Hayes 1

Daniel Hayes Professor Mangual International Studies November 19, 2013

Hayes 2

Arms control is an ongoing issue facing the global community. Since the invention of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs the world has discovered that just because these weapons can be built doesnt mean we should use them. Today there are organizations, programs, and policies in place to limit or rid the worlds stockpile of nuclear ammunitions. This paper addresses the development of these weapons, documented uses and accidents, whats being done to control and prevent the creation of additional weapons, and the issues faced by the global community to enforce these measures of control.

Hayes 3

Global Issue: Nuclear Arms Control Nuclear arms control is a set of policies in which human beings attempt to limit the Godlike destructive powers nuclear arms can and have released upon the world. Even while the atom bomb was being developed the question was raised, though we can, should we? Then the first bomb dropped on a civilized nation and the devastation was unfathomable. No one anticipated or expected the level of annihilation left in its wake. Since then there have been advances made possible by their creation, terrible attacks, even worse accidents, and a call to limit if not rid the worlds nuclear stockpile. A nuclear weapon is defined by dictionary.com (2013) as an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei. There are two basic types of nuclear weapons, fission and fusion. Fission bombs, also known as atom bombs or A-bombs, can release the same amount of energy as nearly 20,000 tons of TNT. They use a method of creating a supercritical mass of uranium or plutonium and then shooting a subcritical mass into another, or compressing subcritical masses through the use of chemical explosives. Fusion bombs, also known as hydrogen bombs, Hbombs, or thermonuclear bombs, use a two stage system. The first stage is a fission reaction which compresses and heats the fusion material. They can continue to have fission reaction after

Hayes 4

fission reaction depending on how many fusion reactions are built. Their release of energy is upwards of 10,000,000 tons of TNT. Most nuclear bombs favor fusion bombs as they are more efficient. The first nuclear weapon was developed under a project codenamed The Manhattan Project. It was built upon work done in Europe. Due to security issues, most of the team was moved to the United States where the program name was officially changed. America was also chosen due to the DuPont Company winning the bid against Britains ICI for nuclear power after the war. Under President Roosevelt, the atom bomb was supposed to be built for the same purpose as it was being developed in the UK. That purpose was as a deterrent. It was never meant to be dropped on human beings. The Manhattan Project successfully developed the atom bomb but the sudden death of President Roosevelt in 1945 led to it being used for purposes that many scientists, notably Einstein, opposed.' We never contemplated the possibility of a military puppet like Roosevelt's successor, Truman, agreeing to drop the bomb on people. A letter signed by Einstein had been sent to Roosevelt saying that the bomb should be dropped as a deterrent over the mid-Atlantic to show the Japanese what could happen to them if they refused to surrender, but Truman had taken over by then and ignored it.' The consequence was the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians after the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and Nagasaki three days later. Paton (2010). Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been the only two populated cities to have been devastated by a nuclear weapon. The damage was done physically and psychologically. Theodore Roosevelts motto of speaking softly and carrying a big stick was seen and heard with extraordinary clarity. Japan surrendered September 2, 1945, ending the Second World War. The scenes of devastation were enough to cause those with nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities to reassess their use. It did not however deter them from stockpiling

Hayes 5

these weapons of mass destruction. It did lead to several treaties designed to limit and/or ban the development and/or use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms control is an ongoing, evolving practice. Many people and organizations are involved in working towards limiting or removing nuclear weapons. In the years since 1945, when the first and only nuclear war occurred, efforts at arms control have achieved only modest results. For example, treaties have been ratified to establish nuclear free zones in outer space and in Latin America. The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibited nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater. The Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968 attempted to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) Treaty of 1971 placed limits on certain strategic nuclear weapons and antiballistic missile systems Markey (1985). For as many successes as arms control has had there have been far more failures. There are many factors into the slow implementation or refusal to follow arms policies. Many countries believed that they were a necessary evil. No one wanted to show up to a gun fight with a knife. If a country was attacked by another who had nuclear weapons they would want nuclear weapons as well to counter-attack. No country wanted to be bullied by another who had such a destructive method of persuasion either. Thanks to the Cold War these fears suddenly became justified. There are also certain benefits to having the ability to create nuclear weapons, nuclear energy. The ability to provide power for a countrys citizens through the efficiency and massive amounts of energy provided through nuclear reactions is a major one. Well touch more on that later on. New groups are still forming to call for disarmament. One program working towards disarmament is The Global Zero Movement. The Global Zero movement, which we coordinate, calls for the phased and verified elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide and is spearheaded by more than 300 international leaders, including current and former heads of state,

Hayes 6

national security officials, and military commanders. It does not discount the real or perceived benefits of nuclear weapons that existed during the Cold War, but it argues that the growing dangers of nuclear proliferation and terrorism have come to greatly outweigh those dissipating benefits. That is why Global Zero calls for eliminating all existing nuclear arsenals and building stronger barriers against the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the materials to build them Blair, Brown, Burt, Davis, Joffe (2011). Recently the U.N. has stepped in to intervene a countrys attempt to allegedly develop nuclear weapons under the guise of creating nuclear power as in the case of Iran, and set sanctions against a country who explicitly refuses to cooperate with officials as it has done with North Korea. Many fear what a nuclear armed Iran would bring to the conflict in the Middle East. It is a hotbed for hostilities and those seeking to disarm countries do not want to see more bombs being made. However there are others who believe that by allowing Iran to become a member of the arms race the hostilities will decrease as power will become balanced. Waltz (2012) writes Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East. Waltz also sees various outcomes in regard to the negotiations with Iran to halt their work. One of them I a seldom discussed option. The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice Waltz (2012). This is a troubling thought but does it outweigh the benefits of using nuclear energy as a

Hayes 7

power source? Can Iran truly be stopped or contained? Kuran (2011) brings the other side to this debate by stating, The insecurity generated by a nuclear Iran might dwarf previous peaks of existential fear in Israel. A nuclear Iran would likely undermine the foundations of Israeli selfconfidence by crossing two "redlines" in the Israeli strategic psyche. First, the arsenal of a single country would pose an existential threat, conjuring memories of Nazi Germany. Focusing on Iran's ultimate destructive capability rather than its intentions, Israeli strategists might therefore view a nuclear Iran apocalyptically. Second, many Israelis might come to believe that the end of Israel's nuclear monopoly has terminated the country's ultimate insurance policy, fundamentally undermining Israel's general deterrence posture. These concerns, as Eric Edelman, Andrew Krepinevich, and Evan Montgomery assert, might lead Israeli strategists to reexamine nuclear policies and adjust their current deterrence models. Kuran brings up two important areas when discussing arms control. Isreal is nuclear-armed and uses their nuclear program as both a deterrent and an insurance policy. By carrying the big stick it keeps their enemies at bay and should they be attacked they have the ability to level the playing field. It all seems to go back to the fact that there are countries that have nuclear weapons and there are those that dont. The ones who do have them dont want to allow those who dont to get them. Iran seeks nuclear energy but with that comes the ability to weaponize it. Is that their endgame? If they became a member of the armed community would it tip the balance or even it out? There are those who believe in both sides of the argument and bring valid pros and cons to the debate. That is what makes this debate so difficult to resolve. Unlike Iran, whose intentions are proposed to only use nuclear energy as a power source, North Korea sees it as a necessary weapon against the enemy. This is when the arm control debate becomes heated. Many of the organizations and groups fighting for arms control are now

Hayes 8

isolating North Koreas military mindset as the exact reason why these weapons should be limited or eliminated. Progress in reducing tensions on the Korean peninsula, never easy, has reached a dangerous impasse. The last six months have witnessed an extraordinary series of events in the region that have profound implications for security and stability throughout Northeast Asia, a region that is home to 100,000 U.S. troops and three of the world's 12 largest economies Laney and Shaplen (2003). Today the tension and the stakes are even higher due to Kim Jong-uns ascension as leader. His brash behavior in dealing with the inter-national community has isolated them further. They sent mixed messages on whether they were actually building a weapon, cooperating with the inter-national weapons inspectors, and whether they were seeking war. The U.N., led by the U.S., began placing sanctions against the country to force them to submit to a cease and desist. This seemed to only anger North Korea further as they then launched a long range missile test that is believed to have been a dry run for launching a nuclear weapon into distant enemies. It took Chinas condemnation, their biggest ally, of this launch to ease the tension and persuade Kim Jung-un back to the negotiations. The world was on the precipice of World War 3. Even if an overwhelming amount of countries stood together against one who wished nuclear arms their options are limited and ineffective. Who has nuclear weapons and how much? Today there are 5 nuclear-weapon states (NWS) encompassing China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United states. These states are officially recognized and legitimized as having nuclear arms by the NPT. Their arsenals include: China 240 warheads, France less than 300 warheads, Russia is estimated at around 4,500 warheads in various conditions, the United Kingdom has around 225 warheads, and the United States has over 5,000 warheads with more waiting to be dismantled. India, Israel, and Pakistan are three states which did not join the NPT. Each holds 100, 75 to 200, and 90 to 110

Hayes 9

warheads respectively. As mentioned before Iran and North Korea are immediate concerns in addition to Syria. Iran is close to building its own fissile material, North Korea has produced and tested a nuclear weapon, and Syria has shown signs of nuclear development. Has arms control had any effect on these countries? The 5 NWS states have been affected by it. As described by armscontrol.org (2013) it [NPT] also establishes that they are not supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. Article VI of the treaty holds that each state-party is to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. In 2000, the five NWS committed themselves to an unequivocal undertakingto accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. But for now, the five continue to retain the bulk of their nuclear forces. India, Israel, and Pakistan appear to be handling their nuclear arms in a similar manner. They are keeping a low stockpile and have not used them aggressively. Any effects upon Iran, North Korea, and Syria remain to be seen. There is one country that remains a grave concern above all others. Not because they are a hostile country but because of the amount of weapons they have and the state of the system used to monitor, store, dismantle, and even use these weapons. Russia has one of the oldest most decrepit systems in the world. There have been quite a few instances where this has nearly caused widespread damage nationally and internationally. During the Cold War there was an incident of a hit on Russian radar indicating an incoming missile. Their orders were to return fire, however they knew their system was faulty and a split-second decision had to be made. Was the threat real or was the radar picking up something benign? It came down to the commanding officer with the button under his finger to not want to be responsible for the deaths of so many

Hayes 10

people on a chance. He did not press the button and the incident turned out to be a bird. That button was linked to several strategic targets around the world. Another set of incidents has also provided some countries with a reason to NOT want a nuclear program. Chernobyl and Fukushima are two cataclysmic events that brought the dangers of a nuclear program back to the forefront. Peplow (2011) discusses these events, When Chernobyl's reactor number 4 exploded in the early hours of 26 April 1986, the ensuing blaze spewed 6.7 tonnes of material from the core high into the atmosphere, spreading radioactive isotopes over more than 200,000 square kilometres of Europe. Dozens of emergency workers died within months from radiation exposure and thousands of children in the region later developed thyroid cancer. The region around the plant became so contaminated that officials cordoned off a 30-kilometre exclusion zone that straddled Ukraine's border with Belarus. Today, a staff of about 3,500 enters the zone each day to monitor, clean and guard the site, where remediation work will continue for at least another 50 years. So far, the Fukushima accident is less severe. Radiation levels measured near the Japanese power plant have been less than those at Chernobyl after the blast there. And although radiation has spread from Fukushima, it does not match the amounts that rained down in the region around Chernobyl. Taking a side. As stated before this is not a simple, light subject. There are severe ramifications with either allowing countries to continue to produce and use nuclear weapons as well as getting rid of them. For me this comes down to a lesser of the evils decision. I also think back to a Superman story where Superman himself becomes the deterrent to nuclear arms instead on nuclear arms themselves. Unfortunately in the real world Superman does not exist. There is no one to safely destroy each and every launch made against another country. Nuclear programs are an important technological evolution. The human race has learned and continues to learn

