Martin Hellman email interview: 1) In your opinion, what were the long term impacts of the Treaty on the

Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons? 1. The long term impact of the NPT is hard to say since we can't do a "parallel universe experiment" where there was no NPT and then compare what happened in each. That said, I believe its long term impact is mixed. On the one hand, it may have helped prevent nuclear proliferation to some nations because the inspections that go with it put up a barrier to weapons development. On the other hand: a) By guaranteeing non-nuclear signatories the "inalienable right" to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, it creates a major problem. As we're seeing with Iran's nuclear program, the pathway to a peaceful nuclear program and a weapons program are parallel for most of both journeys. Thus it is hard to distinguish if Iran's uranium enrichment, for example, is for peaceful or weapons use. Personally, I think that "atoms for peace" is an oxymoron because the paths are so parallel. b) By putting a stigma on non-nuclear nations which sign the NPT but which then take paths that seems suspect to one or major powers, the NPT may be creating conditions that make war with some nations -- at the moment, primarily Iran -more likely. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, so it cannot be accused of violating the treaty, even though it clearly would be in violation if it had signed. Iran, on the other hand, has been accused by the US of not being in compliance, even though its nuclear program is not yet definitely known to have a weapons component. (Israel is estimated to have on the order of 100 nuclear weapons.) c) The promise of the recognized nuclear weapons states to halt the arms race and work toward general disarmament creates problems since they can be accused of being in non-compliance. 2) Regarding one of the 3 pillars of the NPT, do you think it is possible for the world to achieve complete disarmament? 2. I do think it is possible for the world to achieve complete nuclear disarmament, but I am probably in the minority. I believe it is possible partly because, if it is not, I see no alternative future other than one where humanity destroys itself. That's because nuclear deterrence cannot work perfectly forever. So, unless we make a fundamental shift in our thinking about nuclear weapons, our species faces a horrible fate. I believe our survival drive is stronger than our tendency to make war, but first humanity must come to see that those are our two choices. If society comes to see that, I am convinced we would choose survival over war and nuclear weapons.

But, at another level, the number of weapons is not the problem. Rather, it is the mistakes which get us into needless wars, which in turn lead to needless risk of escalation to nuclear threats and use. For examples of how idiotic some of our decisions were to get into wars, and how they then led to nuclear risks, see my blog series on avoiding needless wars. The first installment has links to the others. Even if you just read the first installment (and listen to the one minute audio clip), you will come away amazed. If we will become smarter about avoiding needless wars, I believe the need for nuclear weapons will melt away and the weapons will do the same. We have to deal with the underlying reasons we have the weapons, rather than treat the weapons themselves as if they were the problem. 3) Why haven't all of the countries in the world signed the Treaty? 3. On question 3, you might look at North Korea, which did sign the NPT, but then withdrew from it. While the usual narrative just blames this on their being a "rogue state," my notes on North Korea provide another perspective, backed up by strong evidence. Those notes are Handout #6 on my courses page which has other information you might find useful. 4) Did the NPT improve relations between the U.S. and the Treaty's signatories? Did it make relations worse between the U.S. and non-signatories? If so, how? 4. This question is dealt with somewhat in my answer to #1.