During the height of the Cold War, the United States and Russia together had over 60,000 nuclear weapons, many of them in the megaton range, up to one hundred times the size of the Hiroshima bomb—more than enough weapons to destroy the planet forever.  These weapons not only placed the entire planet in jeopardy, but they were exponentially more than was necessary to eliminate the nuclear capacity of the other side.  The prevalent deterrence doctrine was called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—a fitting term.

Today we and the Russians have roughly 1/6 as many weapons, but they are still factorially more than we need for minimal security, even assuming that there would be a nuclear exchange.  Indeed, a recent paper by three U.S. military analysts concludes that we only “need” 311 of the over 5,500 operational nuclear weapons in the U.S. today.  The fact is, however, that relations with the Russian Federation no longer demand nuclear weapons at all, and that these weapons could be eliminated.  Nor do we need these weapons for our security with other countries, as our conventional forces are overwhelming.  Today, the United States spends more on its defense than the rest of the world together, with only a fraction of this budget going for nuclear weapons.  We have come to a time when nuclear weapons are simply not necessary.

Recently, Pres. Obama declared that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states with the possible exception of North Korea and Iran.  As for the nuclear states, only Russia has an arsenal which should be considered in any way threatening to the United States.  China, for example, is content with a very low number of weapons, whose purpose is only to prevent countries like the United States from bullying them with our nuclear arsenal.

With the recently completed new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the United States and Russia have started a process that could result in the denuclearization of the planet.  Although it is an important first step, the time-line for the treaty is seven years for relatively modest cuts. To accelerate the process, the United States could propose moving on to the next round, which would include not only the Russian Federation, but also China, England, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran.  As these agreements are implemented, they will create increasing confidence leading to a greater willingness to sign on to still another treaty that would further reduce the world’s supply of nuclear weapons.  By taking such a pivotal role in global disarmament, the United States will truly respond to claims that the United States is employing a double standard where certain states are allowed to possess nuclear weapons while others are not.

A special case is Israel and the Middle East, including Iran.  For over 50 years, the very existence of Israel has been threatened by its Arab neighbors, and with the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, the threat seems even worse.  Today, Israel has perhaps up to 200 nuclear weapons, although it has not officially declared itself a nuclear state.  If Israel is to divest itself of nuclear weapons, the answer must be the creation in the Middle East of a nuclear free zone so strongly guaranteed by the major powers that it would be credible to Israel.  The Middle East would then become still another nuclear free zone on this planet, such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Pacific.

The U.S. must not hold to a double standard, talking about nuclear disarmament, while signing on to tens of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal. Hans Blix, the chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission writes: “It is not a recipe for success to preach to the rest of the world to stay away from the very weapons that nuclear states claim are indispensable to their own security.”

The challenge confronting the United States is colossal. The United States must not only deal with its own security, but also confront the corporations, such as Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, which spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for nuclear contracts.  The recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, giving corporations unlimited power to advertise for political purposes, makes this situation even worse.  With the opposition from these corporations as well as from an influential minority of the American public, the prospect of going much beyond START treaty seems difficult.  The solution may not be clear, but the destination is clearer than ever: nuclear abolition, because, as Pres. Obama says, “it is the right thing to do.”

What should be done?  Only an organized electorate that is well-informed about the dangers of nuclear weapons and willing to act can overcome this challenge.  This is the task of organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility, Council for a Livable World, and The Project for Nuclear Awareness.  If such organizations can mobilize the public, we have a democratic chance.

The work involves not only the education of Congress and the Executive Branch, but also the education of the public, particularly of youth who will be carrying this fight on into the future.  As these organizations mobilize the public, they work not just against nuclear weapons, but for our survival.

Craig Eisendrath, PhD.

Chairman, Project for Nuclear Awareness

Image from joyerickson.files.wordpress.com

The image is from joyerickson.files.wordpress.com