Global Zero: World without Nuclear Weapons


It was the summer of 1945 during the bloodiest conflict in the history of mankind, now known as World War II, that the United States of America dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the ostentatious purpose of destroying Japanese will to continue fighting the war and the implicit announcement of its emergence on the global stage as a military superpower.

Whatever the arguable role of this bomb dropping catastrophe may have been in ending World War II, the complete annihilation of two thriving cities with instant liquidation of their innocent occupants and the suffering it unleashed, which continues to this day as is evident in the birth of deformed babies in the regions affected by the radiation emitted in the fallout, made the world wake up and take notice of the destructive and barbaric power of these titanic weapons.

But the notice taken and the ideas that sprang forth from such notice varied with the motives of the observers. Those who were concerned that humanity would destroy itself with these self constructed doomsday tools raised a lot of hue and cry asking countries to desist and abandon the nuclear path but their voices were lost in the din of the ensuing rhetoric of the Cold War. The other aspiring world power had also taken notice. If the United States had marked its birth as a global superpower in such a resounding fashion, the noise it made had awakened the sleeping bear; the USSR was ready to play.

The world ‘Cold War’ refers to the war that was fought out through the use of threats, showmanship, bravado, proxies but never in a direct clash between USA and USSR (though they did come near to one during the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis). Both continued throughout the decades to stockpile nuclear weapons, develop nuclear warheads, establish allies and so called satellite states to front for them, all under the imminent threat of nuclear warfare. Two wars at least, the Vietnam War and the Korean War were a direct by-product of the Cold War. The situation folded on itself with the dissolution of the USSR and the formation of a uni polar world order with the US at its apex.

This brief history presents the saga of capitalism vs. communism fuelled by pursuit of nuclear power. Gradually, as the red fog of an imminent nuclear war diminished, the thinkers and the leaders of the ‘developed nations’ finally began to realize the futility of these weapons and the misery, destruction and the charged atmosphere which their pursuance had created. Thence started efforts to roll down nuclear weapons programs and de-nuclearize the world. As hypocritical as it may seem, the only country in the world to have actually detonated a nuclear bomb on live population, which had helped create an extremely dangerous world wide crisis in the form of the Cold War and which possessed the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world now hopped on the bandwagon of nuclear disarmament after it had conveniently secured its own transcendent world wide military position through the use and the threat to use of the same weapons.

The Global Zero initiative, headed by hundreds of leaders from military and civic backgrounds based in the western developed nations, with the noble purpose of elimination of all nuclear weapons for the formation of a nuclear free world strives for idealism in the face of harsh reality. I call this idealism because a world without nuclear weapons is like the land of Zion for which the Jewish nation has been striving for since eternity; a bitter pill that can be forced down the throat of dissidents but would never be digested. These lately realized good intentions of the US and friends come at a time when there are not only 6 new declared nuclear powers in the world i.e. Pakistan, India, China, United Kingdom, France and North Korea (7 if we count Israel, which, hiding in the glass closet, never admits it has nuclear weapons but obviously does have a huge stockpile financed and nurtured with the help of US) but where many other regimes throughout the developing world are aspiring or have become actual nuclear powers, Iran being the case in point. Added to this mire is the constant fear that such nuclear weapons may end in the hands of anti-state terrorist elements such as Al-Qaeeda, Hammas, Hizbullah to name a few, who would have little to no scruples in deploying the same against the beacons of democracy in the Middle East and the Western world.

One cannot deny the good intentions of the leaders heading this effort; the dangers of nuclear weapons and the havoc they can wreak is painfully obvious to all and anon; but in order for this effort to be successful the required lead actions will have to be taken by the two nations that got us into this quagmire to begin with. Even though Barack Obama, the noble peace prize winner for 2009, and Dmitry Medvedev have shown their acquiescence to the charter of Global Zero, any solid actions on their parts to demonstrate commitment are still wanting. Without these two giants showing their willingness to denuclearize themselves, there is little to no chance that other nations will take the first step.

Let’s consider the situation in our country. We have fought three full blown wars with our sister nation India, a major skirmish in Kargil and have had a strained relationship with it ever since the 2008 Mumbai attacks for which we have been blamed. We have had a ready made enemy on our hands since the independence in 1947 and the common Pakistani is very proud of the country’s nuclear weapons, declared circa 1997 under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s regime, which help us keep the bully in line.

I believe that beneath the veneer of diplomacy the opinion of the common man in India must also be the same; they must believe Pakistan to be a rabid neighbor, its neck in the hands of Islamists, and an unsecure nuclear weapons program, that has to be kept in check via its own nuclear weapons program.

And this is not just the opinion of the common man. Both governments champion this way of thinking; when India named its nuclear missile Prithivi, we immediately retaliated by naming ours Ghazni. Maintenance and stockpiling of nuclear weapons is thus a deterrence policy to keep the other in check.

Thinking from a practical perspective, how can once convince these two nations to give up their arks of the covenant? The importance and sanctity with which both Indians and Pakistanis treat their nuclear weapons requires something more than mere sanctions from US and lip service from others to encourage us towards disarmament. As was obvious from the failure of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) due to their non-ratification by US, and the refusal of both India and Pakistan to sign them, any efforts towards a nuclear free world will require the arbitration of a powerful, independent third party, with no partiality towards one or the other. Obviously this invalidates any arbitration by the United Nations and its International Atomic Energy Agency which, by far, has been able to do nothing significant as far as nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons go.

The responsibility, therefore, for the success of the Global Zero initiative falls on the shoulders of the concerned parties; the so-called declared and un-declared nuclear powers of the world. The problem to tackle is how to bring all these competing and diverse powers on the same platform, get them to agree on a standard disarmament program and then ensure its execution; quite a difficult task when the US and Israel would have to be brought down to the levels of North Korea and Iran to actually listen to their concerns, reservations and opinions on the matter and the latter countries to behave in a responsible and non-bellicose manner.

The most viable way to get things started is the formation of an independent body composed of nuclear members, where each has one vote with no veto power. Also to be brought into the fold is the aspiring nuclear power Iran. Together, they should decide on the program of disarmament and its execution. The parties on board namely, US, Russia, UK, France, Pakistan, India, China, Iran, North Korea and Israel will be clearly divisible into two competing camps, with US, UK, France, India and Israel on one hand and Russia, North Korea, China, Pakistan and Iran on the other (despite the close military relations between India and Russia) due to their agendas. Any initial steps will have to be taken jointly by Russia and US from these two groups. They need to take the lead in any positive action for others to follow suit.

As a first step, all members should disclose their complete current arsenal of nuclear weapons and sign an agreement whereby they undertake not to develop any further nuclear weaponry and agree on non-proliferation. A phased disarmament program should be devised by this committee; in the first phase, US and Russia should agree to destroy 10% of their current stockpile of weapons. Once they have performed their part, the other members should step ahead and destroy 10% of their own arsenal. After satisfaction of each party that all others have discharged their part of the bargain, they should move on to the next phase where again US and Russia would take the lead in dismantling say, remaining 20% of their stockpile followed by the other members.

Such an implementation program would require monitoring by an independent body of inspectors and nuclear scientists who would certify that dismantling has actually taken place. Such inspectors and scientists would be picked from the member countries and agreed upon by all.

The success of such a plan obviously requires the presence of a certain level of goodwill between the member nations. Unfortunately a group which consists of India and Pakistan on one hand and Iran and Israel on the other, will surely be in acute shortage of such a fine notion. So subjected to the practicality test, such a workgroup will not only be most difficult to constitute but, if miraculously, it does come about, the constant bickering and back and forth retorts amongst the members will never lead to an agreed upon by all solution.

Another option that can be broached therefore is the establishment of bilateral agreements between traditional antagonists for mutual phased disarmament as discussed above.

Taking India and Pakistan as example, they can go ahead with such a program in the future if the currently strained relationship between the two countries is hopefully mended to allow for such a process. Again, the charter for such a treaty should be provided by the US and Russia, the holders of two largest nuclear stockpiles in the world.

Any such efforts have to be necessarily supported by a strong public opinion in favor of de nuclearization. Education of the public and a change in their extant belligerent stance is most necessary. Unless the population of India and Pakistan buy in and accept disarmament as an important step towards peace, the governments, hungry for votes, will continue to use the rhetoric of nationalism and ‘might is right’ to support their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

To conclude, even if we do achieve success in working towards a nuclear free world, the other weapons of mass destruction that have been developed and continue to be developed by the leading nations of the world and their protégé countries still pose a great threat to world peace. The purpose of a nuclear free world is to stop the human race from annihilating itself at its own hands. But we have now on our hands such weaponry which though may not have the scarlet letter written over them but may be no less effective in destroying and sinking the world.

Developed countries which are sincere in their efforts towards world peace should not limit themselves to spouting ‘nuclear disarmament’ now and then and making token shows of dismantling of their weapons, but should actually show their commitment by taking concrete, long-term steps for disarmament and alongside it also reducing their huge defense budgets, and pouring the freed money into developing countries as strings free aid to win their approbation and respect and thereby lead by example.

Hi,
It sounds right, except you haven't formulated it in outlines. Good job though.

Thanksalot for replying.... Yes, I know I should have made an outline but I have never been in the habit of doing so... However, reading the various posts it seems important that the essay should be preceded by one to brief the examiner about its contents... I will definitely do that next time.... One thing which had me a bit worried was that perhaps I made my essay a bit too opinionated but I guess it's fine...

Once again thanksalot for your feedback!