SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nuclear nonproliferation treaty
To Stop the Nuclear Arms Race, States Like the US Should Pursue Domestic Peace
While projecting power to internal and external audiences through nuclear modernization, the United States ignores insecurity at home.
Oct 04, 2024
The
Pact for the Future, adopted by world leaders at the high-level United Nations Summit of the Future in September, ambitiously calls for a world free of nuclear weapons and a recommitment to disarmament during a time when all nuclear states are undergoing nuclear modernization efforts and tensions that could indicate the beginning of a new arms race. Meanwhile, the Fragile States Index notes indicators of weakened domestic human security factors within these states. Yes, states are proliferating and modernizing their arsenals in response to rivals doing the same, but where did this cycle start, what magnifies it, and how does it impact the people within these countries?
Peace comes not only through the protection from outside threats, but by fostering individual security through strong health, educational, and justice institutions. While states invest in deterrence, human security needs go unmet, and civilians develop mistrust in the government and other countries.
The United States has seen a decline in social cohesion and an increase in state fragility over the past decade, and the fractionalized population is on even greater display this year with the upcoming election. State fragility is also evident in an increase in political violence—demonstrated by two assassination attempts of a former president—democratic backsliding, an attempt to overturn an election, extreme gerrymandering, and restricting voters’ access to the ballot box.
Spending on non-defense programs and instead investing in the civilian sector decreases unemployment rates and contributes to economic security for the public.
Looking at only high-level, international interactions misses domestic factors that contribute to countries feeling less inclined to participate in diplomatic, arms control solutions, or having more isolationist practices. In 1997, Scott Sagan published a piece called, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” explaining the lack of attention to the “domestic politics model.” Today, amid a potential start of an arms race and a massive change in the global order, these factors are once again ignored.
Diplomacy and arms control is hard between countries when the people in those countries cannot decide what to do about it.
The decline in social cohesion isn’t just reflected in levels of trust that U.S. civilians have of other U.S. civilians. If you don’t trust your next-door neighbor, you sure aren’t primed to trust someone from a different country. Low levels of social trust make a populace more vulnerable to influence using “othering” rhetoric about international enemies and even allies. So, while U.S. citizens experience insecurity and instability at home, a policy that gives the illusion that the nation is strong placates grievances.
Research shows that the public’s support for defense spending and a willingness to use force is related to low social trust.
While projecting power to internal and external audiences through nuclear modernization, the United States ignores insecurity at home.
According to a report by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, the cost of a strong military also includes the forgone investments into human security:
Decades of high levels of military spending have changed U.S. government and society—strengthening its ability to fight wars, while weakening its capacities to perform other core functions. Investments in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and emergency preparedness, for instance, have all suffered as military spending and industry have crowded them out.
Project 2025, written by many former Trump administration advisers, calls for an expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in order to “deter Russia and China simultaneously.” Countering China, and using it as a “pacer” is not only touted by the Trump campaign. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review calls on modernization in order to deter China and its growing nuclear forces. However, even if China did reach the high end of projected growth in nuclear force, it would not be close to the 3,700 nuclear weapons that the United States has in its arsenal. The United States is undergoing a $1.2 trillion effort of nuclear modernization over the coming decades in order to keep its deterrent force strong.
From 1974 to 1987, an increase in defense spending worsened unemployment rates among Americans, but was specifically harmful to Black Americans and women. When non-defense spending increased, unemployment rates reduced. During this time, the United States was significantly proliferating its nuclear arsenal in the Cold War, and the strategic spending percent of the defense budget went from 11% to 16%. This was because the shift in spending toward a nuclear buildup necessitated hardware and technical spending rather than personnel spending.
The current budget for U.S. Nuclear Forces is $75 billion a year, however the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate for the 2023-2032 period of $756 billion is $122 billion more than the year before’s estimate of $634 billion for the 2021-2030 period. There are many other ways that the United States could spend this money than on a weapon that should never be used, but universal early childhood education (“Pre-K”) is estimated to cost $20-46 billion per year, and there would still be a few billion to spare.
Spending on non-defense programs and instead investing in the civilian sector decreases unemployment rates and contributes to economic security for the public.
In a preliminary study conducted at the Nonproliferation Education and Research Center at the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, it was found that a weak security apparatus—one of the indicators in the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Global Fragility Index—was associated with a low state sentiment score in the 2005-2022 Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences. A state’s sentiment score increases as it gives examples of its own fulfillment of its obligations under the treaty but decreases as the state blames other states for not fulfilling their obligations. In a way, it measures a state’s own sense of responsibility in the process or its willingness to blame other member states for the degradation of the system.
The findings demonstrate a relationship between domestic institutional factors and how states behave at the international level. Specifically, states that have political insecurity have a lower confidence in the NPT process. They express less confidence in other member states by calling out misactions, and do not express how they contribute directly through their own policy to uphold the nonproliferation regime.
When U.S. institutions are weakened, leaders may continue to evade responsibility by blaming all institutional issues on outside actors through scapegoating. Some scholars argue that the pursuit of a nuclear weapons program provides a unique opportunity to divert a political legitimacy crisis, such as in the case of Iran, and that activities such as the testing of nuclear weapons are so salient, they show a deliverable that gains a party in power prestige.
Global power politics does not exist in a vacuum. While understanding dynamics between states is important, state fragility is a lens through which to understand the origins of broiling tensions that prevent the pursuit of diplomatic arms control solutions. The United States is not the only state seeing a decline in social cohesion indicators; however, it is necessary to turn inward and stabilize domestic human-security factors before we can address rivals, competitors, the axis of evil, or whatever label makes us feel more secure. Addressing instability within the country will make the United States more legitimate in its claims, and institutions will have more capacity to handle outside threats as the populace is more secure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Honor the Victims of the Nuclear Age by Bringing It to an End
Taking nuclear disarmament seriously is not only an existential imperative at this very moment, but an obligation of all state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Jul 23, 2024
The following speech was delivered to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee on July 23, 2024 at the United Nations in Geneva.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) state parties are meeting for a third year in a row in the shadow of the devastating war in Ukraine, which has taken hundreds of thousands of lives, destroyed key infrastructure in Ukraine and elsewhere, and turned friends and family members into enemies. In the past 10 months, the attack on Israel and the war in Gaza have shattered all who have dared to confront the enormous civilian toll, the ongoing justifications of violations of international humanitarian law, and the divisiveness that the conflict has brought to environs from university campuses around the world to the halls of the United Nations.
The human suffering we witness on repeat is unfathomable, and yet, the fact that both of these conflicts involve—directly and indirectly—states that possess nuclear weapons is a stark reminder that things could be far worse. Whether deliberately, as has been threatened by Russian and Israeli politicians, or by accident, and especially if the current conflicts widen to regional wars, the use of nuclear weapons is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. This is so as long as nuclear weapons exist, and most especially as long as current policies not only allow but call for their instantaneous use to defend interests of states.
The NPT state parties can no longer pretend that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary evil and sweep the nuclear testing era under a pile of rugs.
Taking nuclear disarmament seriously is not only an existential imperative at this very moment, but an obligation of all state parties to the NPT. The Nuclear-Weapon States—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have a special responsibility. According to Article Six of this treaty, they are mandated to negotiate in good faith toward nuclear disarmament, something that they have ostensibly not been doing. This must change.
All other NPT state parties must move away from threats of nuclear annihilation as a strategy for conducting international affairs. The stationing of U.S. and Russian weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye in the case of the U.S. and Belarus in the case of Russia must end imminently. So must the so-called nuclear umbrella promise. Nuclear weapons don’t make anyone safer—they put all of us, all of humanity, and all of life on the planet at risk of extinction. To state that this is unacceptable is to state the obvious.
What should be done?
Next year will mark the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. The Nuclear-Weapon States should use this and next year’s Preparatory Committee to chart a path that includes signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in conjunction with the other four nuclear-weapon possessors: India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. Doing so by 2035 would allocate 10 years to make history. Once all possessors have ratified the TPNW, all nuclear weapons should be eliminated by 2045.
As we look toward a future in which nuclear weapons are abolished, eliminated, and no longer threaten to extinguish human civilization, we also must look to the past and present in order to address the suffering of communities that were impacted by nuclear weapons use and testing. The NPT state parties can no longer pretend that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary evil and sweep the nuclear testing era under a pile of rugs. The evidence of harm is all too real, and the scars are more than visible.
In Algeria, the radioactive equipment from the French nuclear testing program remains buried in the Saharan sands. In the Marshall Islands, the food on the famous Bikini Island, after which the swimsuit was named by the French designer who wanted his design to be explosive, still brims with cesium-137 left over from the U.S. nuclear testing. On Kiritimati Island in Kiribati, the local population has yet to receive an acknowledgment and assistance for harms done by the U.K. and the U.S. during their nuclear weapon testing programs. And in Kazakhstan, too many of the victims of the Soviet nuclear testing program need far more help than they have received so far. This is despite the earnest efforts of the Kazakhstan government, which has taken serious steps toward environmental remediation and victim assistance in the affected region. The stories go on and on and circle the globe.
The states responsible for these heinous acts must begin by issuing an apology. Next, they should come together with the international community to right these historical wrongs and to promise never to commit such crimes ever again.
Here too, the TPNW paves the way forward through its humanitarian provisions, spelled out in Articles six and seven. We furthermore call on all states, including the nine that abstained or voted last December against the resolution in the U.N. General Assembly to address the legacy of nuclear testing; the resolution provides an opportunity for a wide-reaching conversation about nuclear justice, which has been elusive for far too many and for far too long. Every state must come to the nuclear justice table.
There is work to be done. Statements and gatherings must be followed by real action and by concrete and time-bound steps.
We must honor the victims of the nuclear age by bringing about its end and by helping them earnestly and wholeheartedly. But beyond these tasks, we must recommit to the promise of the U.N. Charter in which states address their differences through negotiations; engage in peaceful cooperation and competition; and reject all threats, including those of nuclear Armageddon, as not just an enormous risk to humanity, but as an insult to our humanity. We are better than that.
