The Australian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

 
Australia resists nuclear disarmament push because it relies on US deterrent

Exclusive: Diplomatic cables reveal prospects for nuclear disarmament are ‘bleak’ as Australia becomes increasingly lonely in opposing 116-nation push for ban

Ben Doherty

@bendohertycorro
Tuesday 15 September 2015 17.01 EDT

Prospects for nuclear disarmament are “bleak” under the current non-proliferation treaty, Australian diplomats have conceded in cables back to Canberra, but the country will resist growing global support for a new treaty banning nuclear weapons because of a dependence on the nuclear deterrent capability of the US.

A tranche of internal government emails from within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reveals Australia’s opposition to a 116-nation push to ban nuclear weapons is leaving it increasingly isolated globally, and especially among anti-nuclear neighbours.

The emails, released under freedom of information, reveal Australia is increasingly worried about an Austrian-led push for a treaty to ban all nuclear weapons.

“Like the US, Australia is worried about the Austrian pledge,” a Dfat note says.

Other cables to Canberra described the pledge as “a not-too-subtle attempt to build momentum for negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban treaty” but also reported that “the Austrian pledge is fast becoming a galvanising focus for those pushing the ban treaty option”.

Australia says it needs the protection of the deterrent effect of the US’s nuclear arsenal, the second largest in the world.

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, Australia will continue to rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia,” a Dfat briefing note says.

At a global conference in December last year, the so-called “humanitarian pledge”, proposed by Austria, called for an international treaty banning nuclear weapons, asking nations to cooperate “in efforts to stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons in light of their unacceptable humanitarian consequences”.

The Austrian pledge, which 116 countries – most of the world’s nations – have endorsed, proposes to “fill the legal gap of the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons”.

The pledge has also attracted the support of pope Francis, who said the “immoral” weapons should be “banned once and for all”, and nine Nobel peace laureates who signed a declaration urging “all states to commence negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons at the earliest possible time”.

The mechanism for disarmament is chapter VI of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which obliges the five declared nuclear states to “pursue negotiations in good faith” towards “cessation of the nuclear arms race … and nuclear disarmament”.

But the disarmament “pillar” of the treaty is widely regarded as having failed. While the superpowers are slowly reducing their stockpiles, they are, at the same time, working to develop new weapons systems or upgrade existing ones.

India, Pakistan and North Korea have increased their nuclear stockpiles in recent years, and their weapons fall outside the treaty because they are not members. Nor is Israel, whose nuclear status is undeclared but is believed to have about 80 warheads.

North Korea nuclear reactor showing signs of ramp-up, says thinktank

In cables back to Canberra, Australian diplomats have highlighted the weaknesses in the non-proliferation treaty process. In a briefing prepared for the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, officials concede “prospects are bleak for meaningful progress in multilateral arms control”.

And they warn Bishop that the failure of the last round of treaty talks to reach consensus “will embolden those arguing that the current disarmament machinery is broken and that a nuclear weapons ban treaty must be negotiated outside the NPT”.

Australia has found it is particularly isolated in regional security meetings. At a meeting of Asia Pacific nations on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and prospects for a ban treaty, Australia was “the lone voice in the room on many issues”.

Briefing notes say Australia supports practical, realistic measures for nuclear disarmament, but dismisses “simplistic approaches which ignore the security dimensions”.

Suggested “talking points” for government ministers say “effective disarmament can only be achieved by engaging all the nuclear-armed states; simply banning nuclear weapons would not lead to their elimination”.

“As long as the threat of nuclear attack or coercion exists, and countries like the DPRK [North Korea] seek these weapons and threaten others, Australia and many other countries will continue to rely on US extended nuclear deterrence.”

Prof Ramesh Thakur, director of the centre for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament at the Australian National University, said Australian diplomats had underestimated support for the humanitarian pledge.

“What is really clear from these cables, but not explicitly stated, is that Australian officials have been very surprised, they have been taken aback, by the strength of support for the humanitarian consequences pledge, and they are scrambling to explain that.

“Support for the humanitarian consequences pledge is making Australia’s position more difficult; it is galvanising public and political opinion, and Australia finds itself running against the domestic and international tide.”

Thakur said Australia’s earlier leadership on nuclear disarmament had diminished over the past four years.

“We know what Australia is saying ‘no’ to. It is saying ‘no’ to the humanitarian consequences pledge. Well, what is it saying ‘yes’ to?”

“We all share the so-called realistic practical agenda they identify with respect to the fissile material cut-off treaty and comprehensive test ban treaty. But the reality is all such efforts have been stalemated and frustrated for years now, hence the interest in new ways to generate momentum towards real progress instead of more rhetoric.”

The FOI request that revealed the government correspondence was made by the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons (Ican), a coalition of NGOs from more than 95 countries, whose aim is a global ban on nuclear weapons.

Ican’s Asia-Pacific director, Tim Wright, told Guardian Australia the humanitarian pledge had developed an international momentum, and he was confident it would lead to new global negotiations towards outlawing nuclear weapons.

The Australian government’s argument that it required the protection of a foreign power’s nuclear weapons was “a long-held belief that has gone unchallenged”.

“Nuclear weapons undermine safety, they do not enhance it,” Wright said.

And a proposed ban treaty was not designed to replace the non-proliferation treaty.

“The NPT remains relevant, and will for the foreseeable future, as the only treaty with a legally binding commitment towards disarmament. But we see a ban treaty as something not to replace the NPT, but as something to complement and strengthen it, like the comprehensive test ban treaty did in the 1990s.”

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not respond to inquiries about the cables from Guardian Australia.

Babylon the Great Has Opened A Nuclear Can Of Worms (Genesis 28)

Study Warns US Nuclear Strategy is on Course for Disaster

CSIS report calls for new policy in coming years or US will lose deterrence and over 11 states will go nuclear in mass proliferation.

By Ari Yashar
First Publish: 6/23/2015, 6:46 PM
Reuters

A new study from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warns of dire consequences if the US does not dramatically change its nuclear weapons policy in the coming years, reports the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday.

Lead author Clark Murdock, a strategic planning and defense expert, warned in the study entitled “Project Atom” that American foreign policy between 2025-2050 will be bogged down dealing with rampant global nuclear proliferation if dramatic changes are not made immediately.

“The value of nuclear weapons as a ‘trump card’ for negating US conventional power was enhanced by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” Murdock writes. “If the United States apparently believes that it can be deterred by an adversary’s nuclear weapons, why wouldn’t a nonnuclear ‘regional rogue’ want one?”

According to the argument, “rogue” states estimate that they will be able to defeat the US’s conventional military power by developing nuclear weapons, and therefore they will push forward on nuclear programs to gain international clout and power.

The warning is all the more relevant as North Korea has achieved a nuclear arsenal even after signing a nuclear deal with the US in the 1990s, and as a deal with Iran is set to be sealed by a June 30 deadline in the coming days.

Murdock calls on the US to modernize its nuclear arsenal and likewise obtain enhanced tactical nuclear capabilities so as to maintain an edge and deter rival or rogue states from pursuing the path of proliferation.

The expert warned that if the US does not make the policy changes, between 2025 and 2050 two major developments are likely to occur on the world scene. First, the US will lose its deterrence ability as nuclear proliferation abounds, and secondly more than 11 nuclear powers will emerge after 2030.

Surpassed by Russia and China?

Murdock noted that Russia currently has the upper hand in terms of non-strategic nuclear force, and called on the US to develop small-scale missiles and other tactical nuclear weapons to confront this threat.

“US nuclear forces were designed for a global conflict involving the exchange of thousands of high-yield weapons, not limited exchanges of low-yield weapons,” writes the expert. “Since most US nuclear response options are large, ‘dirty,’ and inflict significant collateral damage, the United States might be ‘self-deterred’ and not respond ‘in kind’ to discriminate nuclear attacks.”

Aside from Russia, co-authors of the study Barry Blechman and Russel Rumbaugh warned that China will also be a major threat in the coming years, a warning strengthened by recent Chinese tests of a hypersonic vehicle capable of defeating US defenses and delivering a nuclear strike.

The two wrote, “given its 20 years of investments in building a more modern military and continuing economic growth, China could plausibly threaten the United States’ ability to conduct specific military actions in regions near China’s coasts within the next several decades. If realized, such threats could jeopardize America’s ability to fulfill its commitments to defend certain allies.”

Indicating the US’s awareness of the increasing nuclear threats warned about in the new study, it was revealed in April that the Pentagon reopened the Cheyenne Mountain Air Defense facility, which was closed in 2006.

The move was seen as a response to the threat of a nuclear weapon being detonated over the US and causing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) disabling America’s ability to defend from secondary nuclear strikes, since the facility is built to withstand EMP strikes.

Wishful Thinking: Curbing Babylon The Great (Dan 7)

 

New report argues for narrowing role of nuclear weapons in US policies, diplomacy and forces

May 17, 2015 | By Dibya Sarkar

The United States should minimize the role that nuclear weapons play in its security policy because they add few military options and provide “false hopes” that can be costly geopolitically as well as in human lives, according to a new report from the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank.

The report (pdf) released May 14 recognizes that nuclear weapons are “indispensable” to deter other nations from attacking the U.S. and allies with such weapons, but they offer no other advantage over the conventional military superiority that the U.S. enjoys over every other nation.

The report’s co-authors are Barry Blechman, a national security expert and co-founder of the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, and Russell Rumbaugh, who is a special assistant in the Defense Department.

“These false hopes that nuclear weapons can play a range of political and military roles in U.S. security policy cause the United States to mistakenly pursue a nuclear strategy that is costly – not only in material terms, but also in geopolitical terms,” they write. “In the worst case scenarios, this strategy could be catastrophic in terms of human lives and the nation’s future.”

The authors outline in greater detail why nuclear weapons offer no military or political benefit beyond nuclear deterrence by examining U.S. conventional military superiority and offering an alternative that would serve U.S. interests better.

They write that the U.S. should fashion its diplomacy, nuclear policies and force posture – meaning current force capabilities – around pursuing negotiated arrangements to create a “verifiable international regime eliminating nuclear weapons globally.” The U.S. should also adopt policies declaring the U.S. belief of the “narrow utility” of such weapons and focus its “force structure solely on maintaining a secure, second-strike capability.”

“After seventy years of indulging fantasies of what nuclear weapons can do, it is high time to acknowledge that they do very little and adapt US nuclear policy, strategy, and forces to those facts,” concluded Blechman and Rumbaugh.