No to the NEW COLD WAR

From END Info 18 | August 2020. Download here

shutterstock_618798317-722x482.jpg

An international campaign opposing a new Cold War against China was launched on Saturday, 25th July, with an online gathering of scholars and activists. People from 49 different countries registered for and watched the event, with huge numbers viewing on social media streams. The organisers of the campaign have issued the following statement:

A New Cold War against China is against the interests of humanity

We note the increasingly aggressive statements and actions being taken by the US government in regard to China. These constitute a threat to world peace and are an obstacle to humanity successfully dealing with extremely serious common issues which confront it such as climate change, control of pandemics, racist discrimination and economic development.

We therefore believe that any New Cold War would run entirely counter to the interests of humanity. Instead we stand in favour of maximum global cooperation in order to tackle the enormous challenges we face as a species.

We therefore call upon the US to step back from this threat of a Cold War and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged in including: withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces agreement; withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Accords; and its increasing disengagement from UN bodies. The US should also stop pressuring other countries to adopt such dangerous positions.

We support China and the US basing their relations on mutual dialogue and centring on the common issues which unite humanity.

* * *

The China-based Xinhua news website posted the following report from the event:

International scholars said ... that aggressive statements and actions by the U.S. government towards China poses a threat to world peace and a potential new cold war on China is against the interests of humanity. The comments came during a virtual meeting on the international campaign against a new Cold War on China, which gathered experts from a number of countries including the United States, China, Britain, India, Russia and Canada. Jenny Clegg, author of China’s Global Strategy, said China-U.S. relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships and its deterioration would pose significant threat to world peace. John Ross, senior fellow at Chongyang Institute, Renmin University of China, listed the threat of war by the United States, including launching major wars in Iraq and Libya, taking the dangerous step of withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and unilateral sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. "Of course, a threat of war with China itself would be an unimaginable catastrophe," he said. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink, a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars, said it was concerning that the U.S. leaders claim a new Chinese aggression when the United States itself has military bases around the world. "The U.S. needs to understand China is not our enemy. We call for cooperation with China," Benjamin said. Margaret Kimberley, a columnist at Black Agenda Report, said the U.S. government made wrong accusations of China on issues relating to ... controlling the coronavirus pandemic and its forced closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston violated international law. Some experts attending the meeting issued a statement calling upon the U.S. side to step back from this threat of a Cold War and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged in. They said the United States goes in a wrong direction by withdrawing from the INF Treaty and the Paris Agreement on climate change, and increasing disengagement from UN bodies. "We support China and the U.S. basing their relations on mutual dialogue and centering on the common issues which unite humanity," the statement said, urging collective effort on addressing global challenges like climate change, the pandemic and the economic development.

* * *

The development of this campaign is of great importance.  Quite rightly, the statement accompanying the launch of the campaign does not simply seek to unite those who support China or define Chinese society in a certain way. The aim is to unite as many groups and individuals as possible around the notion that the US threat of a New Cold War against China is against the interests of all those committed to a more peaceful ordering of global society. More than that, the tensions and dangers arising from such a New Cold War are against the interests of the vast majority of humanity.

The analysis offered in END Info and The Spokesman journal has been clear that the recent behaviour of the US on the world stage, its aggressive posture and destructive actions are a result of a shift from that country enjoying ‘sole superpower status’ to a situation where there are now several poles of global power. China’s economic and political rise is clear evidence of this. Faced with a changing world order, President Trump and those who advise him are striking a recklessly aggressive posture.

We have written about a situation which amounts to a ‘global tinderbox’: a combination of risks so sharply posed that one mistake, one misstep, could engulf the world in flames. These risks include not only the aggressive political stance of the US, but also the rapid development of technology, which accelerates the rate at which dangers multiply and potentially spiral out of control.

In the face of decades of threats and provocation, China has been very restrained. It is to be hoped that this restraint endures. In this context, the creation of a global campaign is vital. In the US, UK and other NATO states the peace movements must be crystal clear about the process now underway, the roots of it and the vital issues on which we must focus. This will not necessarily be straightforward, as much of Western society – even the progressive sections of it – is woefully underexposed to the history and current politics of China. By ‘seeking truth from facts’ and uniting against a New Cold War, much can be remedied.

Europe: Time for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone! New campaign launched

From END Info 18 | August 2020. Download here

eurorubix.jpg

Appeal for signatories

On the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombing, we, the signatories join our voices to those of the survivors and call upon our fellow citizens, politicians and governments to support a European nuclear weapons free zone as a matter of urgency. We call on European governments to: end the modernization of all nuclear weapons; end nuclear sharing; sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Initiated by: International Peace Bureau, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Europe, International TUC, Quaker Council for European Affairs.

* * * * *

We are entering a new decade that appears to be even more dangerous than that of 40 years ago. In January 2020, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the hands of the ‘Doomsday Clock’ – measuring the likelihood of man-made global catastrophe – at one hundred seconds to midnight – closer than it has ever been before due to the imminent threats of nuclear war and climate disaster.

Now, 75 years after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear weapons dropped on human targets, arms control treaties are no longer upheld, and governments have started updating and expanding nuclear arsenals. New technologies of command and control minimise human intervention and shorten the time available to consider possible responses, the probabilities of a catastrophic accident or mistake are increasing dramatically.

The world is at a crossroads and Europe has to make a strategic choice: remain part of the arms race or demonstrate global leadership by promoting a peaceful approach towards common global security.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the recession which will follow teach lessons we must embrace to overcome the existential threats of the 21st century: nuclear war and global warming. Recent studies show that increased military expenditure puts pressure on investment in social, including health, infrastructure, while extensive military exercises and operations make major carbon emissions, driving us closer to extinction in more ways than one. All three threats result from forces of nature made dangerous by triumphs of human intelligence and all three can be solved by human intelligence and good governance. Among these, nuclear war is perhaps the least visible threat. However, it is the most likely to have an immediate and devastating impact.

During the 1980s, a powerful mobilization along with the European Nuclear Disarmament initiative, which was deeply concerned about the strategy of containing a ‘limited' nuclear war in Europe, generated the necessary pressure on politicians. Mass protests and demonstrations against the stationing of short and intermediate range nuclear weapons (Cruise Missiles and Pershing 2) throughout Europe forced Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan to sign the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the US and Russia in 1987 that removed all ground-based missiles – nuclear and conventional – with ranges between 500 and 5500km from European soil.

The recent collapse of that Treaty heralds the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Europe. We are facing the modernization of all nuclear weapons in Europe and the danger of new ones. And it has opened the door to Europe becoming a nuclear battleground.

The US’s wider withdrawal from important international agreements, upgrading of the world’s nuclear arsenals, the production of new ‘low yield’ and ‘more usable’ nuclear weapons, threatened resumption of nuclear testing, aggressive positioning of nuclear weapons and missile defence/offence systems, and the severe global economic and social problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, have increased international tensions and mistrust and driven us once again to a position where, in the words of the original European Nuclear Disarmament Appeal in the 80’s, “a third world war is not merely possible, but increasingly likely”. This time however, the threat arises from military confrontation on two fronts – Europe and in the Pacific.

The discussion on global military spending has recently been highlighted by the latest report of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). This notes that, of the $1.9 trillion (€1.7 trn) global military expenditure, $72.9 billion (€65.2 billion) was spent by nine countries on nuclear weapons in 2019. The report calculates that this amounts to $138,699 (€124,065) spent on nuclear weapons every minute. European countries (UK, France, Russia) play a very important role in military spending on nuclear weapons, while in addition the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) turns out to be the main cause for the new push in spending on modernization and new military spending on nuclear weapons. This money should be better spent on public services, especially health and care as well as education, both of which need substantial extra investment in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For years the people of Europe have expressed their desire to be nuclear-weapon-free by calling for the removal of the US nuclear weapons held under NATO auspices and, more recently, by pushing for their governments to ratify the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

So far, too few governments have responded, but as the costs of nuclear participation and militarism rise and economies struggle with the pandemic’s increasing social and political strain, these calls can no longer be ignored. Generations have grown accustomed to living in the shadow of nuclear war, but concern and awareness are increasing again – especially among the young.

The recent development in European countries hosting US nuclear weapons (Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Italy) to question the policy of the US “nuclear umbrella” is a sign of hope for a nuclear weapon free Europe. Likewise, we welcome the heightening voice of medical, environmental and humanitarian organizations and faith groups worldwide to join the movement for a nuclear ban treaty. We call for a Just Transition for workers engaged in the nuclear weapons industry to ensure their livelihoods and skills are protected.

The remedy lies in our own hands. 40 years after the original European Nuclear Disarmament Appeal (END Appeal), we must act together to free the entire territory of Europe from nuclear weapons, air and submarine bases, and from all institutions engaged in research into or manufacture of nuclear weapons, again, with a Just Transition plan for the workers involved in these activities.

More European governments can, like Austria, commit to this by ratifying the TPNW and requesting the United States to withdraw all nuclear weapons from European territory and engage in meaningful negotiations on an inclusive new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) as a necessary step towards the renewal of effective negotiations on general and complete disarmament. Every European government has ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and should therefore take steps towards the creation of a European nuclear-weapon-free zone.

We must work together in the light of an understanding that all lives on the planet are interwoven, rethink what we mean by safety and defence and developing the ideas of ‘common security’. We must understand each other better – not seed mistrust and blame. As Olof Palme’s Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues (ICDSI) set out, a nuclear war could never be won. A nuclear weapon free Europe would be the most important step to a transition to civil and a shared security, abandoning the road of continuous militarisation. Civil security, shared security means adopting appropriate lifestyles and revising global trade and economic relations to sustainable and socially just relations, as described in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

While nuclear tensions are increasing, we call on all citizens to organise against our possible extinction and to fight for a just, green and peaceful Europe, free of nuclear weapons, with security for all provided through other means. The situation is urgent. As we emerge from the pandemic, we need to build an irresistible pressure for change. As the risks of nuclear confrontation spread from Europe, through Russia, the Middle East, China and the Korean peninsula Europe should take a stand.

We appeal to everyone in Europe, of all faiths and persuasion, to consider urgently the ways in which we can work together for these common objectives. As before, we envisage a European-wide campaign, in which every kind of exchange takes place; in which representatives of different nations and opinions confer and co-ordinate their activities; and in which less formal exchanges – between universities, faith groups, women’s organisations, trade unions, youth organisations, environmental campaigners, professional groups and individuals – take place to promote a common object: to free all of Europe from nuclear weapons. Europe must become a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

Visit: www.nukefreeeurope.eu

China and the Bomb: measuring fear

From END Info 17 | July 2020 (Download)

SKM_C224e20071610540.jpg

In the first days of June 1985 there was a remarkable meeting in Beijing. Representatives of the main European peace movements, together with their Japanese and South Pacific opposite numbers gathered in a forum “for safeguarding world peace”. During this forum the Chinese hosts announced the formation of a new peace committee. For China to join in a multilateral forum, and to promise a whole series of further international contacts, was no small change in policy. The following text is an excerpt from Ken Coates’s book, China and the Bomb, which was an attempt to repair the gap in the knowledge of Western peace movements about China’s attitudes to nuclear proliferation and disarmament. We reprint this excerpt in the spirit of the popular Chinese dictum: “Seek truth from facts”. China has been the recipient of more threats of nuclear bombardment than any other country in the world. The threats have not gone away and have manifested themselves in a belligerent campaign by the US, supported by the UK, to commence a New Cold War against China. If they are to resist these new threats, the peace movements in Europe and beyond must “Seek truth from facts”. We offer this article as a contribution to that process.

* * * * *

If American statesmen are sometimes garrulous, the Chinese themselves have always been very discreet about the ... nuclear threat, although it was widely reported ... An immediate result of this threat was a feverish campaign of air raid precautions, including the development of a· massive deep shelter programme.

While I was in China attending the Beijing Peace Forum, I asked my hosts about these deep shelters which have recently been partially converted to civilian use. At the end of the Forum, they invited me to visit one. So traumatic was this experience that I wish it had been shared with all the other participants in the Forum, who at the time had set off on a tour of other areas in the country. My guide was Mr Chang, a clever young graduate who works for the Chinese Association for International Understanding. Mr Chang was deeply interested in relations with Europe, and interrogated me ceaselessly not only about the European peace movement, but also about the prospects for economic co-operation. He clearly saw the Chinese opening to Europe as an important part of the campaign to modernize the country, but he was also concerned to benefit from the cultural exchanges that became possible. Deep in discussion; we drove through the main Tiananmen Square and arrived at a crowded shopping centre a couple of hundred yards or so further on. Beijing’s main shopping centres are not like those in England. Somehow there are always more people, closer together. The streets, all pedestrian precincts now, were absolutely crowded. We turned into Qianmen Avenue.

It cut through the middle of its area, and was about 300 yards long. On the corner was a draper's store, quite large. A little further on was a massive drugstore, dispensing herbal remedies under the guidance of a panel of qualified doctors. Along the way we passed an ornate cast iron shop front, imposing a touch of Victoriana on this strictly working environment. This, apparently, was the seat of the former imperial court tailors, now given over to more democratic customers. All the puzzles of modern China range themselves along this street. Opposite the shop dispensing acupuncture tools and guides was another retailing Japanese computers.

We went into the drapery where our exploration had begun. Ms Ma Jinli, the manageress, greeted us. Hardly were we introduced before she motioned us to stand back and pushed a button under the counter by the main entrance. Instantly, as if in a James Bond film, the whole floor behind the counter wound back under the wall, revealing a deep staircase. Not even the most practised eye would have detected that such an entrance might exist. Ms Ma led us down the stone steps. We entered an underground tunnel, which ran down some yards before we came to an archway. Carved around it was the rubric “Keep in mind that China is being threatened” and the date 1975, which, I was told, was the date of completion of this part of the network. On the wall opposite the archway was a large inscription by Mao Tse-tung: “To serve the people against war and against disaster”.

Beneath the arch we went, in to a veritable warren of underground lanes and streets. The complex began in 1969, I was informed. It was dug out by manual labour, using picks and shovels. We entered an underground street which has the name Da Sha Lan. The complex around this took ten years to complete. It is constructed at two levels. At the point we entered, an intricate pattern of lanes and chambers lies eight metres below the surface, and is protected by elaborate insulation from whatever may pass above. At a deeper level (15 metres further down) lies a parallel web, just as intricate. These two complexes involve 3000 metres of tunnelling, and a number of installations. Now these have been converted to civilian purposes. They are extensive. There are 45 above ground shops over these tunnels, with 2000 staff members, and all 2000 were involved in the work of underground conversion under the guidance of professional designers.

I went straight away to one of the subterranean shops, selling a variety of fancy goods. The Da Shan Lan underground shop is obviously a tourist attraction, full of lacquer work, jade ornaments and pretty silks. A row of chairs down the middle accompanies a fairly rudimentary Coca Cola Bar, busily patronised. Several shoppers were browsing among the bangles and necklaces. Moving further into the warren from this shop there was a kind of command post. A curtain at the end of the room framed a plastic map board which was illuminated from behind to provide a map of both upper and lower tunnel levels. Ms Ma took a pointer, and described it all very precisely. Near the shop was an underground hotel, which we later visited. Above the hotel stood the pharmacy at street level, so that in time of war all the vital drugs could speedily be lowered down, to function as part of the underground hospital which the hotel would then become. Below, the lanes of apartments at the deep level were currently used as storehouses. Tue entire network is studded by entrances, in all, more than 90. Every important shop above ground has one or two access points so that, said Ma Jinli, , within six minutes everyone in the district could be safely underground.

But, if they dropped a megaton on Beijing, I asked Mr Chang, would you not all be cooked? “I hope not”, he replied. Assuming they were not, there were a number of long exit tunnels, leading towards the suburban outskirts of the city. One ran past the famous Peking Duck Restaurant. It took, said Ms Ma, three hours to walk the length of one of these tunnels. Our eyes returned to the plastic map. It blinked intelligence about the different services which were available: water pumping stations, air pumps, telecoms, generator room. “But”, said I, “what about electro-magnetic pulse? Nuclear explosions do unfamiliar things to electronic communications. They fuse circuits and render equipment inoperable.” My hosts were not sure about EMP, but they were sure that the tunnel complex had made a big contribution to solving the problem of civilian space. Overcrowding above ground meant that it was a God-send to be able to call up so much unused warehousing, not to say so many community amenities.

“How many people would use this shelter?” I asked. “It can house 10,000 people”, I was told. “But there are ten million citizens of Beijing”, I said. “They are all catered for” said Ms Ma. The shock of this statement, mercifully, hit me rather slowly. But there it was. These other underground complexes, too, had now been opened to solve peacetime problems. Roller skating rinks, restaurants, wholesale stores, a 24,000 square metre fruit depository, rifle ranges, theatres, clinics, libraries, a gymnasium, all fan out beneath the surface of Beijing's streets. What did this extraordinary labyrinth entail in social investment over the ten years it took to build? How much of China's social surplus went into delving underneath her cities?

Quite clearly, Beijing is not alone. Recently, the Chinese press reported the civilian conversion of shelters in Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangzhou, and Chongqing. If all were as extensive as the Beijing complex, then the Chinese digs since 1969 represent a labour not greatly inferior to that involved in building the Great Wall. Such a labour also represents a great fear; since it is quite apparent that no one, not even a madman, would contemplate such a vast diversion of resources unless there were reason to think it necessary.

I continued my underground exploration. On the way to the hotel, Ms Ma threw another switch which dropped the floor of the tunnel into a neat self-lowering staircase and led us down to the deep level. Here, the ventilation blew a distinct chill, and we felt our skins tingle with the cold. We passed large stacks of merchandise, and peered through the windows of underground chambers into further locked storehouses. In every direction the tunnels ran, and it would have been easy to have lost one’s way. Ducking and weaving, we wound our way round a wide circle until we emerged again outside the underground hotel. This, because at the time of its excavation it had been scheduled as a wartime hospital, consisted of a number of rooms, equipped with several bunk beds each. “It is open to a variety of clients”, said Ms Ma. “But priority is given to the relatives of those who work on the staffs of the shops and enterprises above ground.” The hotel staff were busy sweeping and polishing as we left, to emerge once again above ground in the draper's shop…

Travelling in China among all those people, your mind takes a fancy that it can understand what a billion is. It also takes a fancy that it can begin to appreciate the enormous audacity, even sacrilege, of the Chinese plan to modernize by the year 2000. This involves an aim to achieve an annual per capita income of 1000 dollars, which would be a sea-change indeed. But, in this exploration of the Chinese underground, I realized for the first time the depth of the fear which had been aroused by all those nuclear threats, all that blackmail, all that intimidation. It is a fear which can be measured in cubic yards of earth removed, in feet per second of air pumped through vast tunnelled emplacements, in social productivity foregone. The removal of such fear would not only render the world the safer. It would, in China, be a major economic resource in its own right.

The TPNW and International Law

From END Info 17 | July 2020 (Download)

ican-logo.jpg

by Joachim Wernicke, Berlin

After the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) comes into force, it can be expected that all nine nuclear weapon states will assert that the treaty is not valid because they have not acceded to it. The 26 non-nuclear weapon states in NATO will probably follow the United States, Britain and France on this line. Formally, they are right. However, the members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are subject to its commitments, even if they continuously disregard them.

Thirty-one states in the NPT, including the NATO states, are also likely to claim that the TPNW, even if it came into force, is not universal international law. But they will not be able to say that the NPT does not apply to them. The TPNW does not replace the NPT, but supplements it.

So it is worth taking a look at which obligations the TPNW has assumed from the NPT and what is new about it. The similarities and differences are clear from the decisive wording in the two.

From the NPT:

Article 1: Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Article 2: Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article 6: Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

In contrast, from the TPNW:

Article 1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

(a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

(b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;

(c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;

(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

(e) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

(f) Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

From this can be seen immediately:

1. Almost 50 years after the NPT came into force, all five nuclear weapon states in the NPT violate its Article 6 by failing to fulfill their disarmament commitments, instead - as of 2020 - they upgrade their nuclear weapons. In doing so, they show that they have only faked “good faith” to nuclear disarmament.

2. The United States violates NPT Article 1 by directly transfering nuclear weapons to non-nuclear NATO states and control over them [nuclear sharing].

3. The five non-nuclear weapon states with nuclear sharing in NATO violate NPT Article 2 by directly undertaking to receive the transfer of nuclear weapons and of control over them, from the USA: In the event of war, their pilots have this control, even if during the mission flight only for a short period of time (or for a longer period of time: the pilot who ever wants to sleep without nightmares again after this flight has the freedom, for example, to desert to an enemy airfield with his unused dangerous cargo).

4. For non-nuclear weapon states in the NPT, TPNW points (a) and (c) correspond to the contents of the NPT.

5. The TPNW point (b) concerns nuclear weapon states and specifies their obligation according to NPT Article 6.

6. The TPNW point (d) reflects general international law, as the International Court of Justice ICJ found in 1996 at the request of the UN.

7. The ICJ's 1996 statement left open whether the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal in the event of a state's existence being jeopardized. However, this only applies to the owner of the nuclear weapon, not to supporting allies, because such support from third parties does not affect his own livelihood. Nuclear participation within the framework of NATO is therefore illegal according to the ICJ's statement in 1996.

8. The TPNW points (e) and (f) relate to the general fulfillment of the contract, not expressly to nuclear weapons.

9. The last TPNW point (g) prohibits non-nuclear weapon states from tolerating nuclear weapons on their territory. Among the non-nuclear weapon states, it is only NATO countries that tolerate nuclear weapons on their territory. According to the NATO strategy, these serve as a nuclear deterrent, i.e. as a means of threat. However, this is prohibited according to the ICJ's statement in 1996.

10. The “Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control” mentioned in NPT Article 6 has been created with the entry into force of the TPNW. This goal of the NPT is thus fulfilled and the TPNW thus indirectly applies to members of the NPT, regardless of whether they are direct members of the TPNW.

It can therefore be stated that the TPNW contains nothing that has not been international law for a long time due to the NPT and the ICJ declaration of 1996. The TPNW has therefore not changed the current legal situation, but only specified it and provided it with a time stamp. Already today, definitely from its entry into force, the essential points of the TPNW are also valid international law for the five official nuclear weapon states and for the NATO member states, regardless of whether or not they have signed the TPNW separately.

NATO-oriented voices will likely give a different assessment of the situation. In contrast to the natural sciences, there is no uniqueness in legal questions, but usually the opposite of an assertion can be proven too. Generations of lawyers live from this language design option.

The fact that the 2017 agreement received the approval of the vast majority of the 2017 United Nations General Assembly may also play a role in the value of the TPNW: 122 out of 193 states, i.e. 63 percent. The 9 nuclear-weapon and 25 nonnuclear states in NATO (excluding the Netherlands) stayed away from the vote, leaving 159 states. This increased the approval rate in the vote to 77 percent, a clear vote by the international community. The decisive difference between the TPNW and the NPT is the time schedule for nuclear disarmament: Instead of “Saint-Never-Day” in the NPT, “Immediately” in the TPNW. The nuclear-weapon states should appreciate that the non-nuclear-weapon states have waited patiently for half a century for the promised nuclear disarmament before they resorted to self-help.

Does the TPNW apply to a state that has ratified it before 50 ratifications have enacted it? This is at the discretion of the state.­

Protests at Büchel Air Base

From END Info 17 | July 2020 (Download)

50081102407_686fbbe2d8_o.jpg

From July 4 to 7, activists protested against the US nuclear weapons stationed at Büchel Air Base, Germany. The third anniversary of the nuclear weapons ban treaty was also celebrated.

“Germany has been debating the successor to the Bundeswehr tornadoes for months, with which, in an emergency, German soldiers would drop US atomic bombs over their destination. That is why our protest against nuclear weapons and nuclear participation is particularly important this year,” said Johannes Oehler (30), ICAN member of the organization team. On the occasion of the third anniversary of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the Kantar polling institute carried out a survey on behalf of Greenpeace which showed that 78 percent of those questioned opposed buying new fighter jets for atomic bombs.

Activists from the Netherlands and Germany spent four days protesting against nuclear weapons with a colorful program. In numerous workshops on Saturday, the participants dealt, among other things, with the modernization of nuclear weapons in Germany, with the criticism of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the connection between civil and military use of nuclear power.

On Sunday there was an approximately 3.5 km long peace hike around the air base. On Monday, some activists blocked various gates spontaneously. “Through our action of civil disobedience, we have expressed our rejection of nuclear weapons. With a creative music group at one gate, we disrupted operations, blocked another gate for six hours, and made our presence known at the main gate because of our permanent presence on the nearby meadow.

Speeches followed in the evening and the third anniversary of the TPNW was celebrated - this was adopted on July 7, 2017 as part of the United Nations. Since then, 38 states have ratified it. The treaty enters into force three months after the 50th ratification.

Translated from and photographs downloaded via www.ippnw.de

As Covid-19 rages US agrees $740 billion for war, nukes and troops in Europe . . .

...but still no official explanation for withdrawal from the INF Treaty!

From END Info 16 | July 2020 (Download)

The Armed Services Committee of the United States House of Representatives has approved the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), after passing a number of amendments designed to limit the ability of President Trump to reduce troop numbers deployed overseas. It is likely that a similar Senate committee will pass the Act without major modification.

Of specific interest is the amendment that blocks Trump’s plan to remove 10,000 US troops stationed in Germany. It should be noted that this Committee is dominated by Democrats, who worked closely with the outspokenly pro-war Republican Representative Liz Cheney (daughter of Bush’s Vice President), to implement these hawkish policies. According to reports by Glen Greenwald and others, this same faction failed to back other amendments designed to hold the Trump administration to account, rather than blocking ‘undesireable’ policy proposals. For instance, Cheney and her Democrat co-thinkers failed to support an amendment supported by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), who spoke to an amendment calling for the White House to provide a ‘national security rationale’ for withdrawing from the INF Treaty - something they have so far failed to do, despite previous commitments.

The 2021 NDAA contains plans for military spending on a colossal scale. The $740.5 billion earmarked is more than three times China’s budget, ten times that of Saudi Arabia, fifteen times that of Russia and a greater amount than the next fifteen counties combined. As Greenwald notes, the Committee “authorized this kind of budget in the midst of a global pandemic as tens of millions ... struggle even to pay rent.” The US spends billions on war as millions of Americans suffer.

Nuclear Testing Alert

The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation initiated the following ‘Nuclear Testing Alert’ letter in response to mounting threats from the Trump administration that it will resume nuclear testing. We will publish any responses received and will cover the issues in more detail in the next issue of End Info (July 2020).

Capture (1).JPG

Recipients:

State Signatories to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Josep Borrell Fontelles, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs

António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations


 29th June 2020

Nuclear Testing Alert

  Dear Ambassador/High Commissioner,


The United States last exploded a nuclear device in 1992. For several years, there was an international halt to nuclear testing until 2006, when North Korea exploded the first of six devices. Now, the Trump Administration openly discusses the US also conducting new nuclear tests.

Of approximately 2,000 nuclear tests to date, more than 1,000 were carried out by the US. Each nuclear test not only has geopolitical significance and associated risks, but also causes substantial human and environmental consequences. The legacies of harm from such testing are widespread and well documented.

President Trump may view nuclear testing as a means by which to boost his standing – domestically and internationally. It is deeply worrying that, during election year, deterioration in President Trump’s domestic support makes it thinkable that he will resort to even more extreme measures.

 We call on the United States to abide by the international prohibition on nuclear testing. We call on those many states that have signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty to uphold and defend its provisions. We call on all concerned parties to raise the alarm on the risks associated with a resumption of nuclear testing before it is too late.

 Yours sincerely,

 Tony Simpson                                                                                  Tom Unterrainer

Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation                                          Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation

 

Supporting Organisations:

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)

International Peace Bureau

 

Signatories:

Dr Becky Alexis-Martin, Author of Disarming Doomsday, L.H.M.Ling Outstanding First Book Prize Winner, UK.

Colin Archer, Secretary-General, International Peace Bureau (Retired), UK.

Ludo De Brabander, Vrede vzw, Belgian Peace Organization, Belgium.

Reiner Braun, International Peace Bureau, Germany.

Christopher Butler, Chair, Shipley CND, UK.

Noam Chomsky, USA.

Dr Jenny Clegg, National Council, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK.

Tamara Coates, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation.

John Daniels, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation.

Marguerite Doyle, Greece.

Dennis DuVall, First U.S. citizen to be convicted of protesting against H-bombs at NATO base Büchel, Germany.

Commander Robert Forsyth RN (Ret’d), 2nd in Command Polaris submarine, commanded two other submarines and the Commanding Officer’s Qualifying Course, UK.

Benjamin Gottberg, Coordinating Group, TIME FOR PEACE - active against war, Denmark.

Commander Robert Green RN (Ret’d), author of Security without Nuclear Deterrence, New Zealand.

John Hallam, UN Nuclear Disarmament Campaigner, Co-Chair of Abolition 2000 Nuclear Risk Reduction working group, Australia.

Geir Hem, Norway.

Dr Kate Hudson, General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK.

Kristine Karch, co-chair international network "No to war - no to NATO", Germany.

Ulla Klötzer, Coordinator of Women Against Nuclear Power, Finland.

Lizette Lassen, Coordinating Group, TIME FOR PEACE - active against war, Denmark.

Lea Launokari, Coordinator of Women for Peace, Finland.

Jeremy Lester, Clerk of the Quaker Council for European Affairs, Belgium.

Professor Catherine Rowatt, former Green MEP, UK.

Alice Slate, World Beyond War, USA.

Allan Soeborg, Coordinating Group, TIME FOR PEACE - active against war, Denmark.

Rae Street, Peace Activist, UK.

Earl Turcotte, Chair, Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Canada.

Carol Turner, Vice Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK.

Andy Vermaut, Human Rights Activist, President of {PostVersa}, Belgium.

Professor Dave Webb, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, UK.

Julie Ward, former Labour MEP, UK.

Lucas Wirl, Executive Director International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Germany.

Michael Youlton, Chairperson of the Irish Anti War Movement, Ireland.

Safardeen Yusuf, Student and Activist, Cyprus.

From the archives: Arms Production and Trends in Technology

From END Info 16 | June 2020. Download here

by Ken Coates

Introduction: In March 1987, the Transport and General Workers Union (now part of Unite) in the UK convened a European Trade Union Conference on Arms Jobs Conversion. Ron Todd, TGWU General Secretary at the time, wrote: “duty surely calls upon us to look for the next steps in our work for peace, and specifically for arms jobs conversion. We need now to start to build international trade union commitment to these aims, involving working people directly and actively in this vital work for humanity’s future.” More than thirty years on, interest in the work envisaged by Todd and others is increasing, including amongst a large layer of trade unionists. Are the successors of the TGWU willing to take up this important work again? It is to be hoped that they are. We reprint an extract from Ken Coates’ paper to the conference as part of ongoing efforts from END Info to contribute to the debate around arms conversion, socially useful production and nuclear disarmament.

The arms economy takes up somewhere between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the whole worlds's income, at least a quarter of all manufacturing production. This is the kind of proportion that has been used by nations in the past to set aside annually for their economic development. The industrially developed nations, in fact, set aside today much larger proportions of their income for investment (around 25 per cent); but when arms expenditure is added to this, then current consumption is reduced to take up two-thirds only of all economic activity. Since the less developed nations spend similar proportions on arms, their investment in development has to be restrained to allow for current consumption adequate for bare survival. It is a fact which Seymour Melman has regularly demonstrated that the countries even at high levels of development which spend the highest proportion of their income on arms (e.g. the USA and UK) spend much lower proportions on investment than others (e.g. Japan and Denmark) whose arms bill is much less. As a result, increases in productivity are least in the USA and most in Japan .

However we look at it, such a waste of up to one tenth of human effort can only be regarded as insane, and the implications of nuclear arms escalation are positively suicidal. What is more, arms production is a less and less labour intensive industry. Even the real increases in arms spending of the last few years - of about 3 per cent a year - have resulted in average cuts in unemployment of 4 per cent a year. In the UK 47 per cent of the arms budget is now spent on equipment, 33 per cent on personnel. Ten years ago 33 per cent went on equipment and 47 per cent on personnel.

The employment effects of this kind of expenditure are quite complex. World-wide, unemployment runs at some ninety million, while a further three-hundred million people are working precariously in underemployed occupations. But the population explosion means that the workforce is going to rise very rapidly, from its present level of 2.2 billion to at least 2.8 billion at the end of the century. World-wide, then, we must create six hundred million jobs for the newly arriving workforce, and nearly four hundred million for those out of work or inadequately employed. Ninety per cent of this billion job short fall is in the underdeveloped south, which is gripped in a massive debt crisis, that eats up every possibility of productive investment for many years to come. This is the context in which military expenditure must be evaluated. Ruth Leger Sivard calculates that war budgets generate employment for one hundred million people worldwide. Why do we not see these jobs as at any rate a small step towards the solution of the problem?

Fewer jobs

The answer is that military spending undercuts other investment and displaces it. Arms expenditure creates many fewer jobs than those which could be seeded by a similar investment in labour intensive occupations, in education , health , transport or community care. More employment in these sectors creates an immediate increase in civilian demand, and therefore stimulates economic growth in all other sectors of the economy. There are only two ways in which military expenditure can stimulate growth, and both of them are exceptionally painful. It can enter a technological race in which ever more capital is burned up in the production of ever more elaborate weapons systems, employing ever fewer workers. This is the process which Mary Kaldor has called “Baroque Technology”. Such a process will enlarge arms corporations at the tax payer's expense, but it will do nothing for jobs and real growth in useable goods and services. The second option is to have an actual war, which will certainly create big destruction, and if we survive it, big demand for re-construction.

Up to now, since 1945 mankind has been “lucky” in that such wars have been confined to conventional weapons and “limited” zones: even though they have been incredibly costly in human life ... The grotesque butchery [of the] battlefield is carefully sustained by arms manufacturers, who cheerfully sell to [all] sides.

Whether we have such wars or not , is not an economic decision , but we are entitled, as trade unionists, to say that this is a political option which we reject. If we should reject it when it involves the slaughter of our own populations, we should reject it no less when it involves the export of mass-destruction to Third World peoples. Human politics is impossible if we do not oppose war, and also military build-ups and the cynical trade in arms. In this sense, of course, the political war is the prior domain, and should determine economic choices.

There are also, however, very solid economic reasons why military spending worsens the employment situation. It can outbid civilian industry for resources, because it is funded by central state provision, whilst others must usually assemble their resources in the competitive market place. It imposes strict secrecy which can only impede the spread of technological knowledge, and hinder the development and application of new techniques. And it seeds inefficiency as every student of the military is abundantly aware. This last problem is the worst, because it dooms its victims to lose out in competition, and thus raises levels of crisis, deepening economic slumps.

Because military investment is now so capital intensive, it skews every effort to redistribute income. One billion dollars create 8,250 jobs in the manufacture of Trident missiles, while for the same cost, 52,000 people could be employed in education and 102,500 in public services. The multiplier or knock-on effect of 102,500 jobs is obviously highly significant in all other sectors of the economy, whether public or private. Military spending thus reinforces social, geographical and sectoral inequalities, and locks those engaging in it into growing structural crises. To move out of mass unemployment, the advanced economies have to generate redistribution between classes, spatially between rich and poor areas nationally and internationally, and industrially towards new projects and modern technologies.

The worst feature of military spending is that, in addition to debilitating the present economy, it devastates the future. As military R&D gobbles up more and more of the social investment in future technologies, it lays waste the opportunities of new generations...

Key Factors

The possibilities of converting arms production and research to peaceful use depend on a number of factors which need to be held in mind together:

1. Arms production and research is financed by nation state governments which have a popular concensus behind this expenditure, however much such support may be artificially encouraged by the propaganda of authoritarian or military regimes.

2. It is much more difficult to develop a concensus behind state expenditure on non-arms production, since opinion tends to be divided between many alternative directions for state spending, e.g. health education, housing, transport, etc.

3. The very large companies have a vested interest in arms production because a) arms quickly become obsolete and have to be replaced; b) the cost of military goods is very difficult for governments to control by comparison with other costs; and c) arms do not compete with the other products of big companies, as, e.g. public transport does with the private car.

4. Although, in fact, state spending on arms employs fewer people for any sum spent than does state spending on peaceful purposes, nevertheless, workers in the arms industry have no confidence in their re-employment as a result of arms conversion.

5. There are some real technical problems in converting production from military to peaceful use, though these tend to be exaggerated and are far less important than the structural reasons, by which arms production is built into the military industrial complexes of company and government, which can be seen to dominate the economy of the USA and of other states.

It follows from consideration of these factors that the main requirement of any programme of arms conversion is that clear alternatives should be put forward for the use of the productive capacity now devoted to arms. Such alternatives have been put forward by a number of company wide committees of trade unions in Britain, especially by Lucas Aerospace and Vickers combine committees. The essential elements in such alternative programmes are:

a) taxpayers can be assured that “their” money is going to meet needs that they feel to be equally or more demanding than defence;

b) non-taxpayers (pensioners, unemployed, etc.) can believe that they will benefit in goods or services and in employment opportunities from the conversion policy;

c) workers can be assured that as many (or more) jobs will be generated by the alternative programmes.

None of this can be left to the market and private enterprise; but will require planning by governments with strong involvement of both unions and local government authorities, encouraging local community organisations to think through and agree on alternative claims for resource use. Conversion from the present arms economy can only be successful as part of a wider programme of popular economic activity. The alternative to arms has to grow in the hearts and minds of the people, as they explore new and exciting ways of using the vast resources at the disposal of human beings in the world today. The strongest moral appeal must be to raise the incomes of the people in the Third World. In the Socialist International's report Global Challenge it is estimated that a cut of just one tenth in the current level of spending on armaments could not only create 20 million new jobs in Europe in a decade, but could also raise output in the Third World by more than 50 per cent over the same period.

The Coronavirus Crisis and the New Cold War on China

From END Info 16 | June 2020. Download here

by Jenny Clegg

As the coronavirus rages across the world pushing the global economy into possibly the deepest recession since the 1930s, yet another crisis is brewing between the US and China.

To divert attention from his own callous incompetence, Trump has turned on China, reprising his winning formula of “China, China, China - its all China’s fault” as the date of the November election approaches. Trump, Pompeo, Pence - they all have racialised the pandemic agenda with their insistent references to the ‘China virus’ or ‘Wuhan virus’. China, unsurprisingly, if not always appropriately, has bristled. But this is far more than a ‘war of words’.

If there is one thing the Trump administration has succeeded in doing over the last four years it is in turning US China policy around from engagement to a more active containment, bringing it to the centre of the foreign policy agenda. Shifting from the so-called ‘war on terror’ to so-called ‘great power competition’ with Russia and China, US strategists have become ever more obsessed with China as the deadliest rival for global supremacy, more formidable even than the Soviet Union ever was. For at least one former Senior Director of Strategic Planning in the Trump administration, China poses ‘the most consequential existential threat since the Nazi Party in World War 2’.

The ‘China threat’ has justified massive increases in US military expenditure, with bilateral agreement last year to pump $1.3 trillion into the development of new ‘usable’ or low yield nuclear warheads, the militarisation of space and much else besides. Shockingly, as US states are forced into a life-and-death competition for ventilators, military officials have just put in a further bid of $20bn to bolster ‘deterrence’ against China.

Trump’s ‘blame China’ rhetoric is entering dangerous territory where ideology overwhelms rationality: in the disagreements over trade, it was possible to reach some sort of an agreement, but now, when one side just calls the other a liar, there can be no basis for negotiation.

Is China to blame? Some mistakes were made at first but the Wuhan lock-down, imposed on January 23rd, proved effective. The crucial question to ask is: why were some governments, for example in East Asia, able to contain the virus quickly whilst across Europe and the US the death rate mounts by thousands upon thousands? The fact is that our governments got the priorities badly wrong, we were ‘defended’ against the wrong threats even when the NHS failed the pandemic practice run in 2016. For all the hundreds of £billions spent on ‘hard power’ in Britain, we were not kept safe.

In Britain an influential group of Tory Party hawks have joined the ‘blame China’ chorus. They seek closer alignment with Trump and, post pandemic, will fight tooth and nail to defend, and even demand an increase in, military spending in a delusional commitment to ‘Global Britain’. Pushing against any public pressure to shift government spending priorities, they will insist on the £14bn needed to pay for fleets of F-35 fighter jets to equip our aircraft carriers so as to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US against China’s rise.

Trump’s racist offensive has reverberated around the world, framing China as the new enemy in a campaign of demonisation. Here in Britain, sinophobia is rife across the media, creating a climate of suspicion, fear, anger and hatred. East Asians are targeted in hate crimes; mysterious fires destroy 5G masts across Britain and Europe; Chinese people are made to appear less than human; and a stream of fake news about China fills the political vacuum where racism and jingoism breeds. The situation is not unlike the lead up to the Iraq war over its non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

The new narrative of China’s plot to take over the world is in fact a not-so-new revival of the old familiar ‘Yellow Peril’ trope: some one hundred years ago, the public on both sides of the Atlantic were held in horrified thrall by Hollywood fictional tales featuring the insidious Dr. Fu Manchu and his treacherous schemes for world dictatorship.

International cooperation is desperately needed: the virus knows no borders and cannot be tackled by national action alone. Global powers need to come together to share information, exchange good medical practice and develop a vaccine to be made accessible to all. Scientists from different countries working together are spearheading the way forward. The fact that the Chinese government is sending medical specialists to help in our emergency makes a nonsense of attempts to portray the country as our ‘adversary’. But the bitter truth is that anti-China propaganda stands in the way of the fight against the virus.

Tensions with China may well get even worse as economies around the world deteriorate and governments try to avoid blame for the epidemic. Open hostility will make it harder to limit economic damage. And ahead, climate change threatens new catastrophes. We need a complete reassessment of what security means.

The case for peace and international cooperation could not be stronger. Yet right now British foreign policy is under pressure as the Tory anti-China ideologues seize on the crisis as an opportunity to break with China and follow Trump on the path to confrontation.

Labour’s Atlanticist ‘opposition’ front benchers are out of their depth. Peace campaigners in the US are now speaking out against the deadly ‘blame China’ game, warning of a second Cold War. Britain’s anti-war and peace campaigners must prepare to join them: the enemy is not China; it’s the virus.

Dr Jenny Clegg is a researcher and writer, author of China’s Global Strategy: towards a multipolar world (Pluto Press, 2009); activist in StWC and CND. A version of this article first appeared at www.stopwar.ork.uk

Return of the European Missile Duel?

From END Info 16 | June 2020. Download here

By Joachim Wernicke

In the period 1985-87 Europe was the scene of a nuclear missile duel between the USA and the former Soviet Union. In 1983 US intermediate-range ballistic missiles, Pershing-II, were deployed in Western Germany, followed in 1985 by the deployment of Soviet short-range missiles, SS-23, in the former GDR and Czechoslovakia. The nominal range of the Pershing-II was 1850 km, reaching the Moscow region. A technical innovation was the terminal guidance of the missile’s warhead with a hit accuracy of some ten meters. This precision allowed for the destruction of deep underground hardened shelters by nuclear hits, even with so-called low yield warheads comparable to the Hiroshima bomb of 1945.

In the Soviet Union the political-military command system was concentrated in the Moscow area. The talk was about 100 underground shelters. Due to the improved hit accuracy of the missiles since late 1980s the term of decapitation strike came into the official military vocabulary of the USA, meaning a surprise attack in order to destroy the Soviet leadership. A precondition would be the rush to overthrow the Soviet warning system. The ten-minute flight time of Pershing-II from Western Germany would leave the Moscow leadership no time for situation assessment and ‘rational reaction’.

In order to destroy a target with sufficient confidence, at least two missiles have to be fired on it. Thus a total of about 200 missiles would have been required for a decapitation strike against Moscow. The number of Pershing-II in Western Germany, according to NATO announcements, would be 108. In its open and unprotected deployment in the field these missiles were highly vulnerable and therefore unsuitable for a counterstrike after a Soviet attack: Use them or lose them.

As expected, the Soviet side reacted accordingly, deploying SS-23’s, with a flight time about 5 minutes. The purpose of the SS-23 was presumably to destroy by a nuclear first strike the Pershing-II sites before they could be used. Knowledge that a Pershing-II attack was imminent would have been based on espionage information which possibly would be incorrect, perhaps intentionally incorrect, but plausible for a government declaration in the international media. Following a Soviet first strike on Western Germany, a counterstrike by the USA would have been rather questionable. The Soviet Union, by striking first, would have experienced heavy damage to its international reputation. But the willingness of Continental European NATO countries to allow further US military installations and hardware on their territory would probably have been reduced. Thus the danger of a decapitation strike would have been diminished for the Soviet Union.

In 1987 the Soviet leader Gorbachev and US president Reagan agreed the INF Treaty for the destruction of all land-based intermediate-range missiles on both sides. In the process of agreeing the treaty it was revealed that the number of Pershing-II missiles was not 108 but 234.

Since 2018 Russia has deployed Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad, formerly part of the German province of Eastern Prussia. After US president Trump unilaterally withdrew from the INF Treaty, Russia is permitted to deploy land-based intermediate-range missiles. The approximately 500kg Iskander-M conventional warhead can probably be replaced by a nuclear warhead of lower weight, increasing the range.

Germany is the only Continental European country which provides territory to the USA for military bases at large scale. The USA is using these facilities in their wars in Africa and Asia. All their European command centres are located on German soil, including deep underground shelters in Stuttgart, Ramstein and Wiesbaden. Such shelters cannot be destroyed by conventional bombs but by precise nuclear hits, the detonation of which would cause considerable radioactive fallout. Is it unrealistic to assume that amongst the targets of the missiles in Kaliningrad there are US military installations in Germany, with the priority on command shelters? The distance is about 1000 km, an intermediate range.

Today there are no US intermediate-range missiles in European countries, and it is questionable if any European government still would give the US permission for a new deployment on its territory. However, a development in going on which Europe hardly is noticed: In the Pershing-II era sea-launched ballistic missiles were not precise enough to destroy deep underground shelters. Today, with satellite navigation, they are sufficiently precise. Since 2017 tendencies from the US Navy and their supporting industries have introduced intermediate-range ballistic missiles with conventional warheads for surface ships into military discussions2. Sovereignty over the South China sea is given as the reason. As an example of the missile type required, the Pershing-II of 1983 is referenced. It could be redesigned with modern technology and adapted to the launch techniques used in surface ships. The working title employed is Pershing-III2, at a different source Sea Pershing3.

A missile like Pershing-III would offer a new capability: at similar weight as Pershing-II it could be built more compact, in order to fit into the launcher geometry of naval ships. In this weight of a typical conventional warhead also a nuclear warhead can be placed. A main strength of the US Navy’s surface ships are cruisers and destroyers in the global Aegis system. Its European command centre is located in Ramstein, Germany. For the direct radio coordination of the ships such a regional centre is indispensable, because the time-critical commanding of the ships in European waters via satellite communication from the USA would be too sluggish, due to the signal propagation delay.

An Aegis destroyer contains 96 vertical launcher tubes usable for SM-3 air defense missiles or Tomahawk cruise missiles. From the launcher space available it should be feasible to accommodate in such a ship (or a similar type of ship) about 25 Pershing-III missiles in modified launcher tubes. Eight such ships would be sufficient in order to launch a decapitation strike against the Russian leadership, using a total of about 200 missiles from the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea or the Barents Sea, with about 10 minutes flight time. However, this describes a technical feasibility, not any real military conclusions.

It might take some years until missiles of a Pershing-III type will be deployed on US Navy ships. But in this case the nuclear duel of the 1980s would be revived in Europe, instead of Pershing-II/SS-23 this time it will be with Pershing-III and medium-range ballistic missiles from Kaliningrad. The question is: Independent of the real intentions of the US leadership, after observing the first medium-range ballistic missiles on US surface ships, would the Russian military wait until the number of these missiles is sufficient for a decapitation strike before taking action?

These are the tensions and dangers that are building. In order to avoid the dangers, could Germany negotiate a deal with Russia? Could Germany copy the example of neighbouring countries and NATO members France, Denmark or Czech Republic – no foreign military in the country – in exchange for Russia retracting its missiles from Kaliningrad? In the same sense on the European level: could a treaty between the EU and Russia, for instance in the frame of OSCE, be arrived at? The verified ban on intermediate-range ballistic missiles not only in the European countries but also on the European seas? Here the geographical map and the international sea law gives a means to force such a ban towards Non-European states too, via the right for peaceful passage. Thus a new European missile duel would be permanently prevented. Indispensable for the success of such an effort would, however, be to bring the subject of a nuclear war danger into broad public discussion in Europe.

Notes

1. Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine – Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, New York 2017: Bloomsbury USA, ISBN 978-1-6081-9670-8.

2. Captain Sam J. Tangredi U.S. Navy (Retired) (2017), Fight Fire with Fire, Proceedings U.S. Naval Institute, August 2017, www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/august/fight-fire-fire.

3. Gabriele Collins, US Naval War College, Time to Put China’s Rocketeers on Notice, The National Interest, February 8, 2017, www.nationalinterest.org/feature/time-put-chinas-rocketeers-notice-19372?page=0%2C1.

Trump’s dangerous nuclear test threat

From END Info 16 | June 2020. Download here

On 1 March 1954, the United States carried out its largest ever nuclear test. Named ‘Castle Bravo’, the test was part of a series of similar events, ‘Operation Bravo’, designed to assess the feasibility of high-yield and therefore high-energy devices.

‘Castle Bravo’ was expected to produce a yield of six megatons (375 times larger than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima) but the scientists involved miscalculated. The actual yield was fifteen megatons, 2.5 times higher than predicted and more than 900 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. Becky Alexis-Martin, author of Disarming Doomsday, describes the test as “the most significant radiological incident in US history.” How so?

The test resulted in a massive nuclear radiation fallout that contaminated the inhabitants of the various atolls close to Bikini Atoll, where the test took place. Coral reefs were vapourised. Radioactive gas spread across the planet. It took three days for nearby residents to be evacuated from the area. The legacies of harm from this test, and others like it, endure.

The tests that Trump is proposing are likely to involve ‘low-yield’ or what the US military likes to call ‘useable’ nuclear weapons. Regardless of the size, any nuclear testing is not only criminally wasteful in terms of the resources involved. Nuclear testing also has an enormously destructive long-term environmental and human impact. For these reasons alone, any moves towards future testing must be vigorously opposed.

The US last conducted an explosive nuclear test in September 1992. Four years later it signed up to, but did not ratify, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Since then, the US has not conducted any nuclear testing. If the US has not tested since 1992, why start again now?

The only technical reason for conducting explosive nuclear tests is to assess new warhead designs. Data from previous tests and sophisticated computer modelling made ‘live’ testing redundant. It would therefore be reasonable to assume that the US intends to fully develop and deploy a new class of warheads.

Of course, Trump does not need a ‘technical’ excuse to violate global arms control agreements. He requires no excuse to ditch yet another multilateral treaty. Such facets of the ‘old’ global order do not seem to concern him very much as he is engaged in desperate and desperately dangerous efforts to assert US power on the global stage.

Any new tests would further destabilise the situation and feed into the already existing, technologically supercharged arms-race. It is possible that any US test would be followed by similar such tests from major nuclear powers.

Opposition to testing should unite peace and anti-war activists, environmentalists, rights campaigners and other. The time to voice our united opposition is now.