The work and ideas of Mozart, Gandhi, Mandela, Parks, Franklin, Allende, and so many others blaze the path forward. This path does not include nuclear weapons.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘The Law Is Simple’: Israel’s Unregulated Nukes Mean Biden Must Halt Military Aid
In a letter to President Joe Biden and top members of his administration, Veterans For Peace asserts that U.S. law requires the cutoff of all weapons shipments to Israel.
Apr 20, 2024
The national organization Veterans For Peace is demanding that the Biden administration abide by U.S. law regarding the illegal possession of unregulated nuclear weapons and halt all military aid to Israel.
In a
letter to President Joe Biden and top members of his administration, Veterans For Peace asserts that U.S. law requires the cutoff of all military aid to Israel because it possesses nuclear weapons in noncompliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel does not admit it possesses nuclear weapons, has not signed the NPT, and does not allow inspections of its nuclear arsenal.
The letter lists multiple credible reports that Israel has possessed nuclear weapons for decades. Because Israel has not signed the NPT, the Symington-Glenn Amendments to the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which allow no presidential discretion, require the suspension of all military aid.
The United States may not be able to directly control Israel’s nuclear weapons program, but it surely can—and must—curb the invasion of the Gaza Strip and Israel’s intensifying conflicts with its neighbors.
The president may not waive the cutoff of the aid and exports under the Glenn Amendment where there has been a nuclear weapons detonation, or the offending state has received a nuclear explosive device. Congress would have to enact new legislation authorizing the president to waive some or all of these sanctions.
“The law is quite simple,” said VFP National Director Mike Ferner. “Does Israel have an unregulated nuclear weapons arsenal? Yes, it does. Is Israel a signatory to the NPT? No, it isn’t. So, the question to Biden is, ‘Will you obey the law or continue to let the Madmen Arsonists run America?’”
The well-referenced 11-page letter was researched and written by VFP member Terry Lodge, an activist lawyer who specializes in nuclear issues. It makes for a fascinating read, detailing Israel’s many illegal actions to acquire nuclear weapons materials, and Henry Kissinger’s approval of Israel’s “strategic ambiguity.” Israel has never officially admitted it possesses nuclear weapons, but “everybody knows.” In November, an Israeli cabinet member actually suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza.
The letter also references former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s hacked email (“The boys in Tehran know Israel has 200, all targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands.’’). Colin Powell’s assertion that Iran’s capital Tehran has long been targeted by Israel’s nuclear weapons is especially chilling at this moment, when Israel has provoked an armed conflict with Iran and may be trying to drag the U.S. into a wider war in the Middle East. Would Israel attack Iran with nuclear weapons?
All U.S. Military Aid to Israel Must Be Ended Immediately
Israel’s provocative approach to foreign relations before and since commencing the genocidal invasion of Gaza suggests that nuclear weapons might be used against both real and perceived existential threats to Israel. In May 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assessed that Israel’s security problems come from Iran, and then in September, he insisted at the United Nations that “[A]bove all, Iran must face a credible nuclear threat.”
Presently, Israel has at least 90 warheads, and possibly as many as 200. Israel's bombs are deliverable via aircraft, land-based ballistic missiles, and submarine-based cruise missiles. Israel’s Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles are capable of delivering a nuclear warhead from 4,000 miles away, which means that Iran, Pakistan (another NPT scofflaw non-weapons state believed to have nuclear weapons), and all of Russia west of the Urals—including Moscow—are within range of Israeli nuclear targeting, should Israel resort to The Bomb.
Israel is conducting an ongoing genocidal military campaign in the Gaza Strip against Palestinian civilians and the Hamas government, even as it bombs and fires artillery and rockets into Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. The United States may not be able to directly control Israel’s nuclear weapons program, but it surely can—and must—curb the invasion of the Gaza Strip and Israel’s intensifying conflicts with its neighbors. Given the overwhelming evidence that Israel has received many nuclear weapons from its military branch and has maintained that offensive nuclear capability for decades, federal law compels President Biden to immediately terminate all military assistance to Israel.
Veterans For Peace is demanding that the president issue a formal finding that (1) Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968; (2) that Israel is, as a matter of law, a “non-nuclear-weapon state” under the NPT; (3) that Israel has acquired an arsenal of nuclear weapons with the means of using them in war and has experimentally detonated nuclear weapons in the past; and (4) that Israel has violated 22 U.S.C. § 2799aa-1(b)(1)(B). Federal law requires Biden to end all defense sales and licensing of Munitions List exports to Israel, terminate all foreign military financing, cease delivery of any military weapons and munitions, and implement all other aid cutoffs and curtailments required by the Symington and Glenn Amendments.
While awaiting a response from the Biden administration, Veterans For Peace, with over 100 chapters in the U.S., is calling on all its members, friends, and allies to tell their congressional representatives to oppose any further funding or weapons shipments to Israel. The veterans organization recently sent a letter to the State Department detailing multiple U.S. laws that are being broken by sending weapons to Israel while it is blatantly violating the human rights of Palestinian men, women, and children.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular