 |
Show Transcript Innovation In Arms Control: De-Alerting
Produced December 26, 1999
|
|
Main Show Page
Related ADM Videos:
Can We Learn to Live Without Nuclear Weapons? CDI Resources:
Ask the Expert: Interview Transcripts:
| NARRATOR: In 1945, the United States demonstrated the unprecedented destructive power of nuclear weapons by destroying the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with two small atomic bombs. A few years later, the Soviet Union began developing its own nuclear arsenal. The nuclear arms race was on, but so too were international efforts to avoid a possible world-ending catastrophe by negotiating arms control treaties. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union built over 70,000 nuclear weapons. This absurd capacity to "overkill" was offset by a slow but steady effort to negotiate arms control agreements. Despite all their complexity, international treaties designed to control nuclear weapons have tried to achieve four basic goals: One: Prohibit new members from joining the club of nuclear nations. This is the goal of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, ratified in 1970 and extended for five years in 1995, by 185 nations. Two: Create a nuclear stalemate between the U.S. and Russia, by ensuring that each side could absolutely destroy the other in a nuclear exchange. This doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction inspired the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972, which prohibits the use of defensive systems that might give an advantage to one side in a nuclear war. Three: Stop the nuclear arms race by prohibiting nuclear test explosions that are necessary to upgrade nuclear weapons. This treaty is the elusive Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, signed by President Clinton in 1995, but rejected by a majority of the Senate in the Fall of 1999. And four: Negotiate reductions in the size of the U.S. and Russian arsenals. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, or START I and START II. Today, the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- or NPT -- is in force, but it is up for renewal in 2000 by the United Nations, whose members are increasingly skeptical of America's commitment to the treaty in light of our recent failure to outlaw nuclear testing. The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty between the United States and Russia has been in effect since 1972, but is threatened by the U.S. unilateral decision to deploy a Ballistic Missile Defense System. Consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, after forty years of determined arms control effort, will be postponed until at least the next president takes office in 2001. Finally, the START II treaty that would reduce each country's nuclear arsenal to 3500 warheads has been ratified by the U.S., but is stalled in the Russian parliament, or Duma, held hostage to other arms control matters such as America's plans to deploy a Ballistic Missile Defense, that are pending between the two former Cold War adversaries. Ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, while most Americans go about their daily lives oblivious to the very real danger of a nuclear warhead exploding on American soil, all four lynch-pin arms control agreements of the modern era are in danger. The NPT and the ABM treaties may be abrogated, and the Test Ban and START II treaties are in danger of never being ratified. A group of prominent scientists, military leaders, public officials, and activists recently held a press conference in Washington. Their purpose: to present an alternative to America's moribund arms control efforts, one that will immediately pull us back from the brink of nuclear disaster. BEATRICE BRAILSFORD:(Snake River Alliance) You'll be hearing from many of the people this morning who helped teach the Snake River Alliance about the perils of nuclear weapons still on hair trigger alert. The first person you'll be hearing from has also taught people all over the world an enormous amount about the integrity of public service. I'd like to introduce Senator Dale Bumpers. SEN. DALE BUMPERS: Beatrice, thank you very much for starting off what I think is a really significant moment for the country. Sometimes in my more reflective moments, and they're more reflective now than the 24 years I was in the Senate as I look back... and in the middle of the night, when you have those terrible night thoughts, you wonder 'why is it that the whole planet is living on the brink? Why is it that any second of any minute of any hour of any day, the planet can literally be destroyed?' And yet the people of the world, and especially in the United States, are very cavalier about the whole proposition. BRUCE BLAIR: Good morning. My name is Bruce Blair. I'm a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. And I come to this issue after two decades of study of U.S. and Soviet, now Russian, nuclear arsenals and command systems. We don't think that it is in the least bit outlandish to expect our governments to holster these arsenals given that tens or hundreds of millions of people stand to be killed if they go off, for whatever reason. And we think that a new code of conduct should be imposed on nuclear weapons world wide. And it's a simple code: don't keep nuclear weapons on a hair trigger. I think we're going to try to more graphically capture some of these themes in a video next. (Back from the Brink video begins) NARRATOR: In 1995, when most Americans thought the nuclear nightmare was over, we came close to a nuclear exchange with Russia. And it all happened entirely by accident. Russia's early warning system mistook a US/Norwegian research rocket for a missile attack from one of America's nuclear submarines off the coast of Norway. Russians, for reasons unknown, had never received Norway's notification of the launch. As the four-stage rocket made it's ascent, it looked on Russian radar as if it were turning towards Russia. As the upper stages of the rocket broke apart, the Russian radar operators concluded that the several blips were the multiple warheads of an incoming ballistic missile. President Boris Yeltsin was informed that a nuclear missile was speeding towards the heart of Russia. Russian nuclear forces, already on a hair-trigger alert, were put on even higher alert, ready to launch at his command. The fate of the planet hung in the balance as hundreds of millions of people were going about their daily lives. Russian policy called for a "launch on warning." "Use them or loose them." Yeltsin wisely waited. And within those fateful moments, the Russians were able to declare a false alarm. An unimaginable nuclear disaster had barely been avoided. This illustrates the grave danger that confronts humanity today: launch of a nuclear missile by accident or miscalculation. According to experts, it is a danger that has increased since 1995 with the further disintegration of the Russian government. Amy Lesser, On-line Director for the Center for Environmental Citizenship, works with young people to teach them about environmental issues. LESSER: When I heard about the accident, or almost accident in 1995, I was terrified. I had no idea that situations like this existed. It wasn't exactly surprising, since I'm fairly aware of the disintegration of the Russian infrastructure and government...and I have been generally worried about whose hands our nuclear, the Russian nuclear weapons fall into. But I had no idea that it had actually escalated to the point where we almost had a nuclear disaster in this country. NARRATOR: Admiral Stansfield Turner, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency: TURNER: The danger is, first of all, mistakes, miscalculation, that they misinterpret something that's going on somewhere and they deliberately launch a nuclear weapon or several. The second is they lose control of themselves, the whole system breaks down. I mean Russia is disintegrating. It's entirely possible that these weapons will now be under control of the provincial governors, not the central government. And now we're in a different world. I mean these people are not probably sophisticated and who knows what they will do? A third problem is accidents. When you have weapons of this magnitude that are deteriorating, they can deteriorate to the point where they launch accidentally or something. NARRATOR: Because of the overall decline of Russian conventional military forces, Russia's war planners now rely more heavily on their nuclear arsenal to deter aggression. But that arsenal and especially its warning systems, are in a sorry state. Russia's feeling of military inferiority - heightened by the expansion of NATO and the war against Yugoslavia, Russia's ally - has caused them to set their nuclear deterrent on a very short fuse. Today, nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia is more likely to occur by accident or miscalculation than by a deliberate decision. The danger is not unique to Russia: In November 1979, duty officers at four separate U.S. command centers reported seeing a full-scale missile attack against the United States. TURNER: President Carter's national security advisor was awakened one night at 3 o'clock in the morning and told there were several thousand missiles coming at us across the Pacific Ocean. It turned out it was a total mistake. NARRATOR: The false alarm was the result of a training tape being run as a demonstration for a United States senator and being mistaken for an actual missile attack. Dr. Bruce Blair, is a former missile control officer in the Air Force, and a leading authority on the dangers of accidental nuclear war. BLAIR: Russia and the United States still operate their missile forces as though the Cold War never ended, and as though we may have to fire at them at any moment, en masse. LESSER: I see no reason now that the Cold War is over that we should continue to have our nuclear weapons on alert status. There should be some benefit to ending the Cold War, and that benefit should be increased safety for everyone. NARRATOR: Despite the dangerous decline of Russia's early warning system, the United States persists in a "first use" doctrine dating back to the attack on Hiroshima in World War II. Our stated willingness to use nuclear weapons first, rather than exclusively for retaliation, increases the danger of an accidental missile launch. In this time of heightened tensions between the two nuclear powers, traditional efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals on both sides are no longer sufficient to prevent an inadvertent nuclear launch. BLAIR: The current path of nuclear arms control doesn't address the problem of a failure of control over nuclear weapons. It only addresses the size of the arsenal. So the idea is to extend the time it takes to launch nuclear forces, particularly missiles, from the current period of a few minutes, to a period of hours, days, weeks, months, eventually even years. NARRATOR: De-alerting would