Advertisement Columban MissionariesColumban Missionaries Would you like to advertise on ICN? Click to learn more.

Text: Is there any ethical justification for keeping nuclear weapons?


Houses of Parliament - image ICN

Houses of Parliament - image ICN

An open meeting to discuss the morality and ethics of nuclear weapons was held in the House of Commons yesterday, Thursday 21st April. Hosted by Seema Malhotra MP for Feltham and Heston and Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, speakers included Martin Birdseye from Christian CND, Ruth Cadbury MP, the Rev Dr Sam Wells, Vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields and Rebecca Sharkey, UK Coordinator at ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons).

While some MPs present said they were undecided on the issue, as they understood nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 70 years and pose a 'deterrent', all the speakers pointed out the moral, ethical and legal arguments that overwhelmingly call for the ban of these 'weapons of mass destruction.'

The meeting is one of a number of events focussing on this issue, in the countdown to the vote in Parliament on the renewal of the Trident missile system later this year.

The full text of Rebecca Sharkey's address follows:


Role of morality in developing the laws of war (international humanitarian law).

The anniversaries of World War One have brought attention to the meaning of war, the purposes of war, and--most importantly--the limits of war. History has shown us the darkest side of humanity, the evil that we can do to each other. But history has also shown us that courageous decisions can be taken to set new standards that show the best of humanity. After WWI, the international community banned the use of poison gas. Years after the Cold War ended, a ban on nuclear weapons is long overdue but finally within reach.

Poison gas caused fewer than 10% of combat deaths in WWI, yet it was arguably the most feared of all weapons in that nightmarish conflict. Death from machine gun was frequently instant, or at least not drawn out, and soldiers could find some shelter from gunfire in trenches and bomb craters. Invisible and odourless, poison gas crept silently across No Man's Land to infect trenches full of unsuspecting soldiers, who only felt the full effects of the ensuing asphyxiation, blindness and burning of the skin several hours later. Years after the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of men were still so badly incapacitated by the effects of poison gas that they could not hold down a job once they had been released by the army.

In February 1918, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) made a forceful public appeal against the use of poison gas, described it as as a "barbarous invention which science is bringing to perfection", protesting "with all the force at our command against such warfare which can only be called criminal "and warning of "a struggle which will exceed in barbarity anything which history has known so far". Public moral outrage about gas warfare, as reflected in the Red Cross statement, contributed to the diplomatic momentum which culminated in the negotiation of a landmark in international humanitarian law in 1925: the Geneva Protocol.

The Geneva Protocol was later reinforced with the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, but the moral taboo enshrined in the original Protocol has been respected in nearly all of the hundreds of armed conflicts that have taken place since 1925. Even during World War II, when so many moral boundaries were transgressed, chemical weapons were not used on European battlefields. The 1925 Geneva Protocol had established a new and clear norm in international law; the handful of well-known and high-profile violations have provoked widespread international condemnation.

Fast forward to 2011, and the International Red Cross makes another historic appeal, this time against nuclear weapons. Their statement to the United Nations emphasized "the incalculable human suffering that can be expected to result from any use of nuclear weapons, the lack of any adequate humanitarian response capacity and the absolute imperative to prevent such use". The radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion would drift invisibly across national borders just as mustard gas drifted across the lines in WWI; victims of both weapons continue to experience the long-lasting negative health effects years after exposure. At high doses, radiation kills cells, damages organs and causes rapid death; at low doses, it damages cells leading to genetic damage and mutations, and causes leukaemia and cancer. Like mustard gas, nuclear weapons are indiscriminate in the harm they inflict: they cannot distinguish between friend or foe, a military target and a hospital, an infant and a building. Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities. Research from Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) shows that the nuclear weapons carried by just one British Trident submarine could kill more than 10 million civilians. With more firepower than all the weapons fired in WW2, this would trigger such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.

In 2010, the International Red Cross adopted the prohibition and complete elimination of nuclear weapons as one of its top priorities. This decision triggered the Humanitarian Initiative, which has succeeded in energizing and fast-tracking international diplomatic efforts at nuclear disarmament. 127 governments attended the 2013 Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Effects of Nuclear Weapons; 146 attended the follow-up conference in Mexico in February 2014, and 158 attended the Vienna Conference in December 2014, which culminated in a historic pledge to work for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. This Humanitarian Pledge has since been passed as a Resolution at the United Nations following a majority vote at the General Assembly last December, a landmark step towards placing nuclear weapons on the same legal and moral footing as other WMDs.

South Africa tabled another important resolution last December, entitled Ethical imperatives for a nuclear-weapon-free world, which declares that "given their indiscriminate nature and potential to annihilate humanity, nuclear weapons are inherently immoral". If the humanitarian impact discussions highlights the unacceptability of any use of nuclear weapons, the ethical imperatives resolution tabled by South Africa crushes any arguments for possessing and relying on nuclear weapons. This resolution was adopted by 124 votes in favour and 35 against (the UK voted against, shamefully) and sets the stage for commencing negotiations of a new treaty by highlighting the responsibility shared by all countries to protect their people from a nuclear detonation and to act urgently to pursue legally binding measures to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.

Britain is currently part of the problem, as one of the few countries in the world clinging to these dangerous Cold War relics. But this can change. We renounced the use of poison gas after WWI by signing the 1925 Geneva Protocol; we should now show moral and political leadership by stopping Trident renewal and joining the majority of the international community to renounce nuclear weapons. The UK was one a few countries which voted against a new UN working group (called 'Taking Forward Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations'), which will meet three times in 2016 to develop "legal measures, legal provisions and norms" for achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world. Campaigners expect the upcoming May session of this UN Working Group to demonstrate further the will of the majority of nations for a treaty banning nuclear weapons - which can and must be achieved even without the support of nuclear armed states such as our own.

The Special Gas Companies of WWI were not allowed to call their new product a weapon - it was referred to as an "accessory"; our nuclear weapons are frequently referred to as a "deterrent". We must see beyond the rhetoric and understand nuclear weapons for what they are - weapons of mass destruction and terror which cause unacceptable suffering - and get rid of them once and for all. In 1918, the International Red Cross voiced the moral outrage against the terror weapon of choice from WWI: poison gas. Once again the voice of sanity and humanity, we must listen when the ICRC says that it is high time to establish a new and clear norm in international law against the terror weapon of choice of the Cold War: nuclear weapons.

Some arguments against deterrence:

The Government's National Security Strategy identifies international terrorism, cyber-attacks and natural hazards as the major threats to UK security. Nuclear weapons are not only useless in addressing any of these threats, they actually vastly increase the risks involved.

Nuclear 'deterrence theory' relies on a range of assumptions about an adversary that are unstable, unprovable and unreliable. And if things go wrong, the consequences will be catastrophic.

The vast majority of states, including some that consider themselves to be in precarious security situations, reject the idea that nuclear weapons make them or anyone else safer.

All countries agree on the need for nuclear disarmament; the 191 members of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty are legally bound to pursue it.

• Highlight the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons cause, and the associated risks.
• Emphasize the government's existing legal and political commitment to disarmament.
• Focus on the need to stigmatize and prohibit nuclear weapons in order to create the conditions for nuclear disarmament.

From 'Too close for comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy' by Chatham House

Nuclear weapons have not been detonated in violent conflict since 1945. The decades since then are commonly perceived - particularly in those countries that possess nuclear weapons - as an era of successful nuclear non-use and a vindication of the framework of nuclear deterrence. In this narrative, the fear of massive retaliation and a shared understanding and set of behaviours are believed to have prevented the use of nuclear weapons. Yet the decades since 1945 have been punctuated by a series of disturbing close calls.

Evidence from many declassified documents, testimonies and interviews suggests that the world has, indeed, been lucky, given the number of instances in which nuclear weapons were nearly used inadvertently as a result of miscalculation or error. A shared belief in nuclear deterrence is not the only plausible explanation for this avoidance of nuclear war. Rather, individual decision-making, often in disobedience of protocol and political guidance, has on several occasions saved the day. Whereas the popularized image of the 'Moscow-Washington hotline' gives the illusion that vital communication in times of crisis is possible, these incidents reveal the reality that those who possess nuclear weapons will continue to be distrustful of one another and remain reliant on data transmitted by systems that are vulnerable to error or misjudgment, particularly when leaders have to respond too quickly to be able to make fully informed decisions.

Historical cases of near nuclear use resulting from misunderstanding demonstrate the importance of the 'human judgment factor' in nuclear decision-making. In addition to cases from the Cold War, recent incidents, such as the 2009 collision of French and UK submarines, along with cases of misconduct in the US Air Force revealed in 2013, suggest cause for concern regarding current laxity in safety and security measures and in command and control.

Incidents similar to those that have happened in the past are likely to happen in the future.

Here are the facts, in a nutshell, about what makes nuclear weapons more dangerous and destructive any other weapon ever made:

1 A single nuclear weapon can destroy a city and kill most of its people. Several nuclear explosions over modern cities would kill tens of millions of people. Casualties from a major nuclear war between the US and Russia would reach hundreds of millions.

2 The extreme destruction caused by nuclear weapons cannot be limited to military targets or to combatants.

3 Nuclear weapons produce ionizing radiation, which kills or sickens those exposed, contaminates the environment, and has long-term health consequences, including cancer and genetic damage.

4 Less than one percent of the nuclear weapons in the world could disrupt the global climate and threaten as many as two billion people with starvation in a nuclear famine. The thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by the US and Russia could bring about a nuclear winter, destroying the essential ecosystems on which all life depends.

5 Physicians and first responders would be unable to work in devastated, radioactively contaminated areas. Even a single nuclear detonation in a modern city would strain existing disaster relief resources to the breaking point; a nuclear war would overwhelm any relief system we could build in advance. Displaced populations from a nuclear war will produce a refugee crisis that is orders of magnitude larger than any we have ever experienced.

6 Whether or not they are detonated, nuclear weapons cause wide- spread harm to health and to the environment.

For more information about ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) see: www.icanw.org/.

Adverts

The Archbishop Romero Trust

We offer publicity space for Catholic groups/organisations. See our advertising page if you would like more information.

We Need Your Support

ICN aims to provide speedy and accurate news coverage of all subjects of interest to Catholics and the wider Christian community. As our audience increases - so do our costs. We need your help to continue this work.

You can support our journalism by advertising with us or donating to ICN.

Mobile Menu Toggle Icon