Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: The 2006 outlook
Richard Wilson
August 21st 2006
As I introduce this session I want to make several general observations
Firstly the World Federation of Scientists, meeting at Erice, make their best contributions when they look at long term rather than short term issues. I suggest that this will be the case when we consider the problems of nuclear weapons; the possible proliferation thereof both in number and in numbers of countries possessing them.
Secondly I note that it is now 61 years since the world’s scientists understood that mankind now knew how to destroy itself. A few of them understood when they saw the test at Alamagordo in July; the rest when the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. In 1945 I was running a Boy Scout camp in southern England when a boy came from the nearby farm with the news: an atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima. I knew it was the end of a 6 year war that had killed 80 million people. I was overjoyed In 1940 I had seen a house destroyed by a 50 pound bomb and in 1944 I had seen a U1, carrying a 1 or 2 ton warhead, head on, 150 yards away just before it crashed into a house killing the family and knocking out half the windows in our house. I had studied mathematics one year and physics another in Oxford, and was expecting to enter the Royal Air Force as a radar officer, and although I did not know the strength of the explosion I knew it was large (now known to be 15,000 tons TNT equivalent). The Nuovo Zembla blast was 5 million tons. A billion times the strength of the bomb that destroyed a house in 1940. We still have 10,000 of them though only a few that large..
Thirdly I note that when the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs forced the end of world war II in which America emerged as the most powerful nation, British imperialism was replaced by a reluctant American imperialism. But it was an America that projected hope, optimism and generosity. Domestically this was displayed in the GI bill under which returning veterans from all walks of life were paid to acquire an education. In Europe it was expressed in the Marshall plan in which victors France and England, and vanquished Germany, were rebuilt at US expense. This contrasted with the short sighted demands of reparations by the victors of world war I. Japanese, expecting to be treated as slaves, as had often occurred with vanquished nations, were treated well and the Japanese showed their gratitude by taking the US national game, baseball as their own. A big compliment most of the US ignored. In nuclear matters the generosity was first shown in the Baruch plan, to share all secrets, and their control, with the fledgling United Nations but this plan did not get accepted. But Eisenhower in his famous Atoms for Peace speech of 1953 displayed this generous trend. Nuclear information was to be shared with all nations if it had a peaceful intent. This was later embodied in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, (NPT) which we will discuss today. Unfortunately the generosity was not always respected. Canada supplied a heavy water reactor to India but carelessly did not insist on guarantees that it not be used for military purposes. My Canadian friends were appalled that India used it to help make a bomb. I suspect that the French, who supplied a heavy water reactor to Israel were less surprized and not appalled. But neither country, Canada or France, is likely to repeat this mistake.
Fourthly I note that in the last 50 years all this has changed. America is no longer seen as a land of hope, but a land of fear, pessimism and greed. Fear seems to be the emotion that President Bush, the younger, uses to keep power. The greed was all too obvious in the behavior of Ken Lay and others of Enron. Many of us also feel that way about Halliburton. Why did we enter Iraq and not Sudan, if it were not to control most of the world’s oil? Many have noted that in the last 60 years the USA has steadily increased the military option and has with increasing frequency used it as a substitute for diplomacy. Grenada. Panama. The CIA was established as a civilian agency to analyze data, is now reduced to its covert activities and the analysis is “safely” in the defence department. Many friends of mine say: “we don’t hate Americans we hate American policies”. Don’t let us off the hook so easily. 18 months ago the American people re-elected George W Bush, knowing full well what the policies were. Don’t let me off the hook either. Although I did not vote for President Bush I did not campaign for his rival. I did not go and explain to Ohio voters why the world depended upon them.
In nuclear matters it is true also. Most outside observers feel that the USA is the biggest violator of the Non Proliferation Treaty. Article IV calls upon the nuclear weapons states to disarm. While that seemed inappropriate during the cold war, it seems stupid to have so many bombs now. No doubt Dick Garwin will correct me if I have the details wrong, but I believe the USA has 10,000 nuclear weapons of which some 1,500 are on trigger alert or close to it. The number of weapons required to instil caution in an opponent is probably no more than a hundred or two; explosion of these in major cities would inflict unacceptable damage on any opponent. Of course an opponent who is ignorant of the destructive power of these weapons might think that his country could survive such an attack. Indeed in Mutually Assured Destruction, it is the perception of the enemy politician that matters. I was scared at the thought of a hundred or so bombs in the Cuban missile crisis. But some politicians may be harder to scare. Let us hasten their learning. I remember Marshal Yazov telling me in May 1991 that Chernobyl had persuaded reluctant Russian generals that a nuclear war could not be won.
