Mon, May 30, 2011 - Page 9 News List

When, not if, there is a nuclear catastrophe

Illustration: Yusha

One of the most dispiriting features of today’s international debates is that the threat to humanity posed by the world’s 23,000 nuclear weapons — and by those who would build more of them, or be only too willing to use them — has been consigned to the margin of politics.

US President Barack Obama did capture global attention with his Prague speech in 2009, which made a compelling case for a nuclear weapons-free world. And he did deliver on a major new arms-reduction treaty with Russia and hosted a summit aimed at reducing the vulnerability of nuclear weapons and materials to theft or diversion.

However, nuclear issues still struggle for public resonance and political traction. It would take a brave gambler to bet on ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by the US Senate any time soon.

The film An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award, led to a Nobel Prize for former US vice president Al Gore and attracted huge international attention to the disastrous impact of climate change. However, Countdown to Zero, an equally compelling documentary made by the same production team and making shockingly clear how close and how often the world has come to nuclear catastrophe, has come and gone almost without trace.

Complacency trumps anxiety almost everywhere. Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster has generated a massive debate about the safety of nuclear power, but not about nuclear weapons. Fear of a nuclear holocaust seems to have ended with the Cold War.

Indeed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem an eternity ago; new nuclear-weapons states have emerged without the world ending; no terrorist nuclear device has threatened a major city; and possession of nuclear weapons, for the states that have them, seems to be a source of comfort and pride rather than concern or embarrassment. With only a handful of exceptions, the current generation of political leaders shows little interest in disarmament, and not much more in non-proliferation. And their publics are not pressuring them to behave otherwise.

Few have worked harder to shake the world out of its complacency than four of the hardest-nosed realists ever to hold public office: former US secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former US secretary of defense William Perry and former US senator Sam Nunn. In a series of opinion articles over the last five years, they have repeatedly sounded the alarm that the risks of nuclear weapons outweigh any possible usefulness in today’s security environment. Moreover, they have called for a complete rethinking of deterrence strategy to minimize and ultimately eliminate reliance on the most indiscriminately destructive weapons ever invented.

Last week in London, the “gang of four” convened a private meeting with leading think tank researchers and a worldwide cast of 30 former foreign and defense ministers, generals and ambassadors who share their concern and commitment. Our average age was over 65, and the limits of our effectiveness were described by former British defense minister Des Browne: “People who used to be something really want to tackle this issue. The trouble is that those who are something don’t.”

No quick fix will turn all this around. Getting the kind of messages that emerged from the London meeting embedded in public and political consciousness is going to be slow boring through hard boards, but the messages demand attention, and we simply have to keep drilling.

This story has been viewed 3812 times.

Comments will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned.

TOP top