Consequences of nuclear disarmament proposals
Consequences of nuclear disarmament proposals Adam Mount, Ph.D. LLNL, 4 May, 2014
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Nuclear disarmament proposals The U.S. has periodically issued commitments to disarm, sometimes in response to transnational activism or multilateral initiatives. 1968: NPT 1977: Carter, UN 1986: Reagan, Reykjavik 2009: Obama, Prague 2009: S/RES/1887 2011: Nuclear Posture Review
Less studied is the effects of different types of disarmament proposals.
100 90 80 70
% approval
1945: Truman, November 1946: A/RES/1 1946: Baruch to UNAEC 1961: Kennedy, AU 1961: Kennedy, UN (GCD) 1961: McCloy-Zorin accords 1964: Johnson, State of the Union (GCD)
Approval of nuclear disarmament (U.S.)
60 50 40 30 20 10
1. 2. 3. 4.
Multilateral treaty Nuclear weapons ban Obsolescence Unilateral disarmament
0 Apr-38
Sep-65
Jan-93
Year
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Jun-20
Multilateral disarmament treaty DEFINE: A negotiated treaty containing provisions for verified dismantlement and continued inspections
•
Modest steps could have major benefits for related agreements
•
Exerts pressure on proliferants / pariahs
PROCESS: Voluntary bilateral U.S.-Russia reductions lead to P-5 participation for further reductions. Progress on related agreements (CTBT, FMCT, NPT) build confidence. Once at low numbers, disarmament is verified simultaneously in all nations.
•
Incentivizes interest in verification (UKNI), diplomatic sequencing
•
Multilateral agreements are more popular
•
Some types of stockpile funding could be supportive of disarmament commitments
SOURCES: Perkovich & Lewis (2009) Fetter & Oelirch (2010) Acton (2011), Holloway (2011)
(2007-12) PREPCOM (5/14) UKNI
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Nuclear weapons ban DEFINE: A legal prohibition proposed by a international group with moral authority
•
The U.S. is not part of the HINW initiative, or it might have prevented movement toward a ban
PROCESS: A transnational activist group or multilateral movement gathers sufficient support for its weapons ban to have bearing on international law or public opinion and nuclear countries accede to the statement. The text could directly mandate disarmament or apply it indirectly (through moral criticism of deterrence, for example).
•
Diplomatic/public opinion benefits from participation
•
Movements interested in a ban can be productive on related issues
•
Enthusiasm for a ban could affect the 2015 NPT REVCON or the discussions on a Middle-East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
SOURCES: HINW, Nayarit (2014) ICJ (1996)
–
(and therefore on nonproliferation efforts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others)
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Disarmament through obsolescence DEFINE: Nuclear capability is eliminated when the U.S. can no longer certify its nuclear assets safe and reliable for deployment. PROCESS: Intentionally or unintentionally, stockpile management decisions lead to decreased nuclear capability. A lack of knowledge or resources, brought on by a protracted test-ban or Congressional decisions, render the arsenal too unsafe or unreliable to deploy.
•
Unless made explicit, unlikely to have significant diplomatic benefits for nonproliferation, reciprocity
•
Complex doctrinal questions
•
Could weaken nuclear security efforts
•
New surety funding thought contrary to disarmament commitments
SOURCES: National Research Council (2012)
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Unilateral disarmament DEFINE: The U.S. voluntarily eliminates its nuclear arsenal without reciprocity or inspection requirements
PROCESS: A Presidential decision abandons nuclear deterrence, demobilizes nuclear forces, and begins warhead dismantlement. SOURCES:
•
Never a significant part of the U.S. debate, though some recent stirrings
•
Significant proposals will affect domestic politics more than diplomatic outlook
•
England has shown more interest
•
English disarmament could have major effects on disarmament diplomacy and strategic stability—or none at all
Podvig, BAS (2013) Krauss, NYT (2013) Gaffney, WT (2012-3)
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Conclusions • Disarmament proposals differ in their effects • The United States must involve itself in disarmament debates or risk being backed into a corner – Politics can be path dependent. Proposals can: • support institutional arrangements • direct funding • direct research
• Modest steps may yield substantial benefits 1.
Planning on diplomatic sequencing
2.
Steps on stockpile management, weapons systems for credible commitment
3.
(Implicitly) endorsing treaty could constrain discussion
•
Historically, policy was more proactive
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Nuclear disarmament proposals The U.S. has periodically issued commitments to disarm, sometimes in response to transnational activism or multilateral initiatives. 1968: NPT 1977: Carter, UN 1986: Reagan, Reykjavik 2009: Obama, Prague 2009: S/RES/1887 2011: Nuclear Posture Review
Less studied is the effects of different types of disarmament proposals.
100 90 80 70
% approval
1945: Truman, November 1946: A/RES/1 1946: Baruch to UNAEC 1961: Kennedy, AU 1961: Kennedy, UN (GCD) 1961: McCloy-Zorin accords 1964: Johnson, State of the Union (GCD)
Approval of nuclear disarmament (U.S.)
60 50 40 30 20 10
1. 2. 3. 4.
Multilateral treaty Nuclear weapons ban Obsolescence Unilateral disarmament
0 Apr-38
Sep-65
Jan-93
Year
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Jun-20
Multilateral disarmament treaty DEFINE: A negotiated treaty containing provisions for verified dismantlement and continued inspections
•
Modest steps could have major benefits for related agreements
•
Exerts pressure on proliferants / pariahs
PROCESS: Voluntary bilateral U.S.-Russia reductions lead to P-5 participation for further reductions. Progress on related agreements (CTBT, FMCT, NPT) build confidence. Once at low numbers, disarmament is verified simultaneously in all nations.
•
Incentivizes interest in verification (UKNI), diplomatic sequencing
•
Multilateral agreements are more popular
•
Some types of stockpile funding could be supportive of disarmament commitments
SOURCES: Perkovich & Lewis (2009) Fetter & Oelirch (2010) Acton (2011), Holloway (2011)
(2007-12) PREPCOM (5/14) UKNI
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Nuclear weapons ban DEFINE: A legal prohibition proposed by a international group with moral authority
•
The U.S. is not part of the HINW initiative, or it might have prevented movement toward a ban
PROCESS: A transnational activist group or multilateral movement gathers sufficient support for its weapons ban to have bearing on international law or public opinion and nuclear countries accede to the statement. The text could directly mandate disarmament or apply it indirectly (through moral criticism of deterrence, for example).
•
Diplomatic/public opinion benefits from participation
•
Movements interested in a ban can be productive on related issues
•
Enthusiasm for a ban could affect the 2015 NPT REVCON or the discussions on a Middle-East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
SOURCES: HINW, Nayarit (2014) ICJ (1996)
–
(and therefore on nonproliferation efforts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others)
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Disarmament through obsolescence DEFINE: Nuclear capability is eliminated when the U.S. can no longer certify its nuclear assets safe and reliable for deployment. PROCESS: Intentionally or unintentionally, stockpile management decisions lead to decreased nuclear capability. A lack of knowledge or resources, brought on by a protracted test-ban or Congressional decisions, render the arsenal too unsafe or unreliable to deploy.
•
Unless made explicit, unlikely to have significant diplomatic benefits for nonproliferation, reciprocity
•
Complex doctrinal questions
•
Could weaken nuclear security efforts
•
New surety funding thought contrary to disarmament commitments
SOURCES: National Research Council (2012)
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Unilateral disarmament DEFINE: The U.S. voluntarily eliminates its nuclear arsenal without reciprocity or inspection requirements
PROCESS: A Presidential decision abandons nuclear deterrence, demobilizes nuclear forces, and begins warhead dismantlement. SOURCES:
•
Never a significant part of the U.S. debate, though some recent stirrings
•
Significant proposals will affect domestic politics more than diplomatic outlook
•
England has shown more interest
•
English disarmament could have major effects on disarmament diplomacy and strategic stability—or none at all
Podvig, BAS (2013) Krauss, NYT (2013) Gaffney, WT (2012-3)
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
Conclusions • Disarmament proposals differ in their effects • The United States must involve itself in disarmament debates or risk being backed into a corner – Politics can be path dependent. Proposals can: • support institutional arrangements • direct funding • direct research
• Modest steps may yield substantial benefits 1.
Planning on diplomatic sequencing
2.
Steps on stockpile management, weapons systems for credible commitment
3.
(Implicitly) endorsing treaty could constrain discussion
•
Historically, policy was more proactive
Mount: LLNL 6/4/2014
