America’s 28-year Moratorium on Setting off Nukes Is Looking Shakier than Ever
The Economist
(June 24, 2020) — The cars drove an hour out of Las Vegas and lined up along the edge of the Yucca Flat on April 22nd 1952. They pointed towards the desert, as if it were a drive-in cinema. Newsmen, among them Walter Cronkite, had gathered for a killer performance: the first televised nuclear test, ten miles away at the Nevada Test Site.
“This is the greatest show on Earth,” an army captain assured soldiers in trenches, there to practice storming across an irradiated battlefield, ahead of a similar test the next year. “You won’t be hurt. Relax and enjoy it.”
Over four decades, America’s government conducted 928 nuclear tests in Nevada. The mushroom clouds could be seen from Las Vegas, where the chamber of commerce cannily issued tourist calendars with dates, times and plum viewing spots.
On September 23rd 1992, the ground shook for the last time. President George H.W. Bush, following the Soviet Union’s example the previous year, joined a moratorium on nuclear-weapons testing that has been extended by every president since. Yet some fear that America’s 28-year nuclear lull may be drawing to a close.. . . [Read the full report online — EAW]
A Nuclear Test Would Blow Up in Trump’s Face
The Trump administration doesn’t understand the brinkmanship concept its nuclear diplomacy is based on
Sarah Bidgood / Foreign Policy
(June 11, 2020) — The last 42 months have offered a sobering window into the Trump administration’s philosophy on nuclear arms control. On display is its penchant for withdrawing from agreements rather than engaging in dispute resolution — be they the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or, most recently, the Open Skies Treaty.
While many experts see this approach as ill-conceived and damaging to US national security interests, the administration often frames it as a form of brinkmanship designed to signal resolve in an era of strategic competition. The intended message appears to be that the United States will no longer play ball unless its rivals — Russia and China — agree to abide by Washington’s rules.
The latest example of this tendency comes amid reports that the administration might conduct a “rapid” nuclear test to strengthen its hand in negotiations with China and Russia. Experts around the world have denounced this proposal as dangerous, foolhardy, and “catastrophically stupid.”
As they point out, were the United States to test for the first time in nearly three decades, it would open the door for the resumption of widespread explosive testing. At the same time, it would undermine the nuclear taboo, hurt the credibility of the nonproliferation regime, and diminish support for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
While all true, these arguments are unlikely to sway this administration, which has shown little regard for existing norms or the disarmament machinery writ large.
What might give decision-makers pause, though, is the fact that a nuclear test is unlikely to be an effective signal in the current context. It would not help deliver President Donald Trump’s goal of a trilateral arms control agreement, but it would provide ample opportunity for misinterpretation and a response in kind. In the process, it would likely put Washington in a worse negotiating position than when it started, making it not only risky but also pointless to boot.
There are a number of reasons why this is the case, the first being that effective nuclear signals communicate a credible intent to escalate if the demands of the signaler are not met. If a US rapid test is a signal intended to drive Russia and China to the negotiating table, it cannot then also be the consequence if they do not acquiesce.
Conversely, if the prospect of a US test is the signal and the test itself is the threat, then there is little reason to think officials in Moscow or Beijing will be especially compelled. Testing on US soil would put the health and safety of American citizens in jeopardy, but it would not convey new information about US capabilities that could change Russian or Chinese views on arms control.
Second, proponents of a rapid nuclear test may hope to signal that Trump is reckless in order to convince Beijing and Moscow to take his demands seriously. But more than three years into Trump’s presidency, his unpredictability is hardly news, and a nuclear test is more likely to paint him as a pariah than someone who defies convention.
In the nearly three decades since the United States last tested a nuclear weapon, a robust international norm has developed against explosive testing, despite the CTBT not being in force. The only country that has tested in the 21st century is North Korea — and it has drawn widespread condemnation from the international community and the United States for doing so. If the administration wants to entice China to negotiate by promising it a seat at the “big kids table,” it should be wary of sending signals that diminish the cache of this proposition.
Third, US doctrine already lays out in clear terms the circumstances under which it would resume explosive testing. While the United States has carried out more nuclear tests than any other country in the world, it hasn’t conducted any since 1992 and now uses subcritical test and computer models instead.
The 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review states unequivocally that the “United States will not resume nuclear explosive testing unless necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the US nuclear arsenal.” By conducting a test now, what message would this send about the state of America’s nuclear deterrent?
Proponents of a US nuclear test might feel confident that they could clarify the purpose of a test and eliminate possibilities for misinterpretation. Research and history show, however, that even the clearest nuclear signals can be read in unintended ways depending on the target’s priorities, cost-benefit analyses, and perceived threats.
What is more, it is naive to think that Russia or China would accept at face value any US rationale for a test when relations are rife with mutual suspicion, acrimony, and mistrust. Instead, Moscow and Beijing will draw their own conclusions about what a US test is meant to signal and respond accordingly — a recipe for the end of arms control, not a new beginning.
Despite these risks, there will still be those in Washington who believe that conducting a nuclear test is worth putting US national security — and the administration’s arms control objectives — on the line. That is because, for them, a test is not a signal designed to exert leverage on US adversaries but rather a desirable outcome in and of itself.
There are some in Washington who have long pushed for the United States to resume explosive testing and are happy to support arguments that could justify it. While these efforts have been ongoing for decades, they are more likely to gain support now amid renewed, but unsubstantiated, allegations that Russia and China are testing, too.
The trouble is that test proponents do not just exist in Washington. They have analogues in Moscow and Beijing who would relish an excuse to conduct explosive tests, too. In the last week alone, one Russian analyst has already stated that a US nuclear test would enable Russia to withdraw from the CTBT by claiming that its national interests were under threat.
By testing, the Trump administration would give a free pass to those in Moscow and Beijing who are pushing to do the same while enabling them to retain the moral upper hand.
In short, if decision-makers in Washington do choose to test, this attempt at brinkmanship will certainly fail to convince Russia or China to sit down at the arms control negotiating table. Instead, it will make it all the more likely that the very outcomes trilateral arms control seems to be intended to prevent come to bear — and soon.
The good news, then, is that there is plenty of time to walk this ill-conceived and ineffective plan back from the brink. In this instance, restraint — such as it is — may be the most effective nuclear signal this administration could possibly send.
URGENT: Stop Trump from Testing Nuclear Weapons
Global Zero / The Petition Site
According to breaking reports, the Trump administration may end the moratorium on nuclear weapons tests and begin exploding nuclear bombs — for the first time in decades.
This is a dangerous, reckless action. If the US resumes nuclear testing, we can be certain that other nuclear-armed nations like Russia, China, India, and Pakistan will follow in their footsteps. With multiple authoritarian leaders competing for advantage, dangerous new weapons systems ready for development, and risks of nuclear conflict (intentional or otherwise) at an all-time high, it would be an explosive start to a global nuclear arms race. The darkest days of the Cold War will look quaint by comparison.
The good news is Trump can’t resume nuclear testing on his own.
Testing these weapons takes money, and the US Congress would need to authorize this spending. They can starve the administration of the funds they need or prohibit nuclear testing altogether.
ACTION: TELL CONGRESS: NO NUCLEAR TESTING. NOT HERE, NOT ANYWHERE.
Why no new nuclear tests? Here are five reasons that resuming nuclear testing is dangerous and wrong:
- The widespread nuclear tests of the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s — underground, underwater, and in the atmosphere — took a staggering humanitarian and environmental toll all over the world. Minorities, Indigenous communities, military personnel, and vulnerable workers suffered especially at the hands of leaders all too eager to flex their genocidal capabilities. To this day, hundreds of thousands of these victims and their families continue to suffer this legacy of disfiguration, disease, and death. We can’t let history repeat itself.
(2) The environmental and humanitarian consequences of nuclear testing are why the international community committed to a near-universal moratorium on testing. The world has shown that it is DONE with nuclear tests — 184 countries have signed an international treaty banning these tests. Over the last several decades, only North Korea has defied this global consensus and continued explosive tests (and recently even Kim Jong Un has stopped).
(3) Over the last 60 years, the world has made steady progress to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and lower the risks they’ll be used. New nuclear testing and a global arms race will unravel all of this work and put hundreds of millions of people in harm’s way. This week alone, the Trump administration has abandoned the Open Skies Treaty, which has helped avoid the kind of mistakes and misunderstandings that risk nuclear conflict between the US and Russia, and signaled a plot to trash New START — the only agreement left that’s keeping both countries from pursuing massive nuclear build-ups.
(4) The US and the world are currently experiencing an unprecedented global crisis with COVID-19 which has shown us that our national priorities are seriously misplaced. Investing in massive nuclear arsenals has left us vulnerable to real public health and national security challenges like pandemics and climate change. We should be testing for COVID-19, not nuclear devastation.
(5) Nuclear testing inflicts direct and lasting harm on people and communities. It poisons the food we eat, the water we drink, even the air that we breathe. Not just for Americans, but for everyone, everywhere. The effects of nuclear testing are far-reaching and long-lasting. US nuclear would put the entire world at risk.
This is absolutely the wrong move at any time, but particularly in the middle of a deadly pandemic that’s ravaging vulnerable populations, killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying millions of workers’ livelihoods, and tanking the global economy. Now is the time for society to act together — civil society groups, faith leaders, policymakers, and everyday people.
Background: Trump administration discussed conducting first US nuclear test in decades,” Washington Post, May 22, 2020.
Demand Congress Deny Funds for Nuclear Testing
According to breaking reports, the Trump administration may end the moratorium on nuclear weapons tests and begin exploding nuclear bombs — for the first time in decades.
This would be a dangerous, reckless action. If the US resumes nuclear testing, for any reason, we can be certain that other nuclear-armed nations like Russia, China, India, and Pakistan will follow in these footsteps. With multiple nuclear-armed governments competing for advantage, dangerous new weapons systems ready for development, and risks of nuclear conflict (intentional or otherwise) at an all-time high, it would trigger a global nuclear arms race. The darkest days of the Cold War would look quaint by comparison.
The good news is Trump can’t resume nuclear testing on his own. Testing these weapons takes money, and the US Congress would need to authorize this spending. They can starve the administration of the funds they need. But Congress needs to take action by passing legislation to prohibit funding for nuclear testing. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has introduced the Preserving Leadership Against Nuclear Explosives Testing (PLANET) Act which would prohibit the use of funds for an explosive nuclear weapons test.
Sign the Petition: Demand Congress prohibit funds for nuclear testing!
Participating Organizations:
Beyond the Bomb
Global Zero
Coalition for Peace Action
Daily Kos
Friends of the Earth Action
LeftNet
Women’s Action for New Directions
Win Without War
Supporting Organizations:
Arms Control Association
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes
