Nuclear Strategy and Ending the War in Ukraine
NOBEL LAUREATES, 25 Jul 2022
Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Laureate, and Jonathan Granoff | The Hill – TRANSCEND Media Service
19 Jul 2022 – It is time for bolder efforts to make peace in Ukraine.
War, like fire, can spread out of control, and as President Putin keeps reminding us, this particular conflagration has the potential to start a nuclear war.
At a recent joint news conference with the President of Belarus, Putin announced that Russia would transfer Iskander M missiles to Belarus. Those missiles can carry nuclear warheads, and the move is apparently intended to mirror nuclear sharing arrangements the United States has with five NATO allies — Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Turkey.
U.S. nuclear weapons were introduced into Europe in the 1950s as a stopgap measure to defend NATO democracies whose conventional forces were weak. The number of nuclear weapons in those five countries peaked around 7,300 warheads in the 1960s, then dwindled to about 150 today, reflecting NATO’s growing conventional strength and its diminishing estimation of the military usefulness of nuclear weapons. But even 150 nuclear weapons could be more than sufficient to touch off a dangerous confrontation with Russia.
The world is as close to the nuclear abyss today as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, contemporary nuclear risks may actually be worse. Whereas Cuban Missile Crisis lasted just 13 days, the fighting in Ukraine will likely continue and tempt fate for many months to come.
Negotiations are therefore essential to defuse nuclear tensions. Even though it has no direct role in the Ukraine war, it’s appropriate for NATO to have a role in encouraging negotiations to end it.
Since NATO is an enormously strong military force — stronger even than Putin’s Russia — and since President Putin has said that the war in Ukraine is in part a response to NATO’s actions, NATO calling for peace negotiations would be fitting and carry some weight.
It would also be in keeping with NATO member states’ obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. NATO leaders meeting in Madrid recently reaffirmed that “The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the essential bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons and we remain strongly committed to its full implementation, including Article VI [the article that commits nuclear-armed states to pursuing nuclear disarmament].” This commitment includes, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s 2000 Review Conference report, “a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.”
NATO traditionally maintains strong deterrence and defense, while it has also led the way toward detente and dialogue. NATO’s current commitment to deterrence and defense is clear. But to restart conversations, NATO must now also find a way to encourage détente and dialogue.
Bringing both sides back into dialogue will require a dramatic gesture. Therefore, we propose NATO plan and prepare for withdrawal of all U.S. nuclear warheads from Europe and Turkey, preliminary to negotiations. Withdrawal would be carried out once peace terms are agreed between Ukraine and Russia. Such a proposal would get Putin’s attention and might bring him to the negotiating table.
Removing U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe and Turkey would not weaken NATO militarily, since nuclear weapons have little or no actual usefulness on the battlefield. If they are truly weapons of last resort, there is no need to deploy them so close to Russia’s border. Under this proposal, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States would retain their national nuclear arsenals, and if the worst happened, they could still use them on NATO’s behalf.
Despite 70 years without a major war, it is not possible for nuclear deterrence to last forever. It only works as long as human beings make the right choices. Yet we know humans are flawed, and we all make mistakes.
Therefore we concur with UN Secretary General Guterres, who said, “These weapons offer false promises of security and deterrence — while guaranteeing only destruction, death, and endless brinksmanship,” and with Pope Francis, who said, “[Nuclear weapons] exist in the service of a mentality of fear that affects not only the parties in conflict, but the entire human race.,” as well as with the late U.S. Senator Alan Cranston who simply said, “Nuclear weapons are unworthy of civilization.”
NATO’s nuclear arsenal failed to deter Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has almost no utility as a weapon of war. But NATO’s nuclear weapons can still be put to good use, not by threatening to launch them and escalate the war, but by withdrawing them to make room for new negotiations and eventual peace.
_______________________________________________
1987 Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias was the President of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990 and 2006 to 2010.
Jonathan Granoff is President of the Global Security Institute, and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
Tags: Europe, European Union, NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Pentagon, Putin, USA, Ukraine, Warfare
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Peace Education: An Alternative to War Education
EDUCATION, 13 Jun 2022
By Surya Nath Prasad, Ph.D. – TRANSCEND Media Service
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2022/06/peace-education-an-alternative-to-war-education/
I’m afraid, this message will upset a few people. Same as I have noticed – and have been saying it for decades – how the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) increased nuclear research and nuclear danger, I call the institution presided by Jonathan Granoff, GSI or Global; Security Institute, GII. That is Global Insecurity Institute. The Global Security Institute claims to be dedicated to ‘strengthening international cooperation and security’. What “Security” have they achieved in their 23 years of existence?
We should not forget GSI was founded by US Senator Alan Cranston. Any politician, or diplomat for that matter, that claims to work for our ‘security’, whilst doing nothing to abolish the War Industry, is deluding himself, if not consciously lying.
By the same token, any politician or diplomat who claims to be working for the elimination of nuclear weapons, whilst doing nothing to stop Universities from teaching science students how to make nuclear warheads, is also lying or deluding himself.
Thirdly, any Peace organization that does NOT advice Governments to Abolish their Armed Forces as the first step to Security and Peace, is also deluding itself and misleading their supporters. The Industrial Military Complex exists as an economic force, employing millions of workers. The only way their salaries can be paid, is if Governments organize wars. As the candid Justin Trudeau put it when questioned about the sale of Canadian military vehicles to Saudi Arabia, for the Saudi to kill Yemenis, “my choice was between Canadian unemployed or dead Yemeni and I’m responsible for the wellbeing of thew Canadian people first”
I’m shocked Oscar Arias co-signed this paper. He lives in, and was President of Costa Rica, a county without Armed Forces.
PS to my previous message: The authors propose that the U.S. and NATO “plan and prepare for withdrawal of all U.S. nuclear warheads from Europe and Turkey”.
Do the authors think the US and NATO need to be told what to do and need advice?
Most of the world already wants nuclear weapons abolished, but the five permanent UNSC members will not part with theirs. NATO is NOT defensive but aggressive and has decided Russia is an enemy.
“NATO traditionally maintains strong deterrence and defense, while it has also led the way toward detente and dialogue.” Please indicate what detente or dialogue have occurred. Ever since the end of WW2, which the USA likes to pretend it won and gives no credit to the Red army, the real winners, Russia has NOT been treated with any fairness.