Science in War

In 1942, the young Joseph Rotblat joined a team of eminent nuclear scientists in Los Alamos, USA, on the Manhattan Project. The sole aim of the project was to build an atom bomb. Rotblat was the only member to leave the project on moral grounds. After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Rotblat turned his scientific skills to the peaceful application of physics to medicine. But the horror of Hiroshima left an indelible imprint on his mind. He joined forces with like-minded colleagues and formed an organisation called Pugwash to promote nuclear disarmament and ethical science. In 1995, Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their tireless efforts to prevent conflict.

In August 2005 Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat passed away. Not long before he died, he explained to us why he thinks that the threat to global peace is real – as real as it ever was in the Cold War. As we have all anxiously turned our heads toward the Middle East, some insidious changes have taken place in Western nuclear weapons policy – changes that seriously threaten world stability. The atomic scientist and lifelong anti-nuclear campaigner asks us to wake up to reality – we are all in danger.

In choosing for this article the title 'The Nuclear Threat Is As Real As Ever', I did not have in mind a threat from the East, or from terrorist groups. What I did have in mind was the threat from the US. I am deeply worried about the aggressive policy pursued by a team of hardliners, who have gained power in the Bush administration and are determined to ensure US supremacy in every field, including the nuclear one. By focussing attention on Iraq and now Iran, they diverted our attention from several measures, hardly reported in the media, which have radically changed the role of nuclear weapons and have greatly increased the danger of a nuclear war.

The new aggressive stand is actually a confirmation of the policy pursued by the hawks from the beginning. The US has always wanted to maintain superiority, indeed a monopoly, on nuclear weapons. Let me recall briefly the history of the first use of the atom bomb.

By August 1945, Japan was already militarily defeated and Japanese statesmen wanted to discuss terms of surrender. But President Truman rejected these overtures. By that time he knew that the atom bomb had been successfully tested and was ready for use. Despite strong protests from scientists on the Manhattan Project, he decided to explode atom bombs on populated areas. Saving lives of American troops was no doubt an important factor, even though this meant a greater loss of Japanese lives, but more important was to demonstrate to the world, particularly to the Soviet Union, the overwhelming military strength acquired by the US. James Byrnes, the hawkish Secretary of State at the time, made this clear when he said: 'Our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable.'

After the use of the bomb (dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), General Leslie Groves, the overall head of the Manhattan Project, outlined his views about US policy on nuclear weapons in a blunt statement:

'If we were truly realistic instead of idealistic, as we appear to be, we would not permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly allied, and in which we do not have absolute confidence, to make or possess nuclear weapons. If such a country started to make atomic weapons we would destroy its capacity to make them before it has progressed far enough to threaten us.'

Sixty years later, this is exactly what US policy has been in relation to Iraq. The US will not permit any country that is not a firm ally to make or possess nuclear weapons. At the same time it takes for itself the right to possess and use them, even pre-emptively.

During the Cold War years, US nuclear doctrine went through a number of strategies, such as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), all designed to prevent a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. After the end of the Cold War, the actual US nuclear strategy became increasingly orientated towards the first use of nuclear weapons, along the lines originally advocated by General Groves. Already under the Clinton administration the nuclear doctrine made explicit mention of the use of nuclear weapons in response to an attack with chemical or biological weapons.

Under the Bush administration, the Nuclear Posture Review, of January 2002, went much further. It made nuclear weapons the tool with which to keep peace in the world. It was partly provoked by the terrorist attack of 11 September, which painfully made Americans realize that they are vulnerable even at home. The hawks immediately jumped on this realization to impose a change of policy, with the emphasis shifting from defence to offence, as we are now seeing in the Middle East.

In a reversal of the previous doctrine, whereby nuclear weapons have been viewed as weapons of last resort, the new Nuclear Posture Review spells out a strategy, which incorporates nuclear capability into conventional war planning. Nuclear weapons have now become a standard part of military strategy, to be used in a conflict just like any other high explosive. It is a major and dangerous shift in the whole rationale for nuclear weapons.

The implementation of this policy has already begun. The US is developing a new nuclear warhead of low yield, but with a shape that would give it a very high penetrating power into rock and concrete, a 'bunker-busting mini-nuke', as it has been named. It is intended to destroy bunkers with thick concrete walls in which public enemies, weapons stores and laboratories may be hidden.

To give the military authorities confidence in the performance of the new weapon it will have to be tested. At present there is a treaty prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the US has signed but not ratified. Judging from past performance, President Bush would need little excuse to authorize the testing of the new weapon.

If the US resumed testing, this would be a signal to other nuclear weapon states to do the same. China is almost certain to resume testing. After the US decision to develop ballistic missile defences, China feels vulnerable, and is likely to attempt to reduce its vulnerability by a modernization and build-up of its nuclear arsenal. Other states with nuclear weapons, such as India or Pakistan, may use the window of opportunity opened by the US to update their arsenals.

The situation has become even more dangerous under the new National Security Strategy introduced by Bush at the end of 2002: 'To forestall or prevent ... hostile acts by our adversaries, the US will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.'

The danger of this policy can hardly be over-emphasized. If the country with the greatest military might declares its readiness to carry out pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, others may soon follow. The Kashmir crisis, in May 2002, is a stark warning of the reality of the nuclear peril.

India's declared policy is not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. But if the US, whose nuclear policies are largely followed by India, makes a pre-emptive attack part of its doctrine, this would give India the legitimacy to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan. Even more likely is that Pakistan would carry it out first.

Taiwan presents another potential cause for a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US. Should the Taiwan authorities decide to declare independence, this would inevitably result in an attempted military invasion by mainland China. The US, which is committed to the defence of the integrity of Taiwan, may then opt for a pre-emptive strike.

And, of course, we have the problem of North Korea, listed by Bush as one of the 'axis of evil'. The disclosure that North Korea is already in possession of nuclear warheads, the reactivation of its Yongbyon weapons facilities, and the rumours that a nuclear test has already been carried out, are all direct challenges to Bush's policy. It is highly probable that he will direct his attention to North Korea as soon as he has finished with Iraq (or will Iran come first?).

In seeking ways to avert the danger it is important to recall where we stand on the nuclear issue in respect to international treaties. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 resulted in a wave of revulsion by the general public, including the American people, and a general resolve to do the utmost to prevent a repetition of these acts by the total elimination of nuclear weapons. I believe this is still true today.

It is expressed in resolutions adopted year after year by large majorities of the UN General Assembly. More importantly, it has led to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 to which nearly all members of the UN are now parties. Under the terms of the NPT, 183 non-nuclear countries have undertaken not to acquire nuclear weapons.

It was the belief that Iraq had violated this treaty that apparently gave legitimacy to the UN action against it, while Israel, which has not signed the NPT, is allowed to have nuclear weapons. The five overt nuclear weapon states – US, UK, France, Russia and China – have undertaken to get rid of theirs, under Article VI of the NPT.

This undertaking was reaffirmed as late as the year 2000, in a statement signed by all five states: 'An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all states parties are committed under Article VI.'

President Bush keeps reminding us of the great danger to world security arising from the possession of nuclear weapons by so-called rogue nations, but he must be reminded that the US is under a legal obligation to get rid of its own nuclear arsenal. The current nuclear policy of the US, which is based on the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons, is in direct contradiction to its legal commitments. There can be no peace and security in the world if the mightiest country does not conduct its affairs in accordance with the law.