Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIf Poison Gas Can Go, Why Not Nukes?
Nuclear abolition is for dreamers. That is the "realist" assessment of the ever-slowing movement to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet. Despite treaty obligations to the contrary, US planners take for granted the permanent legitimacy of the nuclear arsenal, and, therefore, the necessity of enhancing it with next-generation weapons. This assumption undergirds the determination of other nations either to maintain their nukes, or, if they have none, to acquire them. Here is what keeps the Iran crisis simmering, and ignites future crises with other nuclear wannabes. Only a restoration of the goal of universal nuclear abolition as an achievable program of realpolitik will avert coming catastrophe.
A model for such restoration is right in front of us -- the success of the century-old movement to eliminate chemical weapons. That project has evolved so slowly that it is hardly noticed. Yet, with the full abolition of chemical weapons in sight, it should be celebrated as an astonishing triumph of the dream over "realism."
In the beginning, the problem was defined quite simply as "poison." In the early 20th century, humans already felt as though they were being dragged by new weapons technologies into realms of exile where mere survival could itself seem like treason. They resisted by focusing rejection on "poisonous weapons," and ordered them outlawed with the Hague Convention of 1907. That prohibition did not stop both sides in World War I from using asphyxiating gas (the Germans beginning at Ypres in the spring of 1915, the British at Loos the following fall). Poison gas defined the nightmare of that war, and though relatively few combatants were killed by it (less than 100,000), the grotesque suffering of the many gassed casualties (more than a million) registered powerfully on the European imagination. Perhaps a civilization grown hardened to the sight of spilt blood could not abide the sound of ravaged lungs gasping for air.
Immediately after the war, the movement to ban gas resumed. In 1925, gas was indeed outlawed by the Geneva Convention, but realists always knew better (which explains why the US Senate ratified that treaty only in 1975). "That gas is a legitimate weapon of war," a British commission had concluded in 1919, is beyond a "shadow of doubt . . . for history shows that in no case has a weapon which has proved successful in war been abandoned." Assumptions about the inevitability of weaponized gas prompted Britain, in 1939, both to stockpile the banned substance and to distribute gas masks to its citizens. Yet, for all the barbarities of World War II, gas, including newly developed nerve agents, was hardly used as a weapon in Europe (German use of it in death camps was in its own category and the Japanese used it in Asia, although rarely against Allied forces). Such restraint was grounded more in fear of retaliation than in humanism.
Once nuclear weapons were introduced in 1945, all devils were loosed, and both sides in the Cold War accumulated vast stocks of weaponized poison, now designated as "chemical." Though the mushroom cloud dominated nightmares, multiple scenarios for civilization-ending mass destruction became possible. Chemical weapons, having been made morally acceptable by the relatively even more heinous nukes, had come into their own by the time Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev tried to call the whole business off. At Geneva and Reykjavik, they set their sights on eliminating nuclear weapons by the year 2000 -- a purpose that failed. But with chemical weapons they began to succeed. (Saddam Hussein, against both Iran and his own people, was showing that chemical weapons could still actually be used -- and to what dread effect.)
In 1990, Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush signed a bilateral treaty agreeing to begin the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and in 1993, the global Chemical Weapons Convention was agreed to -- a realization of the dream first articulated at the Hague and Geneva nearly a century before. The 1993 convention, outlawing chemical weapons, has been ratified by almost every nation on Earth. Stockpiles and production facilities remain, but are being reduced and closed. Chemical weapons are being destroyed. Their legitimacy has been entirely removed, their permanence rejected. The poison gas realists of 1919 have been proven wrong. Now to do the same with the nuclear realists of 2008.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
17 Comments so far
Show AllH. sapiens or at the least civilization as we know it is on the way out. Hence, we should leave the planet safer and cleaned up as much as possible for any survivors or future life. We don't want people stumbling upon weapons caches in the future or stepping on land mines, drinking suprefund site water, etc. Lets clean up the many messes we have made while we still have the where-with-all to do it. When civlization starts crashing, there will be no way to deal with these problems.
The problem is that the USA will be the first to break any and all treaties, as is doing today, having the LARGEST possession of chemical weapons, bacteriological weapons, and nuclear weapons..... also one of the few that will not sign the global 'cluster bombs' ban treaty.
AND the biggest breaker of the Geneva convention accord, regarding treatment of prisoners of war (regardless of whatever silly games' names the USA gives these people)
There have been at least 12 publically documented instances of near accidental nuclear launches during the Cold War.
On one occassion, an electrician was repairing the alarm system on an airbase. Bombers were parked engines running on the tarmac, battle ready nukes in the bombays. The electrician accidentally tripped the alarm. The bombers began to roll down the runway for takeoff. In a very Dr. Strangelovian scenario- if they had got airborne there would not have been anyway to recall them. The base commander realized that the alarm had been tripped accidently and chased the bombers down with his jeep- waving at them to stop. Fortunately- he made it in time.
On another occassion- in the very very early days of the beginning conceptions of the internet- a series of nuclear missile silos across various states where wired together for communication. The idea was that if communication was lost with multiple launch sites simultaneously- this indicated that there had been a surprise attack by the russians. The standing orders were that the surviving launch sites were to launch immediately. One day, all missile sites connected to this communication system went silent, communications were dead. Orders were to launch. Base commanders VIOLATED their orders because they were sure.... and EACH ONE of individually them elected to 'wait it out'. Later, the true cause of the dead communications network system was located. While the network was connected with many overlapping channels of redundancy- the power supply at one central power plant was not. A cooling fan had failed, causing a central power nodes to over and fail. The failure of a $5 fan had almost triggered WWIII.
On another occassion... a warning system was developed that could photo optically detect a 'sudden bright flash of light' which would indicate that there had been a nuclear detination, calling for an immediate retalliatory launch. This system was operational in Alaska and other places. A nuclear armed B-52 was on patrol over Alaska when it experienced a fire and crashed. Weapons engineers had always known that if a bomber crashed with nukes onboard... there was a possibility that the weapons could detonate even if they hadn't been armed. But they forgot about the flash detection warning system on the ground. Different departments, different jobs, new technology- nobody really put two and two together. Luckily, the weapons did not detonate, and no flash was detected which would have instigated an American response (to their own crashed bomber!)- particularly since the event would be hard to double check and verify in any speedy fashion over the Alaskan wilderness.
Those are the only 3 examples that I can remember of the 12 documented cases. And those 12 cases are only from instances of near launches on the AMERICAN side. Not much is known about near accidental launches on the Russian side. I forgot which nuclear watchdog website I read these accounts at- you'll need to do your own research.
These pro-nuclear experts and generals claim they are keeping us safe.
They are lying to themselves, they are lying to their children, and they are lying to you.
We used chemical weapons in the current War on Terror at Falluja- white phosphorous. That was one of our first war crimes, after the warcrime of initiating a war on false pretenses.
But I agree to the utmost degree... nuclear weapons are the big dogs of mass destruction and they are completely incompatable with any notion of 'peace and security'. You cannot have peace and security through nuclear sabor rattling, or permament stockpiling "just incase we need them" scenarios. It is simply a logical fallicy.
If you love your children... you must affirm and choose life. Using mental gymnastics to validate the continued deployment of nuclear weapons- as some psycho version of defense through nuclear readiness to bring on the apocolypse, is, well.... psycho.
The nuclear industry (power, weapons, misc. equipment) is a powerful member of the miltary industrial media complex and owns enough US senators and congressional representatives to assure that supply and demand for their products will be increased, not be reduced by nuclear weapons bans or any other means.
All the signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, except the nuclear powers, do what they promised to do. The nuclear powers, mostly due to the leading actions of the US do not. This is extremely unjust. Now they gang up on Iran when Iran has done nothing wrong and has fulfilled all its obligations. Extremely unjust.
www.votestrike.com
Knowing full well that there will never be 100% annihilation off nuclear weapons I question the logic of a World that allows the US to be the supposed enforcer of a nuclear ban. Peace and Democracy can not be achieved by threats of nuclear force over those who lack the same weaponry. Why are we one of the chosen few? Perhaps because we have as leaders a pack of idiotic war mongering idiots that have caused us to be hated and feared.
Depleted Uranium is a chemical weapon.
The bottom line, as the Crazy Bird put it many years ago, is that:
"All the bombs are in the hands of terrorists!"
This article raises some interesting points, and demonstrates yet again the bankruptcy of the US and Europe demanding that Iran and other countries not have nuclear weapons while they continue to possess them. I am not in favor of a nuclear armed Iran, just as I am not in favor of a nuclear armed US or European country. We should all agree to get rid of all of the nukes, realizing that 100 % will not go away, but that almost all of them would, and that any further use of them would result in pariah status for the country that did it.
As Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." What international verification do we have that the americans have destroyed their poison gas or any other chemical weapon stockpiles?
Of course, chemical weapons have not been abandoned. During the Cold war, both sides practised and had gear designed to work in an environment where the other side was using chemical weapons (aka poison gas but with a new name that doesn't sound so bad).
And the US continues to this day (I think) research into chemical weapons, albeit under the tag of 'defensive research'.
The article points out that 15 years after the treaty was signed 'banning' chemical weapons, that 'stockpiles and research continue'. Sure, it says they are being reduced. But how long does that take? Or, are we seeing people just ignore the ban?
Remember, the Anthrax that was used in the attacks in 2001-02 came from the US Army's research facility.
But yes, in a sane world all of these weapons would be banned.
If Poison Gas Can Go, Why Not Nukes; and Cluster Bombs, and Depleted Uranium weapons, and preemptive strikes, and foreign bases, and space weapons, and submarine fleets, and ...........
Good points fakedemocracy which reminds me of that 9/11 film that showed how clueless everyone was in D.C., the FAA and the military when 19 amateurs crashed 4 airliners. Most had to get their news from FOX or CNN (scary, eh?) to realize that something was terribly wrong that day.
Humans are simply not reliable enough to trust them with such apocalyptic arsenals at their disposal. The thousands of innocent inmates that have been released over the last few years due to DNA evidence is another example of the public trusting wholeheartedly a flawed system... and those judges, prosecutors and law enforcement people are suppose to be the cream of the crop.
Yes indeed! It's about time to bring some sanity to bear.
Chemical weapons? e.g. the use of white phosphorus byt the USA in Faluja Iraq...