Ladies and Gentlemen
We are gathered here today as on several earlier occasions to discuss or take forward the quest for the abolition of Nuclear weapons. To begin with we must ponder over the question as to why in spite of innumerable demands to do so these have fallen on deaf ears. The reason is we have been appealing to people who have vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Once these people are clearly identified the realisation comes that they are a handful in a manner of speaking. They are the military industrial complexes of just five or so nations numbering no more than a few tens of thousands at the outside. Without again quoting President Eisenhower who first warned about them such is their power that no president or head of these nations has been able to remove their stranglehold on national policies.
Going forward from there we have to wonder as to what is the nature of infirmity of the human collectivity that a handful out of 99.999 recurring number from among 8 billion people have been masters of human destiny for so long.
So far ICAN, IPPNW, IDPD, and like-minded organisations have been appealing to leaders of nations who hold the destiny of the world in their hands with limited or no success. The time may have come to reach out to younger people who have become conscious that their leaders are mortgaging their future with their policies. A stirring example are the sit in protests by college students in practically every western country- staunch supporters of Israel - against the daily killings of Palestinians; Especially women and children so that they limit the growth of Palestinians in the coming generations. Similar sit ins can take place spontaneity or be organised indefinitely against nuclear weapons in countries that have these weapons.
In the 79 years since the Nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki no leader of consequence had threatened use of Nuclear strikes with immediacy and specificity in the manner of the threat given by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine War. He has threatened to use the same in the event of serious Russian losses due to the supply of advanced weapons to Ukraine. It has to be noted that he appears to be deliberately over reacting since there is no threat in the war to loss of territory in Russia. He will use nuclear weapons if he loses Crimea and his enclaves in Donbas.
Putin may not actually be intending to carry out the nuclear threat but his adversaries in the West cannot take these casually. Automatically certain states of readiness to meet these take place. What is more, based on the Russian threat nuclear powers have started refining and in some cases augmenting their nuclear arsenals making the world a more dangerous place to live in. .
While Russia may have the capability to invade parts of Europe the West has neither the capacity nor desire to invade Russia. Therefore the nuclear sabre rattling by Putin makes no sense. Carrying the argument further in case of Russian setbacks where exactly would he carry out a nuclear strike. Certainly not in Europe which would invite retaliatory nuclear strikes on Russia with consequences too horrible to contemplate. That limits the choice to strikes in Ukraine. But where. Wherever he strikes there is a strong possibility that the largest nuclear reactor in Europe at ZapPhorizzzhia will also go up in flames again with far reaching consequences in the whole of Ukraine and large parts of Europe and Russia.
The discussion above again brings home to every human being with terrifying clarity that among eight billion or so people who share the planet the potential inheres in just one person or leader to endanger the fragility of the beautiful Pale Blue Dot that we inhabit.
That being the case and having lived through the nuclear menace over seven decades through Cold War doctrines like MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) and the like the world cannot continue to skate on thin ice for its future and safety both of which are amenable to annihilation on the calculations, whims or fancy of a single human being. .
Today the capacity for large-scale country or global destruction inheres in two nations, the United States and the Russian Federation with nuclear arsenals comprising 5044 and 5580 weapons respectively sufficient for second, third and fourth strike capability. No other nuclear state has the weapons numbers to cause damage nearing that of the two world powers. Having said that all of them continue to increase their nuclear weapons holdings.
Taking the case of the two super powers should they decide to wage war on each other they can devastate each other's countries to the extent of reducing them to gigantic Chernobyl each. That is to say they will cease to exist as viable states for upto fifty or even hundred years. To do so they would hardly have used more than twenty percent of their megaton range weapons stockpile. Near total mutual assured destruction to what effect. No victory only mutual annihilation. Therefore where is the rationale in the first instance of holding such large stockpiles and refining them. .
Surely they have no plans, or possibly have no plans to use them on other nations in similar numbers. Most importantly why would Russia want to destroy America and the US Russia. On the ground Russian people admire America and given a chance half of them would like to migrate there. Likewise Americans do not dislike Russian people. They admire them.
Therefore the question arises in a MAD type of scenario as to who is destroying whom on whose behalf. The same applies to a possible exchange between China and the US. Would their nationals want the destruction of their opposite numbers.
Once these aspects are discussed in open forums and universities around the world the absurdity of holding nuclear weapons around the globe would automatically lead to their abandonment. As we enter another new year there are faint signs of hope that the era of nuclear disarmament is upon us. In the first instance because climate change and global warming are wreaking daily havoc across practically every continent. Seeing that it has taken over a century of unmitigated, uncaring and continuous exploitation and consumption to bring us to the current state of devastation it is likely to continue for another fifty to hundred years. Hence automatically attention will shift to the threat of concomitant nuclear devastation. In this regard unexpectedly and almost unbelievably the advent of Donald Trump as the next US President ushers in a glimmer of hope. Whatever his other attributes Mr. Trump is a decisive person. He has the mandate to do so as well. He has already stated that he will bring an end to the two wars in Ukraine and Gaza as a priority for his administration. After that he might well turn his attention to nuclear disarmament. In this regard Elon Musk who has become close to the president can take the process forward in a big way. His visionary activities for mankind - space missions to Mars, Neuralink to name a few - would be jeopardized by any kind of nuclear exchange.
The other more profound aspect that will almost certainly bring an end to the nuclear menace is AI. It is Elon Musk again who has predicted that AI will supersede humans by about 2040 or thereabouts.
It is only to be hoped that we do not do anything abysmally stupid before that.
Vinod Saighal
|