Home > International > Americas > Defying Nuclear Doomsday
Defying Nuclear Doomsday
By Dariya Fadeeva, New York and Russia
While the perils of terrorism threaten innocent people all over the world, there is a far more menacing threat to the world community - a rising nuclear age so pernicious that some experts in national security have remarked that every day they wake up without a nuclear device going off is a blessing.
The fear that such a threat would become a reality was first articulated by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower when he addressed the UN General Assembly in 1953. His "Atoms for Peace" speech laid out his deeply held concerns that the U.S., the U.K., France and the Soviet Union would not be able to preserve their nuclear monopoly.
And, indeed today China, India, Israel, Pakistan, allegedly North Korea and Iran all have nuclear capability. And it is thought that between 10 and 50 other counties could develop a nuclear weapon within a short period of time.
"...the world needs more than political rhetoric. It’s time that countries start investing faith in the resources and agencies of the UN and take collective action in solving this burgeoning global threat. I believe that Russia and the US must take the initiative and become partners in this regard. They first must come to terms on a US missile defense system so that together they can confront an impending arms race and also fully secure existing nuclear stockpiles." -Dariya Fadeeva
Three years after Eisenhower said, "If a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all...that if hope exists in the mind of one nation, that hope should be shared by all," the UN established the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) - a nuclear watchdog organization intended to be the international buffer, aside from the UN, to nuclear disaster.
But the problem is the IAEA lacks authority to make decisions or take action against rogue states. IAEA can only send inspectors around the world to garner information about who has nuclear capability. And even in this benign data-collecting role the organization is met with resistance.
The other problem is gridlock in the UN Security Council. Too frequently stymied by veto powers to act against an offending government, even if consensus amongst the five permanent members of the Security Council were achieved imposing sanctions - the weapon of choice - rarely prevents deterrent behavior. This further complicates international security.
Efforts - like the US's missile defense system intended to protect Europe and Israel against Iranian or rogue state nuclear capability - have been viewed as antagonistic by the Russian government which argues that placing defensive interceptor missiles in Poland and installing radar in the Czech Republic challenge Russian security and nuclear deterrence.
Having American military bases on former Soviet Union territory threatens Russia and the government has reportedly indicated that it would deploy bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba in response.
Just as in 1962 when the Soviet government issued the statement, "The armaments and military equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes," today the line between defensive and offensive nuclear installation is blurred.
Even so, Russian President Medvedev has indicated that he would be open for further negotiations with whomever is elected the next president of the US - understanding all too well that the nuclear game is not "worth the candles" - as we in Russia put it - meaning nuclear superiority is not worth it because there can be no victory after a nuclear strike.
In that regard it's hard to imagine a country ever using a nuclear weapon. No longer a chess game of deterrence and assured mutual destruction, today the importance of nuclear nonproliferation is imperative to international security. Other states - rogue or other -must never have the capability to launch a nuclear weapon. Unthinkable accidents - such as when US bombers armed with nuclear weapons flew across the country - can happen. And if loosely shared nuclear weapon information gets into terrorist hands the world ends up with a doomsday scenario.
But differences in vision as to the preservation of international security are destabilizing relations between the East and the West. Worse, the global community is at the mercy of governments that cannot come to an agreement. It makes you wonder whether any government is truly dedicated to looking after our lives.
"We need to reform international institutions while strengthening the central role of the United Nations. Our position on this remains unchanged. The United Nations is the only thing humanity has come up with in the last hundred years to help maintain global security," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at the meeting with Russian ambassadors on July, 15.
But the world needs more than political rhetoric. It's time that countries start investing faith in the resources and agencies of the UN and take collective action in solving this burgeoning global threat.
I believe that Russia and the US must take the initiative and become partners in this regard. They first must come to terms on a US missile defense system so that together they can confront an impending arms race and also fully secure existing nuclear stockpiles.
But sadly a discrepancy of opinion on how to proceed exists not just amongst countries but also on behalf of leaders running for President of the US. Republican candidate Senator McCain backed up his vote to deploy the National Missile Defense in 1999 when he recently stated, "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland and I don't care what his [Putin's] objections are to it."
Democratic candidate Senator Obama on the other hand has said, "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems and we'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons."
Why can't we see that coming together to protect humanity is far more realistic than the illusory vision that one country can prevail in a nuclear war? No country can ever hope to remain dominant when nuclear weapons are used in the 21st century. As such, the UN must become actively engaged as the sole legal source of international law and every country on this planet must work diligently to develop concrete pathways to achieve global security.
As a guideline, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has laid out steps to world safety, including spending the tens of billions now spent for nuclear arms on national and global humanitarian projects. (www.wagingpeace.org )
In the end, in order to preserve civilization as we know it, we must have honest and dedicated negotiators map out the road to peace and security by working through the channels at the UN. This is the world's best hope to achieve this end.