Hayes 11

many lessons within nuclear energy applications. As shown there have been great advances at making nuclear power plants safer. Nuclear energy is proving to be a stepping stone to the next evolution of propulsion as well. The biggest question I have is can there ever truly be a ZERO global stockpile? I would have to argue that there is not. It is too great a power for any one country to hold and its apocalyptic to allow so many to hold the hand of God. I think at this point we continue on the path laid down before us and reduce the global stockpile. The 5 NWS countries are a good spread of diversity, each has a stake and an area to defend, and luckily so far none of them have been eager to reenact Hiroshima. I hope that one day we can reach zero but in the meantime we can make it more manageable.

Hayes 12

References Waltz, K. N. (2012). Why Iran should get the bomb: nuclear balancing would mean stability. Foreign Affairs, 91(4), 2. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA297916293&v=2.1&u=lincclin_bcc&it=r&p=A ONE&sw=w&asid=b653348b51980f4884cd1a9d31dfcc88 Carey, W. D. (1985). Arms control and intricacy. Science, 230, 125. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA3975837&v=2.1&u=lincclin_bcc&it=r&p=AO NE&sw=w&asid=21ffb243a60007de308ac0f293cfc643 Markey, E. J. (1985). The politics of arms control: A matter of perception. American Psychologist, 40(5), 557-560. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.5.557 Blair, B., Brown, M., Burt, R., Davis, J. W., & Joffe, J. (2011). Can disarmament work? Debating the benefits of nuclear weapons. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 173. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA263992893&v=2.1&u=lincclin_bcc&it=r&p=A ONE&sw=w&asid=bbe9f277d2c40b4966adde5a781cc530 Kuran, T. (2011). The war over containing Iran: can a nuclear Iran be stopped? Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 155. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA254244924&v=2.1&u=lincclin_bcc&it=r&p=A ONE&sw=w&asid=7e700805e745df63122d8acf08cbc40b Paton, M. (2010). The accidental atomicist: shortly before his death earlier this year, Hyman Frankel, the last surviving member of the team whose work led to the development of the atom bomb, talked to Maureen Paton about why he decided not to join the Manhattan Project. History Today, 60(8), 54+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA234146992&v=2.1&u=lincclin_bcc&it=r&p=A ONE&sw=w&asid=88828d44cb704ab94833ce037bf7f8e3 Peplow, M. (2011). Chernobyls Legacy. Nature, 471 562-565 doi:10.1038/471562a. Retrieved from http://resolver.flvc.org/FLCC0200?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF8&ctx_tim=2013-11-19T19%3A47%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.882004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3Articlemedline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:article&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Chernobyl%27s %20legacy.&rft.jtitle=Nature&rft.btitle=&rft.aulast=Peplow&rft.auinit=&rft.auinit1=&rft.auinit m=&rft.ausuffix=&rft.au=Peplow%2C%20Mark&rft.aucorp=&rft.date=20110331&rft.volume= 471&rft.issue=7340&rft.part=&rft.quarter=&rft.ssn=&rft.spage=562&rft.epage=&rft.pages=562 -5&rft.artnum=&rft.issn=&rft.eissn=14764687&rft.isbn=&rft.sici=&rft.coden=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/471562a&rft.object_id=&svc_va l_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:sch_svc&svc.fulltext=yes&rft_dat=%3Cmedline%3E21455151%3C/ medline%3E&rft.eisbn=&rft_id=info:oai/

Hayes 13

Laney, J. T., & Shaplen, J. T. (2003). How to Deal With North Korea. Foreign Affairs, 82(2), 16. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA97531638&v=2.1&u=lincclin_bcc&it=r&p=A ONE&sw=w&asid=81d820d8a751d7f23346a0bb1054a9ef nuclear weapon. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear weapon
(2013). Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance. Retrieved from http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat