At a meeting of G7 nations this week in Hiroshima, the first city to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, President Joe Biden and other leaders begin to grapple with the long-standing problem that states are threatening to use nuclear weapons. have the opportunity. Russia’s nuclear threat last year to help invade Ukraine reminded everyone that the central purpose of nuclear weapons is coercion and intimidation. At this historic meeting, Biden and his partners must act on a proposal by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida that the G7 “shows its firm resolve to absolutely reject the threat or use of nuclear weapons.” There is
To do so, the United States and its allies must acknowledge that any threat to use nuclear weapons, not just Russia, is unacceptable.
It is well known that Hiroshima was destroyed without warning by the United States on August 6, 1945, but it is less well known that this devastation was followed by the first threat of the use of nuclear weapons that same day. not. President Harry Truman told Japan, “If we do not accept our terms now, we may expect to rain doom from the skies, rains of doom never before seen on this earth. may fall,” he threatened. Another threat struck on August 9, when a second atomic bomb destroyed Nagasaki. President Truman announced that he would continue to use Japan’s war potential until it was completely destroyed. Only the surrender of Japan will stop us. ”
All G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US) condemned President Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons by Russia in February, April and September 2022. However, like Russia, these countries themselves have chosen a military strategy that relies on the threat of the use of nuclear weapons..
A statement by the G7 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Director’s Group released on April 17 predicted that, unlike Russia, its security policy is that “nuclear weapons, as long as they exist, should serve defensive purposes and deter aggression.” It is based on the understanding that there is And stop war and coercion. As expected, Russian officials argue that Putin’s remarks are simply a deterrent against direct military intervention in Ukraine by the United States or NATO.
But regardless of intent, the underlying core logic is the same. This was explained by defense intellectual Daniel Ellsberg in his famous 1959 lecture, “Intimidation Theory and Practice.” Mr Ellsberg said: “Nuclear weapons have one prominent use in politics, and that is to support threats. Recommended.” “It’s called intimidation, it’s called deterrence, it’s both … the art of coercion, that is, the art of influencing the behavior of others by intimidation. Of course, the point here is to deal with the threat of force with nuclear weapons. I’m saying that.”
As political scientist Richard Betts notes in his 1987 assessment of the Cold War experience: Nuclear Threats and Nuclear Balance, “The perception of whether coercive threats mean legitimate deterrence or vile threats is likely to depend on whether one is making or facing threats. And in a way, the most important thing about a threat is how it is seen by the target.” and generally speaking did not work as intended.
Since the end of the Cold War, the legal, moral and security context surrounding the threat of the use of nuclear weapons has been challenged primarily by coalitions of non-nuclear-weapon states in the global South and by international organizations, particularly the International Committee of the Red. It’s here. An international organization (NGO) representing doctors, lawyers, scientists, peace activists, and survivors of atomic bombings and nuclear tests. A notable NGO-led campaign led through the United Nations General Assembly to an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1996 that held that the threat to use (and the use of) nuclear weapons generally violates international law.
In 2017, with the support of NGOs, a UN group of 122 countries agreed to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Among its binding obligations is that it “never, under any circumstances, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” About 100 countries have signed the treaty so far. Nuclear-weapon states have not signed.
In 2018, the UN Human Rights Commission concluded: “The threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, which are virtually indiscriminate and capable of causing the destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale, is incompatible with human rights. It could be a crime.”
At its first meeting in June 2022, the TPNW states declared that “any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons violates international law, including the UN Charter” and “unequivocally condemns any kind of nuclear threat”. I will.” Whether they are explicit or implicit, they are irrelevant to the situation. ”
The scale of destruction implied by the threat of the use of nuclear weapons exceeds any moral measure.
In January 2023, Biden and Kishida issued a joint statement. “We unequivocally state that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine is an act of hostility against humanity and is in any way unjustified.”
The caveat that such rulings apply only to Russia in Ukraine is astonishing.
If we want to avoid catastrophe, the nuclear policies of the United States and other nuclear powers need to recognize that: all kinds of threats The use of nuclear weapons needs to be treated similarly. G7 leaders should take note of the statement put together by the Physicists’ Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction, which is endorsed by more than 1,000 scientists. The statement stated that “any threat of the use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances is extremely dangerous and totally unacceptable.” It calls for a clear condemnation of all nuclear threats and the use of such weapons, implicit or otherwise.”
As a first step, President Biden, along with other G7 leaders who rely on all nations possessing nuclear weapons or relying on U.S. nuclear weapons being used on their behalf, said that the U.S. and its allies should help other nations. should declare that they will act as required by , and will accept to be judged by the same standards that apply to others. They must accept without selfish warning that the use of nuclear weapons by any State under any circumstances is “an act hostile to humanity and unjust in every respect.”
If G7 leaders choose, Hiroshima would mark a shift away from trying to justify their own nuclear threat as an acceptable policy instrument. Now is the time to establish human-centered criteria for judging nuclear threats. This standard applies regardless of the threat actor, its target, or political goals.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. Scientific American.
