Nuclear Disarmament

O Estado de Sao Paulo
José Goldemberg

January 2010 I Link to the article

On August 6, 1945 a single aircraft dropped on Hiroshima in Japan, an atomic bomb that provoked the destruction of a thousand bombers with 50 tons of explosives (and firebombs), killing nearly 140 thousand people (civilians and non-combatants). Three days later another bomb devastated Nagasaki.

The United States at the time, believed they would hold the monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons for many years, but this did not happen. Only three years later, in 1948, the Soviet Union produced bombs with more explosive power than the Hiroshima bomb, which was also achieved soon after by Britain, France and then China.

The nuclear arms race that followed was based on the theory of "mutual destruction" in which each of the nuclear powers (mainly the United States and Soviet Union) ensured their safety threatening to destroy their opponents, in case it was attacked with such weapons.

According to some analysts, it was that policy of "deterrence" which prevented the Cold War from becoming a nuclear war that would probably destroy modern civilization as we know it. Only to give an idea of how real that possibility would be, over a thousand nuclear tests were conducted before they were banned by an international treaty, since they were "poisoning" the atmosphere with radioactive substances.

The horror caused by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, started a broad movement to eliminate nuclear weapons. Before that, the scientists that built them had proposed to the government of the United States that it was better not to use them. These proposals were not only ignored, but ridiculed as if coming from naive pacifists who did not understand the reality of international confrontations.

After more than half a century, a new proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons arises in the U.S, this time made not by pacifists, but by experienced "warriors" of the Cold War, as Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, and William Perry, former Secretary of Defense, among others.

What Kissinger and others are proposing now is what Brazil and Argentina did in 1992, and is often mentioned as a good example of how to solve the problem of nuclear competition: the two countries abandoned their programs to develop nuclear weapons because they decided they could better ensure their safety with neighbors who did not possess such weapons.

The motivation of Kissinger’s proposal, considered a "realist" is the following: from a technical standpoint, it is impossible to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and eventually they could fall into the hands of countries with problematic governments and even terrorists, who will not hesitate to use them.

During the Cold War, major adversaries, the United States and Soviet Union had rapiers of over 50 thousand nuclear bombs, much more powerful than the one which destroyed Hiroshima, but their role was to convince the adversary that they should not use them, that is, they were, in fact, "weapons of deterrence", which indeed were never used.

The "deterrence", however, does not apply to terrorist groups, which have nothing to lose, as they do not represent nations, whose leaders would hesitate to use nuclear weapons knowing that their cities would be destroyed in retaliation.

Major powers - United States, Soviet Union (today, Russia), England, France and China - in 1968 tried to prevent nuclear proliferation to other countries through the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). One of the basic premises of that treaty was that the "non-nuclear countries" (at the time) would not develop nuclear weapons in exchange of the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, for which they could count with technological assistance of the nuclear countries (Article IV).

Those who develop such weapons would not receive any help and the International Atomic Energy Agency was responsible for auditing, so that it will not happen. The recent U.S. agreement with India, promoted by the Bush administration, demoralized this premise. India developed nuclear weapons and is receiving extensive assistance in that area.

Clearly, other countries, including Pakistan, are claiming equal treatment and even Iran has used Article IV of the NPT to justify its efforts to develop a uranium enrichment project in large scale. As compensation for renouncing to nuclear weapons, the "non-nuclear countries" signatories to the NPT received a promise that "after" countries possessing such weapons would begin negotiations "in good-faith" to stop the atomic race and promote nuclear disarmament (Article VI). That promise was never fulfilled.

Therefore, to expect the NPT to completely prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations is not a very realistic option. A more pragmatic solution would be to eliminate nuclear weapons, to prohibit its use, thereby reducing the incentive to get them. That is, in short, the proposal of Kissinger and his colleagues.

The U.S. President, Barack Obama, promised in his campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons in the "medium term" and to reduce in the "short term" - together with Russia - the extensive stocks of nuclear weapons, which are now more than 5 thousand in each of these countries.

The new nuclear policy of the U.S. must be announced shortly and we'll see then if the "new nuclear realism" is in fact true or figure of speech.

Back