Worse still the USA, both under President Clinton and under President Bush has declined to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty even though committees of the nations leading scientists have agreed that under any scenario they can think of the USA would be more secure after signing the treaty than before. And the USA is making more and different types of weapons. The USA is also in violation of title VI which encourages weapons states to share their knowledge for peaceful purposes. This was done with enthusiasm 50 years ago, as both the USSR and the USA provided research reactors to their client states. This enthusiastic generosity has lessened and many nations feel the stick of obtrusive inspections more than the carrot of help in nuclear matters. Indeed, I have argued that for the last 60 years the biggest single incentive for a nation to develop nuclear weapons has been the attitude of the United States. This started when, in September 1945, British scientists, returning from Los Alamos, found that scientific communication was cut off. They did not even have access to the papers they themselves had written! Britain needed no atomic bomb of its own for its defence but the British cabinet decided that one was necessary to be taken seriously by the USA and maintain the “special relationship”. There was an implicit promise in the Atoms for Peace speech that nations that did not make nuclear bombs were to be treated by the weapons states more generously, particularly in nuclear matters, than those that made them. This implicit promise was bent 30 years ago when Israel was treated more generously than Egypt or Syria. The United States is bending it again with the proposal to provide assistance on nuclear power to India.
To get special treatment should not any sensible nation develop its own bomb?
In the forthcoming talks Kamal will no doubt tell us, as he briefly did 2 years ago, that NPT was dead on arrival. Others will devise band aids to fix the weak points. But I suggest that we must go beyond these two extreme approaches.
What do we as scientists think is a reasonable way of controlling the genie that escaped from the bottle 61 years ago? Is NPT, with all its faults, a good starting point?
And more generally, how can we get back the hope, optimism and generosity that was the prevailing feeling in 1950?
We have with us Indian scientists who will tell us their perspective on the latest proposal for the US to provide nuclear technology for nuclear power. And we have, of course, Pakistani scientists also. But I think that the most important will be the talks from Japan, Germany and Switzerland - three countries that have the capacity and infrastructure to make bombs within months if not weeks. Why have they decided not to do so? Do they, as a Japanese said in Singapore about 5 years ago, depend on the nuclear umbrella of the USA? Is that enough?
We had hoped to have scientists from Iran and Uzbekhistan to add their perspective but, alas, they are unable to be here.
In 1978, just after the High Energy Physics Conference I lectured on this general subject at Keidanren in Tokyo. First I had to apologize. In 1945 I should not have been overjoyed. Glad that the war was over, of course. But in retrospect I am ashamed of my joy; I should immediately have had intense sorrow and sympathy for the 200,000 people who lost their lives in those two cities. Then I reminded my listeners that if all the atomic bombs then possessed by the USA and USSR were exploded, it might be the end of civilization as we know it. “Please do not be lazy” I pleaded with the audience. “It is your world as well as America’s. If we foul up, we will drag you into the mire with us. Help us think through this problem and establish procedures, and guidelines so that the world will stay at peace for ever”. I make this same plea now not merely to Japanese but to the delegates to this conference and through you to the whole world..
Unless the hope, optimism and generosity return, the imperial USA will continue to choose the short term path that was espoused by General Groves and Edward Teller. To ensure that no nation can equal the USA in military strength. This was the policy of ancient Rome. But when the Roman empire fell, there were civilized people in distant countries and less civilized people around in Europe to pick up the pieces. If and when the American empire falls there could be Armageddon.
Many US scientists, particularly physicists, have tried to influence the congress and administration over the years. with diminishing success. I hope Dick Garwin can tell us how to remedy this. Maybe the US scientists should have a massive education campaign, beginning even in elementary schools, and including the southern and midwestern states. Maybe the hope will not come from America. Maybe from a united Europe. Maybe from Russia. Maybe from Japan. Maybe from China. Let us start with hope from Erice.
"We will try to remain serene and calm when Alabama gets the bomb" (T. Lehrer, 1965)
First we got the bomb and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's O.K.,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way!
Who's next?
France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears;
They can't wipe us out for at least five years!*
Who's next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white!**
Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one, too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!
Who's next?
Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who's next, who's next, who's next?
Who's next?