immediately address the danger posed by Russia's increasingly unstable nuclear weapons complex, as well as the United States' "launch on warning" strategy. Making sure that neither the U.S. nor Russia would try to gain military advantage by cheating on a de-alerting program is an important issue that Dr. Blair believes can be easily worked out. BLAIR: Some of the verification means are very simple: looking down from space by satellite, counting the number of submarines in port. Others are more technically sophisticated," said Blair. NARRATOR: Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, is an expert on arms control and related technical issues. He believes de-alerting is a workable solution to the danger of an accidental launch. MAKHIJANI: The only thing today that can physically devastate the United States is the Russian nuclear arsenal. It is very huge, and it can destroy this country. At the same time, the Russians aren't going to take the leadership, because they don't have conventional military capability. NARRATOR: For Russia to de-alert its weapons, the United States - because of its overwhelming military superiority - should lead by example. MAKHIJANI: In order to protect itself and be secure, the United States must take leadership and de-alert its weapons, in order to convince Russia that it's serious, and that it won't destroy Russia with nuclear weapons, and that Russia must de-alert its nuclear weapons. NARRATOR: General Vladimir Dvorkin, a top advisor to the Russian Defense Minister, outlined a three step approach to take all nuclear weapons off of alert during a videotaped discussion with Bruce Blair. DVORKIN: To begin with, there should be a treaty between the presidents of Russia and the United States. We should start multilateral discussions about reducing the readiness of nuclear weapons from all countries, after which, use technical measures to bring down the readiness levels, which would be based on strict controls and would be entirely transparent. NARRATOR: A unilateral move by the United States to de-alert nuclear weapons has a precedent. In 1991, when the Soviet Union was starting to fall apart and the threat of a black market in nuclear arms emerged, President Bush withdrew all of the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from deployment and de-alerted many of our large strategic missiles. About a week later President Gorbachev directed the Soviet Union to do the same. MAKHIJANI: Very, very grave nuclear dangers were avoided. I don't think anybody made any mistake that President Bush was soft on defense, or that he was lowering the guard of the United States. He did the most important gesture for assuring U.S. security, by acting to prevent mis- calculations, black markets in nuclear weapons, and so on. Today, it's very, very important that President Clinton do the same thing, by acting to de-alert U.S. nuclear weapons, to give President Yeltsin the political room to de-alert his. NARRATOR: The world was made somewhat safer when the United States and Russia de-targeted a majority of their nuclear weapons. But weapons can be quickly re-targeted. Most important, de-alerting would eliminate the threat of a surprise attack from either side, while the capability for a devastating retaliation would not be lost. MAKHIJANI: People in Russia and the United States recognize that we have to move from mutually assured destruction to mutually assured survival. The adversarial relationship is over, and we have to find a way in which nuclear weapons are not going to result in complete devastation by accident. BLAIR:If the bomb's not on the missiles, if it takes a day to put the bomb back on the missiles, there can't be any unauthorized launch by demoralized, disaffected nuclear units out in Siberia who are finally fed up. TURNER: We're not in danger of a massive attack like we had to worry about during the Cold War. But if they go to Yeltsin and say, 'our warning system tells us that they're coming at us,' and it's really not true because the warning system has broken down and is giving them false indicators, he may well launch something. And if it's one nuclear detonation on our soil, that's a catastrophe. NARRATOR: As the dominant nuclear power in the world, the United States can afford to start the de-alerting process on its own. However, unless pressed by strong public opinion, Congress and the military will tend to maintain the status quo. LESSER: So now that the nuclear test ban treaty has been defeated, not only is this one way to let our Congressmen know that we're disappointed with that defeat, and that de-alerting is the most viable method now, but also this is the most viable method now to ensure nuclear safety for the future. It only takes a presidential initiative to make this happen and so should the will of the people be made known to the President and to Congress, then I really think we could accomplish this in the next year. NARRATOR: It is up to individual citizens to make their views known by contacting members of Congress, alerting their local media, and supporting national organizations that are working to ease the hair trigger that remains placed on the world's nuclear weapons. WOOLSEY: Members of Congress who are in the middle, the swing members, who will step up
to this if they get pressure from their constituents... they need know it's important to their
constituents. They need to know why. They need to hear from their constituents in a very informed
way, how dangerous this world is.
