nuclear-news

A special (nuclear) relationship

 Recent US policies have pursued “usable” nukes, for deployment in an increasing range of scenarios, with a bottomless pit of funding available for nuclear modernisation. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.

It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.

By Kate Hudson March 24, 2024  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/24/a-special-nuclear-relationship/

A little known US-UK nuclear weapons agreement is up for renewal. It needs to end instead.

The “special relationship” is a longstanding refrain in British politics, used to justify so much that’s bad in UK foreign policy choices.

I recall in 2002 when Tony Blair agreed Britain had to pay a “blood price” to secure its special relationship with the US. We all know how that ended up. 

But it wasn’t Blair who paid the blood price – it was 179 British service personnel, killed in an illegal war, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and countless more injured, displaced and traumatised.

Much that feeds war can be notched up to the US/UK special relationship, but it goes far beyond providing diplomatic and military cover and assistance to US enterprises. 

That relationship is also responsible for the development of the UK’s nuclear arsenal and its continued possession of these weapons of mass destruction. 

The special nuclear relationship is facilitated by the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement. 

Even though it comes up for renewal in parliament every ten years, few seem to know of its existence.  

Neither do many know the extent to which it makes us dependent on the US – or indeed that it underpins the wider relationship between the US and UK.

Nuclear weapons

Its full name is the “Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes”.

The agreement initially enabled both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.

But at the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons. However, an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.

This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in 2014 without any parliamentary debate or vote.

The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the US Congress. The next renewal is due in parliament later this year, and we are determined that this time it will not go unchallenged.

Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House, at a time of increasing nuclear risk, this is an even greater cause for concern.

Usable nukes

Recent US policies have pursued “usable” nukes, for deployment in an increasing range of scenarios, with a bottomless pit of funding available for nuclear modernisation. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.

It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the international Non-Proliferation Treaty, which seeks to stem the spread of nuclear technology.

The relationship and activities which are enshrined by the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT.

The NPT states that countries should undertake “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament”. Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating to further advance their respective nuclear arsenals.

Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is “strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”.

This was so since it implies “continuation and indeed enhancement of the nuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation”.

Independent foreign policy

It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.

The UK government’s claim that its submarine-based Trident nuclear weapons system is independent is false. It is technically and politically dependent on the US, largely due to the MDA.

Due to the MDA, the UK relies on the US for many aspects of Trident. The UK’s nuclear warhead is a copy of the US one, with some components directly bought from the US.

With the UK’s warheads expected to be non-operational by the late 2030s, a decision on their replacement will be intrinsically linked to the work taking place as part of the MDA.

The UK leases from the US the Trident II D5 missiles it uses and British submarines must regularly visit the US base in Kings Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of these missiles.

By having such direct involvement in Britain’s nuclear weapons technology, the US exercises significant leverage over the UK’s foreign and defence policy.

Even the most establishment characters must now be able to see that unquestioning allegiance to the US is out of the question.

So with the MDA coming up for renewal again, now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest, and making the case for independence.

It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. CND will be ensuring that the issue is raised vigorously within parliament, and calling on all our supporters to lobby their elected representatives to that effect.

Kate Hudson is General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK

March 25, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UN Chief: Nuclear Risk Highest in Decades, Calls for Disarmament

The United Nations.  https://www.miragenews.com/un-chief-nuclear-risk-highest-in-decades-calls-1197216/–– 18 Mar 24

Almost 80 years after the incineration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons still represent a clear and present danger to global peace and security, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council on Monday.

Calling for disarmament now, he urged States with nuclear arsenals to lead the way across six areas for action that include dialogue and accountability.

“Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons ever invented, capable of eliminating all life on earth. Today, these weapons are growing in power, range and stealth. An accidental launch is one mistake, one miscalculation, one rash act away,” he warned.

Doomsday Clock ticking loudly

The meeting on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was convened by Japan, Security Council president for March and, as Mr. Guterres noted, the only country that knows better than any other “the brutal cost of nuclear carnage.”

It was being held at a time “when geopolitical tensions and mistrust have escalated the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades.”

He said the Doomsday Clock – the symbol for humanity’s proximity to self-destruction – “is ticking loudly enough for all to hear”.

Meanwhile, academics and civil society groups, to Pope Francis, youth, and the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, known as Hibakusha, have been clamouring for peace and an end to the existential threat.

No ‘Oppenheimer’ sequel

Even the Oscar-winning Hollywood film Oppenheimer “brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world,” he said, adding that “humanity cannot survive a sequel”.

Despite these appeals for the world to step back from the brink, “States possessing nuclear weapons are absent from the table of dialogue,” he said, while “investments in the tools of war are outstripping investments in the tools of peace.”

Mr. Guterres stressed that disarmament is the only path to “vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow, once and for all.”

Dialogue and confidence-building

He appealed to States armed with nuclear weapons to take the lead in six areas, starting with re-engaging in dialogue to develop transparency and confidence-building measures to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon.

“Second, nuclear saber-rattling must stop,” he said. “Threats to use nuclear weapons in any capacity are unacceptable.”

Nuclear weapon States must also re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing, which includes pledging to avoid actions that would undermine the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), whose entry-into-force must be priority.

From commitment to action

Furthermore, disarmament commitments must become action, together with accountability, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The landmark accord, signed more than 50 years ago, is the only binding commitment to the goal of disarmament by States which officially stockpile nuclear weapons. 

The Secretary-General also highlighted the need for a joint first-use agreement. “Nuclear weapon States must urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, none should use them in any circumstances,” he said.

Reducing stockpiles

Finally, he called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons. In this regard, he urged the United States and Russia – the world’s largest nuclear weapons holders – to take the lead and also find a way back to negotiations towards the full implementation of the New START Treaty and agree on its successor.

Mr. Guterres also pointed to the responsibility of non-nuclear weapon States to fulfil their own non-proliferation obligations and to support disarmament efforts.

He said the Security Council also has a leadership role, including “to look beyond today’s divisions, and state clearly that living with the existential threat of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.”

March 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

As ‘Oppenheimer’ wins big, we should worry about lowering of nuclear thresholds

Amid rising global volatility and technological uncertainty, it’s imperative for states to explore non-nuclear solutions that emphasize international cooperation, diplomacy and societal resilience. And there’s an opportunity here for the U.K. and the U.S. to lead the way in international law and treaties that respond to non-nuclear strategic threats more effectively.

Just as Oppenheimer challenged Truman on U.S. nuclear strategy, we too must challenge our leaders’ attachment to nukes.

March 18, 2024 By Sophie-Jade Taylor and Graham Stacey Sophie-Jade Taylor is a senior network development and communications manager at the European Leadership Network nonprofit. Retired Air Marshall Sir Graham Stacey is a senior consulting fellow at the European Leadership Network.  https://www.politico.eu/article/oppenheimer-win-awards-oscar-bafta-golden-globe-worry-about-lower-nuclear-thresholds/

Last summer, director Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” captivated the global public, making history as the highest ever grossing biopic. And having already won big at the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs, the film closed awards season by sweeping the Oscars last weekend.

The film brought fresh awareness of the unique, destructive power that J. Robert Oppenheimer’s creation unleashed. The first and only nuclear weapons ever used — the “Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima and the “Fat Man” on Nagasaki — packed the equivalent of 15,000 and 21,000 tons of TNT respectively, killing over 100,000 people and causing long-term health, psychological, economic and environmental damage.

By comparison, the world’s most powerful nukes today yield over 1.2 megatons of TNT — 60 times more than Oppenheimer’s bombs.

And much like Oppenheimer, General Leslie Groves and then U.S. President Harry S. Truman, today’s leaders once again find themselves facing huge moral and strategic choices at the dawn of a new technological age. The full weight of nuclear devastation lies in the hands of just a select few. Their decisions have profound implications for humanity — and this shouldn’t be left to chance. 

Recognizing the unimaginable horror a modern nuclear conflict would unleash, as recently as January 2022, all five leaders of the nuclear weapons states reaffirmed that a nuclear war couldn’t be won and must never be fought.

Yet, we have been witnessing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s irresponsible nuclear saber-rattling around Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. There have been worrying reports of rock-bottom thresholds for nuclear use — with enemy incursion into territory, the destruction of strategic weapons delivery systems, and even conventional weapons use deemed as posing an existential threat to Russian statehood.

And though Moscow outwardly rejects the policy, such ambiguity seemingly points toward communicating “first strike” capabilities, which rightly should be condemned and carefully assessed.

On the other hand, China continues to push states for political commitments toward the universalization of a No First Use Policy, while also furthering the development of its own arsenal under a worrying lack of transparency — a dilemma that has added complexity to an already intricate and perilous geopolitical chessboard.

Meanwhile, in the West — seemingly without much public discussion or comment — we’ve seen a worrying trend in declarations that states could use nuclear weapons to deter “non-nuclear threats,” again lowering the so-called nuclear threshold in an attempt to provide a quick fix to nuanced challenges.

At this very critical moment, “Oppenheimer” has brought discussions of nuclear weapons back into the public arena. And while the attention will undoubtedly recede, ongoing public engagement on these issues must not. Civic engagement shapes policymaking, and at a time of rising nuclear risks and growing temptation for states to become more reliant on their nuclear weapons, the public deserves a better understanding of when and why a catastrophic weapon may be deployed.

For example, in 2021, the British government stated that while it wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state, it remained open to reviewing its policy should any threat from “emerging technologies” with “comparable impact” make nuclear weapon use necessary. Similarly, in 2022, the U.S. declared that the aim of its nuclear arsenal was to deter both nuclear and non-nuclear “strategic-level attacks.” Problematically, however, neither the U.K. nor the U.S. have detailed what “comparable impact” or “strategic-level attack” may mean.

These policies not only lower the nuclear-use threshold and increase global nuclear risks, but they may not even be feasib

While it’s near impossible for a nuclear strike to go undetected, the same isn’t true for emerging technologies such as AI and autonomous systems. By their very design, these technologies are largely democratized and untied to a single government. For instance, the challenge of attribution in cyber is well-documented, and while cyber-attacks have been linked to state-sponsored hacking groups, these groups couldn’t be easily deterred by the threat of a nuclear strike.e, given most contemporary threats against states now sit outside the military realm.

Increasing the already harrowing role of nuclear weapons in foreign policy undermines the moral and legal position of nuclear weapons states. The logic and evidence behind the current U.K. and U.S. policies of relying on nuclear weapons as a panacea must be subject to greater public and parliamentary scrutiny — as should be the case with open democracies who say they have transparent nuclear policies.

Amid rising global volatility and technological uncertainty, it’s imperative for states to explore non-nuclear solutions that emphasize international cooperation, diplomacy and societal resilience. And there’s an opportunity here for the U.K. and the U.S. to lead the way in international law and treaties that respond to non-nuclear strategic threats more effectively.

Instead of resorting to old playbooks, both policymakers and the public must appreciate that emerging technologies require a new mindset in their management and new legal constructs to regulate their proliferation, development and control. Recent international efforts like last November’s Bletchley AI Safety Summit and the agreement to begin a dialogue on AI risks by U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are important first steps. But much more needs to be done.

Just as Oppenheimer, haunted by his role in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, challenged Truman on U.S. nuclear strategy, we too must challenge our leaders’ continued attachment to nukes — weapons that can only destroy — and push toward more diplomacy and resilience-based solutions to today’s complex challenges.

March 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment