Nuclear Weapons: Current State and Issues
―Leading up to the 2015 NPT Review Conference―
|
|
by Kazumi Mizumoto
Vice President, Hiroshima Peace Institute,
Hiroshima City University
|
|
|
Introduction
For various different reasons, the year 2015 will be an important landmark year.
It is the 70th year since the atomic bomb was dropped, and also marks 70 years since the end of World War II and Japan's defeat.
It is also the year that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference is held (the conference is held once every five years).
Before we enter this landmark year, I would like to consider the current state and challenges that the world faces regarding nuclear weapons.
I will be focusing on trends since 2010, which is when the last NPT Review Conference was held.
1. Number of Nuclear Weapons in the World
According to the 2014 issue of SIPRI YEARBOOK, which is published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the number of nuclear weapons in the world current at January 2014 is approximately 16,350, which is 950 fewer than the previous year.
However, the only countries to reduce their weapons were the United States and Russia － other countries maintained the same numbers as the previous year.
In terms of individual countries, Russia owns approximately 8,000 weapons with the US at around 7,300.
These two countries are still far beyond other countries as the top nuclear power group.
These two countries alone account for approximately 94% of the world's nuclear weapons, and therefore hold the greatest responsibility for the global reduction of such weapons.
The next largest number is France with around 300, China with around 250, and the United Kingdom with around 225.
These three countries form the second group, coming after the US and Russia.
|
The five countries above are the only countries whose possession of nuclear weapons is allowed under the NPT, and whom are granted the status of "nuclear-weapon states".
However, there is also group 3, comprising India, Pakistan and Israel, who are not signatories to the NPT but possess nuclear weapons.
These countries own around 100 nuclear weapons each.
Coming after these three groups is North Korea.
Originally a signatory to the NPT, since suspicions were raised about its development of nuclear weapons, North Korea announced in 1993 and 2003 that it would withdraw from the NPT, and amidst international criticism conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013.
North Korea is thought to own 6-8 nuclear weapons.
|
All estimates are approximate.
|
Considering the current state of nuclear weapons ownership throughout the world, one can say that no matter whether the country has large or small numbers of weapons, is a signatory to the NPT or not, all countries that possess nuclear weapons have a serious responsibility to make efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.
The global community must continue to confront such countries with that message.
2. US and Russia's New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
The US and Russia, the two countries with the largest number of nuclear weapons, are faced with a serious responsibility and should make proactive efforts toward nuclear disarmament.
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that came into effect in 2011 is seen as one of the results of US-Russia nuclear disarmament efforts since 2010.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was originally signed by the US and the Soviet Union in July 1991, and came into effect in December 1994, after the Soviet Union had collapsed and become Russia.
At the time in 1994, the US owned 11,000 nuclear warheads and the Soviet Union owned 29,000.
The treaty stipulated that these be reduced to a total of 6,000 nuclear warheads, and that means of delivery such as missiles and bombers be reduced to 1,600.
The treaty also included means of verification through on-site inspections (START I).
This was followed by START II, in which it was stipulated that nuclear warheads be reduced further to 3,000 － 3,500, and in START III to 2,000 － 2,500.
Both the US and Russia made efforts to this end, but in 2001 the Bush administration announced that the US would withdraw from the START process, and as a result STARTⅡ did not come into effect.
In place of this, in May 2002 the US and Russia signed the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT) (Treaty of Moscow).
While it was stipulated in this treaty that nuclear warheads be reduced to 1,700 － 2,200, there was nothing in the treaty about means of verification, and its effectiveness was questioned.
On the other hand, the verification system for START I also expired on December 5, 2009 in accordance with stipulations in the treaty, which means that the Obama administration faced the need to conclude a new strategic arms reduction treaty that included a verification system.
It was under these circumstances that the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was signed in April 2010 and went into effect in February 2011.
The treaty stipulated that within seven years of the treaty coming into effect, deployed nuclear warheads be reduced to 1,550, and that means of deployed delivery vehicles such as missiles and strategic bombers be reduced to 700 (800 including non-deployed delivery vehicles).
However there were a number of concerns raised.
Firstly, while the calculations in the treaty were based on the assumption that one nuclear warhead is deployed on one strategic bomber, in reality multiple warheads could be deployed on each bomber, which means that there was a possibility of more than 2,000 warheads.
Further, the US and Russia could not agree on whether or not to make the missile defense system that the US was developing subject to the regulations in the treaty:
the US said it should be out of scope, while Russia wanted to include it.
In ratifying the treaty, the US Senate adopted a resolution to request that the President negotiates on further nuclear arms reductions within one year, but there has been no progress.
Since the crisis in the Ukraine in 2014 there has been greater hostility between the US and Russia, and the current climate does not look conducive to talks on further reductions of nuclear weapons.
The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND) was initiated with the support of the Japanese and Australian governments.
The report issued by the ICNND in December 2009 recommends that the US and Russia reduce their strategic nuclear arms and all types of nuclear warheads including tactical weapons to less than 1,000.
The US and Russia have a responsibility to respond to this call from the global community.
3. 2010 NPT Review Conference: Results and Challenges
Together with nuclear disarmament negotiations between the US and Russia, the most important thing on the nuclear disarmament negotiations stage is multi-lateral nuclear disarmament negotiations involving large numbers of states - both nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states.
The greatest stage for such negotiations is the NPT Review Conference held once every five years.
(1) What is the NPT?
Following is a brief explanation of the content and nature of the NPT.
The official name is Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: NPT.
It was signed in 1968 and came into effect in 1970, and there are currently 190 signatory countries.
The main non-signatories are India, Pakistan and Israel; all three countries possess nuclear weapons.
The treaty is comprised of three pillars.
The first is nuclear non-proliferation:
the five countries of the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China are seen as nuclear-weapon states, and the treaty stipulates the prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons to states other than these five.
A "nuclear-weapon state" is defined in Section 3 of Article IX as "one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967".
The second pillar of the treaty is nuclear disarmament.
Article VI stipulates that each of the parties to the treaty will pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament in good faith.
The third pillar is the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Section 1 of Article IV stipulates the "inalienable right" of parties to the treaty to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
To prevent the transfer of peaceful use of nuclear energy to military technology, Article III stipulates that non-nuclear-weapon states must undergo inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In the beginning of the 1960s, before the NPT was enacted, United States President Kennedy was concerned that nuclear powers would increase to 20 or 25 in the 1970s.
France and China had conducted nuclear tests in 1960 and 1964 respectively, and for this reason the United States and Soviet Union had been working on the draft NPT, with the main aim of "nuclear-weapon monopoly" by those countries that were already great nuclear powers, the US and the Soviet Union.
The greatest concerns regarding nuclear proliferation were around nations that had already reached the status of industrialized nations － the former West Germany and Japan.
In terms of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, critics also pointed to moves by the US nuclear power industry to exert international control.
Originally, both France and China were critical of the NPT, and both nations did not ratify the treaty until 1992, after the end of the Cold War.
At the same time Japan was also originally cautious about joining the NPT, and did not ratify the treaty until six years after it came into effect, in 1976.
Japan was the 97th signatory to the treaty.
(2) Result of Past Review Conferences
At the 2010 Review Conference the Final Document was adopted unanimously, succeeding the results of the Review Conferences in 1995 and 2000.
Those results are briefly summarized below.
The main decisions made at the 1995 Review Conference were (1) the unlimited extension of the treaty,
(2) the document on the Principles and Objectives of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament (referred to as Principles and Objectives below) and
(3) the adoption of the Middle East Resolution, which aimed for the elimination of nuclear power from the Middle East.
As (1) would lead to the perpetual fixation of privileged status for the nuclear-weapon states, non-nuclear-weapon states who were critical of this accepted
(1) on the condition that (2) and (3) also be accepted.
The Principles and Objectives document included the phrases "Completion of Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations by 1996",
"Prompt conclusion of Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) negotiations", and
"Expansion of the Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone Treaty".
The CTBT was established (not in effect) in 1996.
On the other hand, at the 2000 Review Conference the Final Document was unanimously adopted, and in order to further progress the Principles and Objectives from the 1995 Review Conference, included 13 measures such as the early enactment of the CTBT, the conclusion of the FMCT within five years, and an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
(3) Content of the 2010 Final Document
The final document adopted at the 2010 Review Conference was 40 pages long.
Of this, the Conclusions and Recommendations for Follow-on Actions (pages 19-31) was adopted unanimously, and included a total of 64 recommended actions categorized under "Nuclear Disarmament",
"Nuclear Non-proliferation" and
"Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy", and
"Implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East".
The recommended actions succeeded and further developed the final documents of the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences, and in addition referred for the first time to the importance of a nuclear weapons convention and the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
The section in the Final Document on Implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East recommended that the nations of the Middle East, including Israel, hold a conference (the 2012 Conference) in 2012 on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.
(4) Trends since the 2010 Review Conference
Of the content included in the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference, three items －
(1) the nuclear weapons convention,
(2) the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, and
(3) the 2012 Conference (Middle East Conference) － should be raised here as issues.
① Nuclear Weapons Convention
There have been continued moves to establish a nuclear weapons convention. In 1996 an international lawyers' group proposed the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention, and in the following year it was submitted to the United Nations.
Efforts have been ongoing since then.
Recently, it was proposed as one of the items in the Five-Point Plan on Nuclear Disarmament announced by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2008, and the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference "notes" the proposal by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for a nuclear weapons convention.
The original draft version of the Final Document stated "Nuclear weapons states will commence discussions on means of nuclear disarmament, including a nuclear weapons convention, in 2011, and will convene for a conference in 2014 to discuss the UN Secretary-General's road map for bringing nuclear weapons to zero".
However, this was reduced to a simple "notes" due to opposition from nuclear-weapon states.
Nonetheless, after this Mr. Ban Ki-moon made strong appeals to national governments, lawmakers, and NGOs for his 5 Proposals, which included a nuclear weapons convention, and in August 2010 he was the first UN Secretary-General to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, victims of the atomic bomb, while in office.
According to a report issued in January 2012 by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), an international grass-roots movement, 143 nations around the world agree with the proposal to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention (22 nations are pending, 26 are opposed).
Mayors for Peace, headed by the Mayor of Hiroshima, is also conducting a petition calling for the start of negotiations for such a convention.
② Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons
If aiming for the reduction then abolition of nuclear weapons is one way towards achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, then another way is the prohibition (illegalization) of nuclear weapons.
There is gradual but growing support for a nuclear weapons convention.
Over the past few years, momentum has been growing rapidly for appeals against the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, as a logical argument to encourage the international community to establish a nuclear weapons convention.
Speech by the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross
On November 26, 2011 at the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Conference held in Geneva, a resolution titled Working Towards the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was adopted.
Based on the argument that the use of nuclear weapons has disastrous humanitarian consequences, the resolution called for the prohibition of use and abolition of nuclear weapons.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Cross and Red Crescent Associations in 30 countries agreed to the resolution.
Resolution by International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement Conference
On November 26, 2011 at the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Conference held in Geneva, a resolution titled Working Towards the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was adopted.
Based on the argument that the use of nuclear weapons has disastrous humanitarian consequences, the resolution called for the prohibition of use and abolition of nuclear weapons.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Cross and Red Crescent Associations in 30 countries agreed to the resolution.
16-Nation Declaration
On May 2, 2012, at the NPT Review Conference Preparatory Committee held in Geneva, 16 nations including Switzerland, Norway and Mexico agreed to an appeal by the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Cross and Red Crescent Associations and made a declaration calling for the abolition and illegalization of nuclear weapons, based on their humanitarian impact.
Japan, the nation attacked by a nuclear weapon, did not join the declaration.
It would seem that a nation dependent on protection under the United States' "nuclear umbrella" was not able to call for the illegalization of nuclear weapons.
34-Nation Declaration
On October 22, 2012, at the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, the 16 nations above were joined by another 16 nations, and a total of 34 nations issued an almost identical declaration calling for the abolition and illegalization of nuclear weapons.
Japan did not join the declaration.
Oslo Conference
On March 4-5, 2013, the government of Norway held an international conference in Oslo on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
The conference was attended by representatives of 127 nations, as well as the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and NGOs.
The aim of the conference was to hold technical discussions on the humanitarian and environmental impact of an explosion of a nuclear weapon.
There were over 500 people in attendance, including diplomats, physicians, scientists and members of NGOs.
While India and Pakistan, who have stated that they possess nuclear weapons, did participate, the five nuclear-weapon states and others such as Israel and South Korea did not attend.
Over half the membership of the United Nations participated in the conference.
77-Nation Declaration
On April 24, 2013, at the NPT Review Conference Preparatory Committee held in Geneva, 77 nations issued a joint declaration on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
Compared with the declarations issued by 16 nations and 34 nations the year before, there were new references made to the results of the Oslo Conference.
However, the "illegalization" of nuclear weapons was removed from the text.
This was reported in some media as a move by Switzerland and others to encourage Japan to join the declaration.
While the number of countries joining the declaration more than doubled, the Japanese government still did not participate.
125-Nation Declaration and 17-Nation Declaration
In October of the same year, at the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, a joint declaration was issued by New Zealand with almost the same content as the 77-Nation Declaration.
This time the number of nations participating increased to 125.
It was at this point that Japan joined for the first time.
However, Japan, Australia and other nations under the "nuclear umbrella" － 17 nations in all － issued a joint declaration on the humanitarian impact on nuclear weapons that included text rejecting a nuclear weapons convention.
At this point, the only country to join both declarations was Japan.
Although the content of the declaration recognizes the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, the general public interpreted this as a brake on moves to illegalize nuclear weapons.
Mexico Conference
In March 2014, a conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons was held in Mexico, with representatives from 146 nations, international bodies, NGOs and atomic bomb survivors' representatives in attendance.
155-Nation/Region Declaration and 20-Nation Declaration
At the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly held in October of the same year, a joint declaration almost identical to that issued by New Zealand the previous year was issued, and the number of participants in the declaration increased to 155 nations and regions, including Japan.
At the same time, Japan, Australia and others also issued a declaration that included the same content as that issued the previous year, and 20 nations joined.
Although this declaration did not include opposition to a nuclear weapons convention, it raised doubts about the intended direction of Japan's nuclear disarmament diplomatic policy, as Japan joined these two declarations with opposing aims.
③ 2012 Conference (Middle East Conference)
One of the issues since the 1995 NPT Review Conference was the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.
The Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference included a recommendation that the conference to discuss this (2012 Conference) should be held during 2012.
The Vice Foreign Minister of Finland, as facilitator, proceeded with preparations to hold the conference in December 2012, but in November the news agencies suddenly reported that the 2012 Conference would be postponed, leaving those involved disappointed.
Originally there had been concerns about whether or not Iran, which was continuing with nuclear development, and Israel, a de facto nuclear weapon state and not a signatory to the NPT, would participate in the conference.
There were also concerns raised about other unstable elements such as the civil war in Syria.
The conveners of the conference were the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United Nations Secretary-General.
However, after the decision was made to postpone the conference, the reasons given by the United States Department of State spokesperson were
"disagreement among participating nations regarding the agenda and conference method" and
"the unstable situation in the Middle East".
On the other hand, Russia and the UK called for the conference to be held in 2013, and the UN Secretary-General also encouraged participants to hold the meeting as early as possible in 2013, but since then there has been no progress.
Since the 1995 Review Conference, there has been great dissatisfaction among Arab nations in the Middle East who are calling for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.
On April 29, in the middle of the NPT Review Conference Preparatory Committee held in April-May 2013, the representative of Egypt issued a declaration where he strongly protested the postponement of the 2012 Conference, boycotted the rest of the meeting and left.
4. US Obama Administration's Nuclear Policy
April 2009, President Obama's speech in Prague in the first year of his term, where he called for "a world without nuclear weapons", caused great excitement and is still fresh in our memories.
However, since the overwhelming defeat of the ruling Democratic Party in the midterm elections in 2010, President Obama has been forced into a difficult position in Congress matters, and apart from New START, he is thought to have produced few results.
It was under such circumstances that President Obama made a speech in Berlin in June 2013 where he called for the reduction of US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads by one third.
New START stipulates that nuclear warheads will be reduced to 1,550, but President Obama's recommendation would mean reducing to around 1,000.
While this is progress toward nuclear disarmament, the public is likely to demand further reductions.
Non-explosive Nuclear Tests
Since 1992, after the end of the Cold War, the US has not manufactured any new nuclear weapons, and has continued to place a moratorium on explosive nuclear tests.
For this reason, the Department of Energy launched the Stockpile Stewardship Program with the aim of maintaining the performance of aging stockpiled nuclear weapons, and in 2000, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was established.
Non-explosive nuclear tests have been conducted at the five research bodies under the NNSA umbrella, and a report of the tests is published on the NNSA website once every quarter.
According to the reports, the tests are broadly divided into integrated, non-nuclear weapons experiments, focused experiments, and subcritical experiments, and are further divided into 13 detailed categories to conduct the tests.
According to the quarterly report issued in October 2013, the total number of tests conducted in the 2013 fiscal year was as many as 3,671.
There was one subcritical experiment using plutonium, and 15 other tests using plutonium.
Of these, the 27th test in total, conducted on December 5, 2012, was named Pollux and conducted
at an underground testing facility in Nevada. The NNSA website records
that "challenging subcritical experiments maintain our capabilities
to ensure that we can support a safe, secure and effective stockpile without
having to conduct underground testing", and "Pollux employed
a superb new diagnostic that recently won an R&D 100 award". A
video of 31 seconds of a subcritical experiment was uploaded to and may
be viewed on YouTube (NNSA website: http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/^npressreleases/pollux120612).
At Sandia National Laboratories, an experimental nuclear fusion device known as the Z machine was used for the first time in November 2010 to conduct an experiment exposing plutonium to powerful x-rays, and creating ultra-high temperature and ultra-high pressure conditions close to a nuclear explosion to test the state of the plutonium.
In the 2013 fiscal year this was conducted a total of 139 times.
Three of these used plutonium.
The amount used, according to the media, was "less than 8g each time".
Each time the US conducts subcritical experiments or Z machine tests using plutonium, Hiroshima and Nagasaki cities send letters of protest to the President and the US Ambassador to Japan.
|
|
Z machine (from the NNSA website)
|
In conclusion
This has been a review of the current state and issues surrounding nuclear weapons.
In the year of 2015, efforts will be required to more directly link the atomic bomb experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with global moves to abolish or illegalize nuclear weapons.
|
|
Profile
[Kazumi Mizumoto]
Vice President, Professor at Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University.
Born in Hiroshima, 1957.
Graduated from Faculty of Law, University of Tokyo, in March 1981.
Earned M.A.L.D. at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University in 1989 while working as a journalist for Asahi Shimbun from April 1981 to March 1997.
Associate professor at Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University from April 1998, and professor from April 2010.
Assumed current position in October 2010.
|
|
|
|
