{"id":980,"date":"2019-03-10T16:01:10","date_gmt":"2019-03-10T16:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=980"},"modified":"2019-10-21T01:06:05","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T00:06:05","slug":"not-worth-the-paper","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/not-worth-the-paper\/","title":{"rendered":"Not worth the paper"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This article has been reproduced from the Socialist Standard<\/em> (September 1998),\nthe monthly journal of the Socialist Party of Great Britain <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Various treaties exist concerning different types of weapons of mass destruction but\nall of them contain escape clauses and ambiguous formulations that facilitate routine\nviolations<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

According to newspaper reports, a number of geologists have suggested that the recent\nnuclear explosions in India and Pakistan may have triggered an earthquake in northern\nAfghanistan. Whether or not this is the case, many people are likely to have suffered\nresidual damage from the global wave of hypocritical vibrations which rapidly followed.\nUnquestionably the decision by the rulers of two such economically troubled countries to\nengage in a futile and costly nuclear rivalry should be regarded as insanely foolish.\nNevertheless, such folly is hardly likely to be constrained by moralising lectures from\nthe very governments who were content to make huge profits supplying the nuclear materials\nand technologies in the first place. Especially when those same governments continue to\npursue their own strategic programmes with single-minded zeal, the US military alone\nadmitting to no less than 1030 tests. Classified documents yet to be released are expected\nto reveal that there were more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The posture currently adopted by the senior members of the nuclear club as concerned\nguardians of the environment, although unconvincing, is perfectly consistent given the\ndemented system of logic they embrace. Not one of them signed the Comprehensive Test Ban\nTreaty until their own experiments were satisfactorily concluded and greater technical\nexpertise, together with improved computer simulation, rendered further testing\nunnecessary. At the same time they have all promised under the terms of the\nNon-Proliferation Treaty to strive in “good faith” to halt the nuclear arms race\nand work towards nuclear and general disarmament. It is a promise that is being cynically\nbetrayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the few remaining jobs for life in capitalist society is that of disarmament\nnegotiator-an occupation demanding the analytical brain of chess grandmaster combined with\nthe duplicity of a card-sharp. Since the signing of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 (making\nthe world safer for penguins) a further nineteen have been drafted dealing specifically\nwith nuclear weapons, as well as others concerning chemical, biological, conventional,\nenvironmental and-er -“inhumane” weapons. Some are still to be signed or\nratified but all of them incorporate escape clauses and sentences sufficiently ambiguous\nto admit interpretations facilitating routine violations. In any event, should even the\nmost binding agreement become inconvenient, it would simply be ignored. As Richard Perle\nUS Defense Secretary at the time of the Star Wars (SDI) hysteria wrote on 8 October 1982\nwith reference to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty ” . . . we would not hesitate to\nrenegotiate and failing Soviet acquiescence . . . I hope we would abrogate the\ntreaty”. The examples that follow typify the sort of trickery employed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outer space treaty 1967<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Article IV decrees: “States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in Orbit\naround the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of\nmass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in\nouter space in any other manner.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first sight this seems quite unequivocal but if it were it would never have been\nsanctioned. During the lengthy discussions prior to signing, a memo to the American\nSecretary of Defense from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (23 November 1965) stipulated: ”\n. . . the provisions of this treaty should not preclude the conduct of intelligence\nactivities deemed essential to security.” Nor does it! Significantly the agreement\nfails to prohibit the launching of nuclear reactor powered satellites and, consequently,\nthere are dozens of nuclear reactors orbiting the globe. Should their deep space disposal\nboosters malfunction then highly radioactive debris would fall to earth, adding to that\nalready deposited from earlier mishaps in space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To a disarmament negotiator words seldom mean what they appear to say and Article IV of\nthe OST is no exception. One contention is that it only excludes nuclear weapons if they\nare intended for mass destruction and would not apply to any positioned in space to\nintercept missile attacks. This kind of sophistry merely fuels the suspicion that the\nreality was accurately encapsulated in the famous declaration by Senator Barry Goldwater:\n“Space is just another place where wars will be fought.” A view that is widely\nechoed (though not publicly endorsed) by policy makers in the Pentagon. In 1976 a\nconvention was established that required any object being fired into space to be\nregistered by the United Nations. Curiously, it does not demand an independent examination\nto verify the nature and objective of satellites-an omission that could be construed as\nominous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-proliferation treaty 1968 <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Since coming into force in 1970 (extended indefinitely in 1995) this treaty has been\nsigned by all but five states-India, Pakistan, Israel, Brazil and Cuba-and is widely\nregarded as the most successful of modern times. But the promise of the nuclear\nsignatories to work for disarmament and not to supply, or assist others to obtain, nuclear\nweapons has manifestly been broken. The arms race continues and the capacity for other\npowers to make nuclear weapons has markedly increased. Indeed, after the Gulf War ended in\n1991 it was discovered that they were about to be built in Iraq despite the pledge of that\ngovernment not to do so under the terms of the NPT. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of the comparative ease in evading the existing monitoring mechanisms of the\nInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a provision was added to the NPT in 1997\ngranting wider powers of inspection and control. Unfortunately it is only obligatory for\nthe members who voluntarily accept it which, so far, is only a small minority. Yet 60\ncountries now have nuclear reactors and if the rulers of any one of them decided they\nneeded a nuclear bomb, the NPT could not stop them getting it. Most conveniently, under\nArticle X each party has the right to withdraw at three months notice “. . . if it\ndecides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this treaty have\njeopardized the supreme interests of its country”. In certain circumstances, of\ncourse, the notice given might be a little less! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sea bed treaty 1971<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This treaty bans nuclear weapons from being fixed to the seabed beyond a twelve mile\ncoastal limit. Its inadequacy becomes immediately obvious if you imagine a similar\nrestriction being applied to aircraft on runways. Unhindered by the treaty an unceasing\nhigh-tech war is being waged at sea. In the attempt to counteract the threat of nuclear\nsubmarines the oceans has been transformed into a gigantic listening station, with\nunderwater sensors fixed to the seabed, others suspended at different levels up to the\nsurface and still more towed by ships. Smart mines with in-built computers are able to\ndistinguish between the different sounds made by various vessels, while hunter-killer\nsubmarines-with their own delicate sensors-patrol in silence, armed with nuclear rockets\n(SUBROCS) and torpedoes. But whatever expensive or extravagant countermeasures are devised\n(including the deployment of specially trained dolphins) they can do little to diminish\nthe awesome threat posed by submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The Trident\ncarrying boats, for instance, are almost 200 metres long and can remain submerged deep\nbelow the surface for several months. Each one can deliver nearly 200 warheads with a\nrange of thousands of kilometres and costs in excess of a 100 billion dollars. Trident\nmissiles, already capable of devastation on an unprecedented scale, are currently being\nupdated to make them more efficient. At any given time there are almost two thousand\nwarheads at sea, the majority of them under US command. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not surprisingly there is a chilling legacy from all this activity. Over three thousand\nnaval accidents have occurred during the nuclear age, leaving eleven nuclear reactors and\nat least fifty nuclear warheads on the ocean floor. Since they are not “fixed”\nhowever, they do not contravene the SBT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemical weapons convention 1993<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This Convention which came into force in 1997, requires the destruction of all chemical\nweapons stockpiles within 10 to 15 years. Although the failure to dispose of old stocks is\nhighly dangerous, the programme is already well behind schedule and despite the\nconsiderable powers granted to inspectors under the CWC cheating about production is still\npossible. One obvious reason is that so many of the chemicals produced for quite different\npurposes can be used in combination to make weapons. The stockpiles of chemical weapons\nheld in America and Russia are at least 30 thousand tonnes each and both of these\ngovernments have authorised the use of chemicals in war and in experiments on civilians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a stockpile of nerve-bombs was destroyed by the US in the 1970s they kept the\n“remnants” in case the “Russians had some” (they did). These\n“remnants” were theoretically capable of killing 140 billion people. Johnston\nIsland in the South Pacific, previously the target for nuclear test explosions, houses a\nvast incinerator complex for the disposal of enough chemical waste to kill most of the\ninhabitants of Earth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biological and toxins weapons convention 1972<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Signatories agree not to develop, stockpile or acquire “microbial or other\nbiological agents or toxins . . that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or\nother peaceful purposes” or “weapons . . . designed to use such agents or toxins\nfor hostile purposes or in armed conflict”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once again the wordsmiths have displayed their special skill. Here the key phrases are\n“other peaceful purposes” and “hostile purposes”, leading to repeated\nclaims by Western and Russian governments that they are only producing\n“antidotes” in their laboratories which is permitted by the Convention. The\nlegitimate use of toxic microbes in the production of vaccines only compounds the\ndifficulties of the highly complex mechanisms for verification, making deception even\neasier than it is with chemicals. Many governments, including those of Britain, America\nand Russia are known to have authorised the use of biological agents in war and in\nexperiments upon civilians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The important thing to remember about treaties is that no government is forced to sign\nthem and, if they do, they cannot be made to keep them. One thing is for sure: for as long\nas we live in a system in which the protection of minority economic interests is paramount\nthe arms race will continue. Even if the nuclear powers had a genuine desire for\ndisarmament, which they don’t, the cost of disposing of the massive, highly toxic arsenal\n(100s of billions of dollars) remains. The very size of these arsenals creates another\nproblem-the decommissioning of nuclear reactors will take hundreds of years. The automatic\nresponse has been to attempt to solve the problem as cheaply as possible, with scant\nregard for the environment or the safety of those who inhabit it. Even the penguins are\nnot really safe since the Antarctic treaty does not forbid the presence of\n“peaceful” nuclear reactors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While defence expenditure by the major military powers is declining-dramatically in\nRussia and by over 5 percent annually in the US-weapons research, refinement and\ndevelopment continues to expand. For some projects in the US funds have actually been\nincreased and the current defence budget of the US is still a staggering $242.6 billion.\nThe projection of the present administration is that it will begin to rise again after\n2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the justifications for this is GPALS (Gee, Pals, we can still make a buck or\ntwo)-Global Protection Against Limited Strikes. Even if the Start II reduction program is\ncompleted on schedule (2003) which is highly improbable, each side would still be entitled\nto keep 3500 deployed nuclear warheads and the only ones likely to be discarded are those\nit is no longer considered necessary to keep.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, secret military budgets continue to finance research into a new generation\nof weapons. Already a huge and fast expanding military-cybernetic complex has been\nestablished and experiments of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) as a weapon continue\nunabated. EMR signals which cause neurological alteration and can induce sickness or death\nare known to have been beamed upon civilians in both Russia and America. Some scientists\nbelieve that transmitting these highly powerful waves may not only cause earthquakes but\n“airquakes” as well . . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author: Richard Headicar<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Please email your comments about this article to feedback@worldsocialism.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Back to the Politics Index<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Back to the World Socialist Movement home page<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article has been reproduced from the Socialist Standard (September 1998), the monthly journal of the Socialist Party of Great Britain Various treaties exist concerning different types of weapons of mass destruction but all of them contain escape clauses and ambiguous formulations that facilitate routine violations According to newspaper reports, a number of geologists have…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-980","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/980","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=980"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2629,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/980\/revisions\/2629"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}