We don't need nuclear bombs

The opportunity exists - though it may not last long - to choose to conduct our affairs without these weapons

Share
Related Topics
Last year, I was rung up by Gareth Evans, then the Australian Foreign minister, who told me that, in the backwash from protests about French nuclear tests in the Pacific, the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, had decided to establish an international commission to report on the feasibility of totally eliminating nuclear weapons. He wanted me to serve on it. Once he told me that respected figures such as Robert McNamara, the former US Defence Secretary, had already accepted, I agreed.

When we first met in Canberra, I was already inclined to accept total elimination as the goal. Discussion convinced me that the target was indeed feasible, and that an opportunity existed, in the absence of any serious tension between the major powers. It became clear that if the US and Russia perceived abandonment of nuclear weapons to be in their interests, it would become possible and achievable within a period significantly shorter than most people envisaged.

Our report, presented last month, was unanimously agreed, without any qualification. Yet no difficult issue was fudged. That was surprising, when one considers what a mixed bunch we were. Our commission included General Lee Butler, former Commander-in-Chief of US Strategic Air and Strategic Commands; from Sweden, Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, who heads the UN mission investigating Iraq's mass-destruction weapon programme; from France, Michel Rocard, MEP, former Prime Minister, and Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the well known environmentalist; from Russia, Professor Roald Sagdeev, former science adviser to President Gorbachev, now head of the East-West Space Center in the US; from China, Ambassador Qian Jiadong, former Ambassador to the UN Disarmament Conference; and from this country, Professor Joseph Rotblat, FRS, Nobel Peace Prizewinner and President of the Pugwash Conferences.

We have listed many reasons for supporting the goal of total elimination of nuclear arms. First, they are such horrible weapons. To use them against a similarly equipped opponent invites catastrophe: to use them against a non-nuclear opponent is politically and morally indefensible. Their only purpose now is to deter a similarly equipped opponent from using his: their elimination would remove that justification. They have no utility as a military weapon.

Second, the indefinite deployment of the weapons carries a high risk of their ultimate use - intentionally, by accident or inadvertence. We have been lucky that, since 1945, no nuclear weapon has been exploded, except in tests, either intentionally or by accident. We owe that good fortune to the fact that nuclear weapons have been held only by nations with strong and efficient governmental machinery and with access to the latest technology. Today, with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the actual and potential proliferation of nuclear weapons to states, or even possibly to groups within states, the risk of intentional or accidental use is higher. If their possession proliferates, that risk will probably increase.

Third, the possession of the weapons by some states stimulates others to acquire them, reducing the security of all. Nuclear weapons are a source of instability in the relations between Russia and the West, within and between the former members of the Soviet Union, between the states of North Africa, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, and between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states.

We did not produce a blueprint for verifying elimination of weapons. If the US and Russia cannot be persuaded to make the commitment we seek, a blueprint, invented by others, is irrelevant. If they do make the commitment, they themselves must devise the methods, including verification, by which, stage by stage, they reduce from their present levels to zero. Any system that satisfies them should also satisfy the other declared states, the threshold and potential threshold states, and the non-nuclear weapon states.

We accepted that no verification could be 100 per cent effective, but, if sufficient effort is put behind checking, it can probably be about 85 per cent effective. Whether or not that is acceptable is a political judgement to be made at the time.

But we must compare the risks between the present, and possible future, situation, in which there are a large number of weapons in existence and the possibilities of proliferation and lack of control, with one in which there has been a progressive, verified reduction to zero, and in which the political or military advantage of retaining, or attempting to develop, a few weapons would be doubtful. There can surely be no doubt that total elimination would involve less risk and would lead to a safer world for us all.

We did not call for any nation to disarm unilaterally. We believe strongly that, because there is at present no major source of tension between the great powers, the opportunity exists, which may not last long if not seized, to make a new and clear choice to enable the world to conduct its affairs without nuclear weapons.

We gave no time scale for this, but, if Russia and the US can be persuaded, and put in anything like the effort they have expended on building up and maintaining their arsenals, matters could move much more quickly than most people imagine possible. We have listed a number of initial steps, such as taking weapon systems off alert and removing warheads from delivery platforms. These would both demonstrate commitment and also make the world safer.

The commission now no longer exists and the Australian government, although it has distributed the report, is not committed to further effort in promoting its recommendations. Hitherto our report has received little media attention, and the task of persuading governments to take it seriously poses a difficult challenge.

The writer was Chief of Defence Staff, 1973-76.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
More From
Field Marshal Lord Carver
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

HSE Manger - Solar

£40000 - £45000 Per Annum: The Green Recruitment Company: Job Title: HSE Mana...

Data Governance Manager (Solvency II) – Contract – Up to £450 daily rate, 6 month (may go Permanent)

£350 - £450 Per Day: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: We are currently looking...

Recruitment Resourcer

£18000 - £22000 Per Annum: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: Recruitment Resour...

2nd line support - Derbyshire - 6 months

competitive: Progressive Recruitment: 2nd line support - Derbyshire - 6 months...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

Virginia Ironside's dilemmas: My parents call me ugly and inconsiderate

Virginia Ironside
 

What makes dolphins so mysterious? Now is the time to see for yourself

Michael McCarthy
A new Russian revolution: Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc

A new Russian revolution

Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc
Eugene de Kock: Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

The debate rages in South Africa over whether Eugene de Kock should ever be released from jail
Standing my ground: If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?

Standing my ground

If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?
Commonwealth Games 2014: Dai Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Welsh hurdler was World, European and Commonwealth champion, but then the injuries crept in
Israel-Gaza conflict: Secret report helps Israelis to hide facts

Patrick Cockburn: Secret report helps Israel to hide facts

The slickness of Israel's spokesmen is rooted in directions set down by pollster Frank Luntz
The man who dared to go on holiday

The man who dared to go on holiday

New York's mayor has taken a vacation - in a nation that has still to enforce paid leave, it caused quite a stir, reports Rupert Cornwell
Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business, from Sarah Millican to Marcus Brigstocke

Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business

For all those wanting to know how stand-ups keep standing, here are some of the best moments
The Guest List 2014: Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks

The Guest List 2014

Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks
Jokes on Hollywood: 'With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on'

Jokes on Hollywood

With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on
It's the best of British art... but not all is on display

It's the best of British art... but not all is on display

Voted for by the British public, the artworks on Art Everywhere posters may be the only place where they can be seen
Critic claims 'I was the inspiration for Blanche DuBois'

Critic claims 'I was the inspiration for Blanche DuBois'

Blanche Marvin reveals how Tennessee Williams used her name and an off-the-cuff remark to create an iconic character
Sometimes it's hard to be a literary novelist

Sometimes it's hard to be a literary novelist

Websites offering your ebooks for nothing is only the latest disrespect the modern writer is subjected to, says DJ Taylor
Edinburgh Fringe 2014: The comedy highlights, from Bridget Christie to Jack Dee

Edinburgh Fringe 2014

The comedy highlights, from Bridget Christie to Jack Dee
Dame Jenny Abramsky: 'We have to rethink. If not, museums and parks will close'

Dame Jenny Abramsky: 'We have to rethink. If not, museums and parks will close'

The woman stepping down as chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund is worried