something we or the Nuclear Threat Initiative could take much, or any, comfort in.
What do you think?
Next: Putin invades Ukraine.
Since February 2021, I have been posting on Substack weekly entries on nuclear weapon matters—history, technology, and “secrets”—in You Might Want to Know. To see the titles of other entries, check out the Archive.