Nuclear warfare isn’t as popular as it used to be. There was a time when it was on everybody’s lips, from the cheery family man stocking up a bomb shelter to fresh-faced children learning to crouch under desks.

Ahh for the days of smoking and potential nuclear warfare

That old-fashioned pine was the best defence against hydrogen bombs was a bone of contention between engineers and education departments for years.

The Cold War was a time when the world was an uncomplicated place. Red was bad.  Smoking was good.

It must be a nightmare working in a modern Defence Department, filled with the institutional nostalgia for days when security was a much simpler challenge. It was a time of first-strikes and second-strikes, of mutually-assured destruction, of balances of terror and proxy wars in banana republics.

Ah, for the heady age of realism - where a man could quote Morgenthau and Waltz and not feel (rightly) like a douchebag.

Nowadays, with the Soviet Union terrorising the same universe as Elvis and Tupac, the threat of nuclear annihilation plays second-fiddle to security challenges like terrorism, climate change, and financial liquidation.

It is easy to forget, however, that the world still teeters remarkably close to complete destruction.

There are, according to the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), still between 23,000 and 25,000 nuclear warheads spread across the arsenals of nine states. The Commission includes North Korea in this survey and estimates the capabilities of notoriously-coy Israel. Unsurprisingly the two largest stockpilers - with nearly 95% of all weapons - are Russia and the United States.

Of their formidable arsenals, Russia and the US maintain 2,800 and 2,200 respective warheads ready to be deployed at a few minutes notice. This is in 2010.

For reference, the last Soviet President locked up the liquor cabinet in the Kremlin on December 25, 1991 - a lazy 19 years ago. So here we are nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War and both states continue to hold guns at each other’s heads.

Last week Barack Obama and his counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed a new nuclear arms reduction treaty between the US and Russia. This treaty will lock in a 30% reduction in the number of warheads as well as limits on delivery vehicles (including reductions in bombers and other strategic systems). It is the successor to the START agreement, creatively titled “New START”, and revives a disarmament process that, like much else touched by Obama’s predecessor, was in desperate need of repair.

Make no mistake: this is an important agreement. The cynical can, and will, argue that it’s a largely academic scenario mapping the damage of 1,550 warheads (the new ceiling) as opposed to 2,800, yet it is undeniably a step in the right direction. This treaty helps promote the norms of transparency and cooperation between former enemies, laying foundations for the abolition of even larger numbers of warheads in the future.

Obama last year delivered a celebrated address in Prague where he called for a complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Tellingly he also had this to say: “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.” This cuts to the heart of the disarmament debate.

While nations like Australia and Japan can, through organisations like the ICNND, stimulate discussion and apply degrees of pressure on the nuclear states, it is the US and Russia who have the clout in any movement towards a nuclear-free world.

The bombers and missiles cannot disappear overnight but there are intermediate steps that can be taken that will immediately lengthen the odds of nuclear destruction. To this end the Obama Administration should join with India and China in declaring a no-first-use policy for the American nuclear arsenal. This would be a remarkable gesture of good faith from the US and could compel other nuclear states to do the same.

There must be recognition, too, of the dimensions of today’s security environment. The threat to peace today is found mainly at the sub-state level, involving actors like terrorist organisations. There is no need to maintain ICBMs and strategic bombers on hair-trigger alert to turn the cities of a non-existent state-based enemy into glass. Remember, the Soviets don’t exist anymore and, despite the best intentions of Tom Clancy, the Chinese have not replaced them as an existential threat. It would be nice if defence planners likewise stopped taking advice from writers of military porn.

While the headlines are justifiably full of stories on health, education, and the state of the global economy, it can be easy to forget the powder-keg we are all sitting on. For homework, google “Perimetr” and discover why Dr Strangelove isn’t just a work of clever satire. The studious should also read about Stanislav Petrov and see how close the world came to auditioning as a second sun.

President Obama deserves credit for the renewed emphasis he has brought to nuclear disarmament. He acknowledged in his Prague speech the sheer amount of ground to be covered before a world free of nuclear terror can become a reality. The New START treaty is an integral step towards this goal.

Nuclear war should become, like the Cold War itself, a peculiarity of history rather than an ever-present threat. Life in the 21st Century is stressful enough without the knowledge it could be extinguished at any moment.

15 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:43am | 01/04/10

      With the US in decline as an ally, Australia should seriously consider developing its own nuclear arsenal. If Iran and North Korea can do it, why can’t we?

    • McDil says:

      08:09am | 01/04/10

      We did, back in the 60s, until we were told in no uncertain terms by the US that to develop our own weapons would have catastrophic consequences for the alliance. But that’s all by-the-by.

      We “can’t” because it would violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty and turn Australia into an international pariah. I’m sure you can - or, rather - should - be able to appreciate how the dubious benefit of a nuclear deterrent would be outweighed by the extreme diplomatic fall-out (pardon the pun) .

    • Dan says:

      02:16am | 02/04/10

      Why on earth would we develop a nuclear arsenal? We have no enemies.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      07:30am | 01/04/10

      Good Old Eric,

      That’s right son, let’s be like North Korea and Iran.

      *rolls eyes*

    • Eric says:

      08:06am | 01/04/10

      And China, and India, and the US, and Britain, and Israel, and France ....

    • John A Neve says:

      08:20am | 01/04/10

      Eric,
      What makes you think America is in “decline as an ally”?
      The good old US of A would never desert it’s favourite lap dog would it?

    • Eric says:

      08:37am | 01/04/10

      (1) The treatment of traditional American allies like the UK and Israel by the Obama administration shows that the US is not as reliable as previously believed.

      (2) The massive government debt and economy-destroying policies of current and previous US governments may lead to bankruptcy, making the US far less capable of projecting force.

      These changes together make it more important for Australia to build up its own defences than previously.

    • Mr Subramanian says:

      01:37pm | 01/04/10

      This is to what, prevent Indonesia from invading us?

      I suppose after a while we could boost our economy by selling old ones to Taliban militants or something. I wonder what it would do for our carbon emissions?

    • AdamC says:

      08:16am | 01/04/10

      Actually, Australia did seriously consider developing nuclear weapons in the mid-twentieth century. My main concern about a home-grown programme would be its usefulness as against cost (financial, strategic and diplomatic). It wouldn’t add up.

      This deal between Washington and Moscow has received limited press for a reason. A nuclear exchange between US and Russia is exceedingly unlikely, so why make a fuss about reduced warheads. A much bigger achievement would be to get the subcontinent to denuclearise. A Russo-American agreement will do nothing to bring that about.

      And I reject the 1970s luvvie attitude that anything nuclear is necessarily bad. Nuclear weapons have changed the strategic calculus of great powers for the better.

    • monkeytypist says:

      09:58am | 01/04/10

      Whether they have or they haven’t is essentially a counter-factual.  We didn’t end up with a nuclear war; but maybe we were extraordinarily lucky. In any case, the stabilising bipolar system of the Cold War has disappeared.  *If* (it’s a pretty big, untestable if) nuclear weapons can prevent war, it’s only in a strictly bipolar international system.  If one state is overwhelmingly predominant in conventional terms, it gives lesser states an enormous incentive to contemplate nuclear first use.  The more states that build nukes, the more faith we have to have in the increasing number of fingers hovering over the increasing number of buttons.  And as long as one state still has nukes it never will occur to others to disarm completely.  Internationally supervised disarmament is the only practical way out of the impasse.

    • Alan says:

      09:03am | 01/04/10

      Red is still bad and thank goodness there is still—though barely—freedom to smoke.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:45am | 01/04/10

      China has got a lock on the new type of warfare and it’s called “Unrestricted Warfare”. (Asymmetrical warfare to you westerners) Besides bioweapons are a much cheaper form of strategic weapons.

    • James1 says:

      02:50pm | 01/04/10

      I still quote Kenneth Waltz, but more often I quote John Mearsheimer.  Realism is as relevant now as it ever was.

      And Shane, where did you get that information from?  I am intrigued, as I thought they were pushing for what is being called “informatisation” of their existing force structure.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:53pm | 01/04/10

      Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts. Publishing House, February 1999)

      China embraces the total spectrum of warfare. If you can’t compete with the U.S in terms of military force, you find other ways to wage warfare….

    • Timmo says:

      08:55am | 05/04/10

      What about this Idealistic thought. Why don’t we make a ban on warfare for the first time in history. Close down the factories that make these weapons of mass destruction.?. Makes sense to me!. What a stupid world we live in. No common sense at all. Well if the Nations with Nuclear Weapons want to keep poking at each othere well one day they will get what they want. To my thinking, while nuclear weapons are still there there may come a time when some stupid idiot will instigate a nuclear war. Wow, that’ll be great, won’t it!?. A question that could be put is, ” Will mankind ever be able to live in peace even in our lifetimes”?. A new page needs to be written on all this. There has to be a new way of thinking regarding all this and of course peace and happiness is the only way, but i don’t think we will ever see that. Bit of a shame really. We live on a beautiful planet and all we want to do is blow it up. Well if we keep going the way we are at the moment we may well succeed. Just remember to duck.!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter