by Donald C. Whitmore
The fact that the nuclear weapons club now numbers some twelve nations and still more nations seek nuclear arsenals is profoundly absurd and ironic. It is absurd because wonderful possibilities for unparalled technical and social progress are being traded away for a future to be feared and dreaded. It is ironic because the very security being sought by nuclear arsenals is an illusion which obscures the truth of great insecurity. This absurd and ironic fact is nonetheless a reality of our times and must be dealt with accordingly.
Sooner or later the global community will discover that nuclear weapons proliferation is the wrong path to follow and it will marshal the powers needed to end the threat. When that discovery is finally made, half-way nonproliferation measures will be rejected in favor of new initiatives which truly minimize chances of future nuclear proliferation.
How long will it take before that discovery is made? That is the question to be addressed in the next few paragraphs.
The Homo sapiens species has a rather strange set of attributes which enable both great achievements and great follies - which make possible both great deeds and unspeakable atrocities. Included among those attributes of the species are two which bear on the question before us: [1] the frequent ability for diverse individual opinions to evolve towards a social consensus position, and [2] the frequent inability to communicate clearly with one another. These two attributes are, of course, at odds with each other and contribute to unending frustration in doing the business of social enterprise. These two attributes also have much to do with how long it will take to discover the folly of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Three alternative futures are postulated to illustrate different paths to the discovery at issue:
Future #1. The year is 2005 and the planet is enjoying the first fruits of "The Great Renewal" which commenced almost ten years earlier. The human family is experiencing new enthusiasm for the future which had been so absent the second-half of the twentieth century. There is increasing evidence the long social history of widespread poverty and hunger will soon come to an end and new opportunities for the future are expanding rapidly. The robust world economy promises economic and intellectual freedom for all.
Behind "The Great Renewal" were two achievements in the mid-1990's which will forever benefit humankind. First, new ways to process and communicate information were implemented which enabled more reliable and rational decision making at national and international levels. Second, new international institutions were implemented to solve global problems affecting the welfare and security of all nations and its peoples. These two new tools provided a synergistic capacity to unleash the vast potential of human resources and to enable command of events which are pivotal to the future. One of the earliest manifestations of that new capacity was the two-fold social consensus discovery in 1995 that [1] nuclear weapons proliferation was counterproductive to security and [2] that the proliferation threat could be brought under control by the will and commitment of the global community. This discovery was made through an intellectual process and it preempted the then-growing probability of nuclear terrorism and regional nuclear wars. The confidence and experience gained in this early application of the new tools were instrumental in launching "The Great Renewal". The end of nuclear proliferation was the beginning of a new age - the Age of The Great Renewal.
Future #2. The year is 2005 and the planet is still mourning the devastation of Philadelphia, PA. Even after three years passage, the events of July 19, 2002 remain vivid in global memory. The seemingly unprovoked nuclear detonation that morning had killed and maimed over one million city residents. The death toll now stands at over 600,000 and is rising daily as hundreds more succumb to radiation sickness and injuries from the blast and thermal fireball.
One small consolation - the only consolation - is that this disastrous event became a convincing factor to turn the tide of nuclear weapons proliferation. Now set into motion are a number of strong measures to both stop further proliferation and to begin the denuclearization process. But this is of little comfort. July 19, 2002 marked not only the first use of nuclear weapons against a population center since Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it represented a terrible failure of the human family. If only the destruction of Philadelphia could have been prevented. If only the decision to stop nuclear proliferation had come much earlier. New doubts about the planet's future were creeping into everyday life. What will be human kind's next folly? How can the events of July 19, 2002 ever be redeemed? If only....
Future #3. The year is 2005 and the planet is still reeling from three regional nuclear wars: two ended and one on-going. Radioactive fallout continues to affect the entire globe as the poisonous particles are dispersed in the atmosphere. There is no escape except to remain in underground shelters and intake only filtered air and water and decontaminated food. Casualties-to-date number in the hundreds of millions and devastation is so widespread that official reports no longer include reliable statistics.
Cumulative human misery and suffering is beyond comprehension and despair pervades the human consciousness. Only now are authorities willing to admit that nuclear weapons provide no security and, in fact, breed anxiety and insecurity. Only now is there a serious campaign to stop further nuclear proliferation. Only now is there sufficient grief and remorse to believe that nuclear disarmament is both imperative and tractable. Only now it seems much too late to be awakened by common sense.
Of course, the contrast between these alternative futures is exaggerated, albeit entirely plausible. The choice of futures is ours to make - whether done consciously or unconsciously - whether by design or by default. How long will it take to discover the folly of nuclear proliferation? How much misery and suffering must be absorbed before waking up? Let those questions hang over us for awhile so we can ponder their meaning.
As mentioned earlier, one problem with our species is being able to communicate clearly. A specific concern regarding nuclear proliferation is communicating the realities associated with actual use of nuclear weapons (as opposed to threatened use for deterrence). Some believe nuclear weapons have cost-effective military utility and some believe their use can even be humane (some advocated actual use of neutron bombs as a humane weapon in the 1991 Persian Gulf war). Evidently there is a breakdown in communications. What is clear is that nuclear weapons have no meaningful military utility (compared to available alternatives) nor is their use humane. Making the message clear is the problem. An attempt will be made in the next few paragraphs to get across at least one part of the message - the fact that nuclear weapons are not humane, including neutron bombs. (The message on military utility is touched upon later but is primarily saved for a future monograph titled "Rationale For Nuclear Disarmament"). The next few paragraphs are a brief reminder on the reality of nuclear weapon use.
When a nuclear bomb is detonated, its effects on the surrounding environment are well known and information is readily available in the open literature (see, for example, The Effect of Nuclear Weapons, published by DOD and DOE). Those effects on the human body are far from humane. The lucky victims are those that perish instantly - all other victims are bound to suffer and some will suffer long and greatly. In less than one second after detonation, a huge fireball rises above the target area and intense heat and gamma rays radiate at the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second). A person standing near the fireball will be incinerated immediately. A person standing, say, one mile from ground zero will immediately suffer severe burns in exposed areas of skin - sufficient to peel off the skin to leave exposed flesh (actual distance of specific effects depends on weapon power, called yield, and other variables). Not only will the burn be extremely painful, it will likely be fatal (after considerable suffering). Further from the fireball, burns will be less severe but the intense heat will also ignite numerous fires, eventually trapping many persons in burning structures. A firestorm sometimes resulting from a nuclear detonation may kill more people than direct nuclear effects (thermal radiation, blast overpressure, etc.). Those that initially survive the fires may die later from burns received.
The next effect suffered is the radiation of nuclear particles from the detonation which will be fatal to those standing nearby. At greater range their effect will likely be less important than the thermal radiation described above.
The third effect suffered from nuclear weapon detonation is the overpressure blast wave traveling somewhat faster than the speed of sound (approximately 600 miles per hour). This is a wave of compressed air followed by a wave of rarefied air and it can crush human bodies at short range (which would have already perished from the thermal radiation preceding the blast wave). At greater ranges the overpressure shock wave can crush structures such as buildings with human inhabitants. Those that survive thermal radiation and fires may be crushed to death or, if spared, maimed for life. Many who survive thermal radiation and the blast wave might be trapped in burning structures.
The fourth effect from an A-bomb explosion is radioactive fallout downwind from the mushroom cloud. Radioactive particles reaching the earth's surface can contaminate both drinking and food sources. Thus, even if spared death from thermal radiation and blast overpressure, a person can suffer radiation sickness from the radioactive fallout. The duration of suffering can vary from a few hours before death to many years.
Consequently, there is nothing humane about the effects suffered from nuclear weapons. If this message is still not clear, then the reader is referred to two excellent descriptions of nuclear effects: Hiroshima, by John Hersey and The Fate of The Earth, by Jonathan Schell. In fact, those two books should be required reading for anyone contemplating or advocating the actual use of nuclear weapons.
This essay is now concluded with a few thoughts on the utility, morality and theology of nuclear weapons proliferation. Considering strictly the military choice of the best weapon to employ in a given situation, it is asserted that nuclear weapons will always be the poorer choice. The reason is simple. Specific military objectives can always be obtained by weapons or tactics which are more cost-effective and/or more humane than nuclear weapons. If there are reasonable exceptions to this assertion, let them be known. However, acceptable challenges to this assertion must give careful consideration to all costs and all ramifications of a weapon employment decision, including future consequences of precedent-setting military actions.
Quite aside from military choice, the decision to use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons is immoral. Even possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. Further, nuclear weapons can be considered evil and possession of nuclear weapons can be considered a sin against Creation. These are statements of belief, not fact, but they happen to be consistent with the teachings of all the great prophets. Possession or use of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with those teachings. Much has been written on this subject but, given the current reality of nuclear weapons proliferation, much has been ignored. Ignorance may not hold up as a justifiable excuse when Judgment is passed. Now, we must act on what we believe to be right, or forever be held accountable for inaction.
We close this section on opportunities with a challenge issued by a contemporary historian, Professor Paul Kennedy (Yale University): "What will be increasingly different about future politics...is that poorer countries will come into possession of such (mass destruction) weapons and be able not only to inflict dreadful damage on their neighbors but also to carry that destruction farther afield. Do we want to wait until, say, the range of North African missiles extends to Paris and Frankfurt before waking up - or join instead a serious campaign against proliferation...."