(Back from the Brink video ends, Mark WRIGHT (American University): I didn't hear anybody speak about national missile defense
and the necessity of creating our own missile defense system where we could intercept missiles
coming in from, maybe not so much from Russia, but from rogue states such as Korea, Iraq, Iran.
And I was just wondering if you feel that is a necessary part of this program. BLAIR: National missile defense reinforces Russia's high alert posture for nuclear weapons because
of the perceived need of the Russian planners to maintain the ability to overwhelm any defenses that
the United States might deploy. And that means to keep them on high alert. So, national missile defense drives Russia away from this agenda, unfortunately. And
actually, probably increases the risks of mistaken or accidental launch of Russian missiles. BUMPERS: I personally don't believe, and there are a lot of physicists in this country that don't
believe national missile defense will ever work. Finally, Russia has said, Russia and China are
unequivocal about this, they don't collaborate with each other on their statements, they both feel very
strongly, national missile defense can only escalate the arms race. BRAILSFORD: The "Back from the Brink" campaign is non-partisan, but we will certainly be
working to get this into the presidential election conversations. BUMPERS: I do think that all of the candidates, all of the candidates, are mistaking the impact that
this issue could have if the people start relating to it before November of 19... November 2000. The American people very seldom hear a really, what should I say, poignant, factual,
understandable statement about the magnitude of this issue. I'll tell you, there is nothing else in this world, let alone in the United States, as important
as this issue. And to use Ross Perot's term- "to keep it in the basement with a crazy aunt is the height
of irresponsibility." REPORTER: I'm just trying to isolate exactly what the danger is here. Is it a danger of a decision
being made, having to be made in too short of a time, or is it a danger of a lunch being mistakenly
set off, or reaching some target that it's not intended to reach? BLAIR: Our view is that this is an inherently dangerous posture to be in. Well, in the sense that we
maintain a posture that is geared to the rapid launch of nuclear weapons by check list basically. This
is not a ten minute process of high order rational thought we're talking about, when sensors start to
report incoming missiles. People start to go through checklists and it's nuclear decision making by
rote. And it is a drill. It's an enactment of a prepared script. As I said.... (fade out) NARRATOR: Representative Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, has introduced
House Resolution 177 in favor of de-alerting nuclear weapons. MARKEY: The opportunity is very large, and I think we can, by the end of the spring, target as our
goal the de-alerting of the nuclear weapons in the United States and in Russia. But it will only
happen if we take the time, the effort, apply the energy to get this result. But the opportunity, without
question, is right in front of us. There's a huge need for Congress to be educated on this issue. There had to be a beginning
of the process. And that's why I introduced a Congressional resolution. That's why I now have 85
co-sponsors. Because I've gone member, to member, to member beginning the process of explaining
to everyone that our nuclear weapons are still on first-strike, hair-trigger alert and that it's time for
us to move back from the brink. MAKHIJANI: Nuclear incineration and nuclear safety are completely non-partisan, both and we
hope that they will be, and not only non-partisan in this country. We intend to take this to the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York in April. De-alerting has been a demand of many, many countries. On the part of the nuclear weapons
states to show some good faith and at least improve the safety of the system because the World's
people are at risk, and not only the people of Russia and the United States. And I think that a campaign in this country will have resonance far and wide. We weren't
looking to reach the labor party of Pakistan, or women's groups in Pakistan, or environmental groups
in Russia, but we got requests from all of them. And we will fulfill those requests, and this will catch the imagination of people around the
world, I am certain. It already has. NARRATOR: To add your voice to this campaign, obtain a copy of this video or sample materials
to send to your local newspaper, member of Congress or the President, call the "Back from the
Brink" campaign at out toll free number 1-800-55-BESAFE. You can also find us on the Internet at www.dealert.org |