Nuclear Disarmament: Dream or Politically Realistic?
Henry Sokolski | Hoover Institution | June 2009
Only a few years ago, calls for a world without nuclear weapons were considered mere academic wishful thinking. But today US security policy experts are themselves advocating full nuclear disarmament, amongst them Henry Kissinger and William Perry. And beginning with President Obama's speech in Prague, if not before, many of these calls for disarmament have become part of official US policies. Among them are a commitment on the part of the US and Russia to take steps towards massive disarmament; support non-nuclear states in their efforts to procure safe, civilian nuclear energy through the allocation of money, infrastructure, fuel and enriched uranium; and ratify a Comprehensive Test Ban treaty as well as an agreement banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty). However, these measures alone will not hinder more and more states from seeking nuclear weapon capabilities even if the US and Russia minimize their own inventories. Above all, three priorities should be kept in mind:
- As the US government decides to reduce its nuclear arsenal and its stockpile of nuclear material, it must ensure that not only Russia but also China, India and Pakistan are bound by the similar reduction standards. At the same time Russia and China must hit upon a united strategy to encourage Israel, Japan and Brazil to cease producing nuclear material.
- The political costs of any infraction of international nuclear agreements must be made clear. The United States and its allies must demonstrate that attempts to possess nuclear weapons are not worth it. To date, the world's biggest violators of nuclear agreements - Iran and North Korea - take such accords too lightly.
- It is impossible for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor all nuclear activity the world over, especially when they are denied access to numerous nuclear sites. Therefore, the international community must consider whether the production and storage of highly enriched uranium and plutonium based fuels can be altogether banned in non-nuclear-weapon states. At the next Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in May 2010 it should be openly discussed whether and how non-nuclear states can be convinced to waive their desire to produce and store nuclear material.
If in the future we desire safe and competitive nuclear energy, governments must refrain from granting state aid to civilian nuclear projects. Advocates of atomic energy are always trumpeting its benefits in the fight against global warming. However, state financial aid for civilian nuclear projects would artificially reduce the price of nuclear energy to the disadvantage of other alternative energy sources. The result would be the spread of dangerous forms of civilian nuclear energy such as the production of nuclear material in non-nuclear states and large reactor projects in volatile regions of the world like the Middle East.
This summary was prepared by the Atlantic Community editorial team from "Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd: How to resist the weapon's spread" published here by the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
